D&D General Charisma and Roleplay, or who can talk to the NPC.

[ad_hoc]

At our table if there is a Charisma check happening then it is a group check with every character present.

Everyone gets a chance to talk regardless of score and all scores impact the result.

 

[ninjayeti]

It's a fair point. As a long time bard player though I'd argue you're stuck in a support role in combat, dropping inspiration so the GWM/SS fighter can hit for massive damage, using healing to get characters up, etc. Social encounters are where the bard gets to step up and shine, and that is a big reason people want to play them. So I'd just make sure that your bard player doesn't feel like you are taking away his "thing."

 

[p_johnston]

It's a fair point. As a long time bard player though I'd argue you're stuck in a support role in combat, dropping inspiration so the GWM/SS fighter can hit for massive damage, using healing to get characters up, etc. Social encounters are where the bard gets to step up and shine, and that is a big reason people want to play them. So I'd just make sure that your bard player doesn't feel like you are taking away his "thing."

So that was honestly my biggest concern. I brought up the change with my group and our groups traditional Bard was one of the biggest supporters. That being said my group is also really good at calling out the support characters in combat as lifesavers. If a well timed inspiration or heal ends up saving the day then my Players are always there to call it out.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm of the school of thought that there are times when intelligence skills can have roles to play in conversations, when you figure out an approach that utilizes research based evidence, and if the person cares. This could very reasonably extend to Wisdom as well, depending on the approach of your argument.

 

[Shiroiken]

If you only require a roll or two after the majority of the RP is done, which is how I do it, then you should look at the rules for working together. If the fighter wants to talk to the mayor and the bard comes along, if they both contribute something to the discussion, then one character makes the check with advantage. If the bard just sits there and refuses to participate, then the fighter's out of luck. As for the issue of players who are not comfortable with roleplay, then a player can simply give a description of what he's trying to do, not the specific words.

So the thing I've notice about dumping charisma is that anyone who isn't the Bard/Sorcerer/rogue is usually going to dump charisma. The main difference is that the person who has a low charisma is going to just shut up and decide not to roleplay so they don't end up hurting the negotiation.

I've found Int is the most common dump ability score, but ymmv.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Why on earth would players NOT try to join the negotiation just because their characters are bad at it?

You can never FAIL a social interaction. You can only SUCCEED at turning it into a combat!

 

[iserith]

If you only require a roll or two after the majority of the RP is done, which is how I do it, then you should look at the rules for working together. If the fighter wants to talk to the mayor and the bard comes along, if they both contribute something to the discussion, then one character makes the check with advantage. If the bard just sits there and refuses to participate, then the fighter's out of luck. As for the issue of players who are not comfortable with roleplay, then a player can simply give a description of what he's trying to do, not the specific words.


I've found Int is the most common dump ability score, but ymmv.

Right. Working Together is an easy way to get advantage so that someone without training or good Charisma still has a reasonable chance at success if the DM calls for a check. I think the DM should be something of a stickler here in making sure that the person helping is, you know, actually helping, but otherwise, this is a no brainer.

Inspiration is also good to have as a player in these situations where you're rolling an ability check in an area where the character is not focused. Keep one of those in your back pocket and use it whenever you're a fighter in armor trying to sneak or a low-Charisma character trying to convince someone to do something.

Further, I've noticed a lot of players will choose skill proficiencies mostly in areas where they already have a high ability score modifier. I find this is usually unnecessary. This really limits them when it comes to participating in other pillars.

 

[el-remmen]

Not sure if this is exactly relevant, but I think it is related:

At my table when a character with a high charisma is gonna do the convincing everyone at the table who is invested discusses OOC what should be said, what points to make, what tack to take, etc. . . and then once that gets coalesced into an approach, the high cha character chooses what to say and how based on that - if they are into role-playing they role-play it in first person, if they aren't, they simply describe what they say and then the roll is made.

We do this because however high an opinion we may have of ourselves, I doubt any of us have the real world equivalent of a 16 Cha or whatever, but the details of the discussion matter to the response (even a successful one) - so a group effort/suggestions allows for the player to think through options and choose them - a kind of subconscious chorus.

Another way I have handled it, is when the high CHA character's player is actually not that good a talker, but want to role-play anyway, who I am to deprive them? If they botch the actual talking, but the character rolls a success, then I adjust the motivation of the reaction but the result is the same: "Your bumbled words suggest to the mayor how important this is to you and he sympathizes with your momentary anxiety, as such he explains about what happened at the behind closed doors council meeting."

But also, if there is not much at stake or the result is not in question, I don't bother with rolls of that type.

 

[Voadam]

I'm always hesitant to to simply say "it succeeds" when it comes to Social Interaction. This can very easily lead to having whichever player has the highest real life Charisma being unfairly favored.

I am the opposite.

I love having cool in person interactions happen and natural results and reactions occur both ways without dice rolling. It is something I want to encourage in my games.

I am fine with having dice rolls for second person abstracted scenes, "I spend a day drumming up support for the fighter's mayoral election campaign. I get an 18 on persuasion."

I am also fine with doing the second person abstracted scenes based on stats and character background and player stated character concept. Player: "I spend a day drumming up support for the fighter's mayoral election campaign." DM "You are a peasant hero right? Sounds good."

 

[Voadam]

If you only require a roll or two after the majority of the RP is done, which is how I do it, then you should look at the rules for working together. If the fighter wants to talk to the mayor and the bard comes along, if they both contribute something to the discussion, then one character makes the check with advantage. If the bard just sits there and refuses to participate, then the fighter's out of luck. As for the issue of players who are not comfortable with roleplay, then a player can simply give a description of what he's trying to do, not the specific words.

I find the aiding another for advantage in 5e skill checks encourages two people doing tasks together instead of soloing on them, which is good for a cooperative group game.