D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Celebrim]

Like Dazzling Display above - it applies Shaken, which is a relatively weak compulsion - Conditions – d20PFSRD
...Pathfinder 1E (and I believe 2E) has tons of Feats and so on that allow the codified infliction of conditions via social skills - Dazzling Display and Cornugon Smash come immediately to mind.

So... ummmm.. You realize you have responded to one topic with a completely different and almost tangential topic.

The original topic is 'can we make social interaction as compelling and detailed as combat using the same sort of rules ideas we use to make combat compelling and detailed'. It's to that topic that all my posts have been responding, and to which you were responding when you quoted me.

The topic you are now arguing is, "given that we have a compelling and detail combat system, can we allow social/mentals skills to influence and modify that system". And the answer is, "Yes." You can in fact apply color of a social skill to create a condition like Shaken which primarily impacts combat under the guise of influencing morale." We both agree to this point.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the post you were responding to.

 

[HammerMan]

i try to imagine if enworld was a thing in the 70's and gary and dave got on here and people told them "Don't let PCs roll for hitting, make them show they can" or something something cinematic no opposed rolls

Players should have 100% agency you can’t tell them they miss if the deceive an attack that would hit.

 

[payn]

I don't use them, mostly because no one ever remembers Inspiration anyway, but defining 4 points of character versus 1 (alignment) just seems like it should result in rounder characters. But I see how it could end up just giving certain players a catch phrase, as you described.

I posted on this just a moment ago, but alignment is a general character descriptor. It's not specific, so its not trying to do what BIFTs are. I do not think comparing them as equals is appropriate.

 

[Reynard]

I posted on this just a moment ago, but alignment is a general character descriptor. It's not specific, so its not trying to do what BIFTs are. I do not think comparing them as equals is appropriate.

Alignment is... a lot of thing, most of them bad.

 

[Celebrim]

What do you think D&D combat is exactly lol?

One thing D&D combat most definitely strives not to be is a single contested roll between two characters. Indeed the whole premise of this thread is that D&D combat is not that thing, but social interactions often are and wouldn't it be better if social interactions were more like D&D combat.

Yes, in specific examples we can find cases where D&D combat devolves down to a single opposed or even unopposed check - "save or die" - but even people who have no conceptual problem with "save or die" will admit that if a single "save or die" check resolved the combat between the party and the campaign BBEG that that would be anti-climatic. In the general case though, "No, D&D combat is most certainly not a single contested 'fight' roll."

 

[Bill Zebub]

By the way, if anybody is confused about the rules, here is how PCs can influence NPCs using social skills, by RAW:

1. The player declares their action, and hopefully their intended result (goal and approach): "I'll try to convince the guard that we are the caterers, and um, we're wearing armor because it's a masquerade ball."
2. The DM determines if the approach would automatically succeed or automatically fail. If neither...that is, if they feel the outcome is uncertain...the DM sets a DC and asks for an ability check, possibly with a related skill. The tacit agreement here is that if the roll is successful, the goal will be achieved. (Which is why it's a good idea to declare the goal, not just the action.)

If we wanted to implement NPCs "using" skills on PCs, even though nothing in the rules suggests this, then we could invert this process:
1. The DM narrates what the NPC is doing and describes what they are hoping to achieve.
2.The Player decides if this would work on their character (autosuccess) or not work (autofail). It's up to them. If they were uncertain, and wanted some help from RNG, they could set a DC and ask the DM for a roll.

Again, not RAW, but an example of how the rules could be applied in a symmetric, consistent way in the spirit of 5e.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The original topic is 'can we make social interaction as compelling and detailed as combat using the same sort of rules ideas we use to make combat compelling and detailed'. It's to that topic that all my posts have been responding, and to which you were responding when you quoted me.

If this is the case, I'm confused as to why you brought up early '00s RPGs at all. Either way, PtbA, Spire, etc. show you can use the same systems for physical and social combat and do fine with them. I appreciate that you didn't like Exalted's take on this, but more recent approaches have been more successful (albeit they make sense within those games and couldn't be transported to D&D - but then neither could Exalted, yet you use that as an example).

 

[payn]

Alignment is... a lot of thing, most of them bad.

Well, I disagree, I happen to like it very much. Though, instead of turning this into an alignment thread lets focus on social mechanics.

Lets take BIFTs, alignment, or any other type of personality character system. How do folks see them working in a social combat system?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One thing D&D combat most definitely strives not to be is a single contested roll between two characters. Indeed the whole premise of this thread is that D&D combat is not that thing, but social interactions often are and wouldn't it be better if social interactions were more like D&D combat.

Yes, in specific examples we can find cases where D&D combat devolves down to a single opposed or even unopposed check - "save or die" - but even people who have no conceptual problem with "save or die" will admit that if a single "save or die" check resolved the combat between the party and the campaign BBEG that that would be anti-climatic. In the general case though, "No, D&D combat is most certainly not a single contested 'fight' roll."

This doesn't really address what I was saying at all lol.

 

[Reynard]

By the way, if anybody is confused about the rules, here is how PCs can influence NPCs using social skills, by RAW:

1. The player declares their action, and hopefully their intended result (goal and approach): "I'll try to convince the guard that we are the caterers, and um, we're wearing armor because it's a masquerade ball."
2. The DM determines if the approach would automatically succeed or automatically fail. If neither...that is, if they feel the outcome is uncertain...the DM sets a DC and asks for an ability check, possibly with a related skill. The tacit agreement here is that if the roll is successful, the goal will be achieved. (Which is why it's a good idea to declare the goal, not just the action.)

If we wanted to implement NPCs "using" skills on PCs, even though nothing in the rules suggests this, then we could invert this process:
1. The DM narrates what the NPC is doing and describes what they are hoping to achieve.
2.The Player decides if this would work on their character (autosuccess) or not work (autofail). It's up to them. If they were uncertain, and wanted some help from RNG, they could set a DC and ask the DM for a roll.

Again, not RAW, but an example of how the rules could be applied in a symmetric, consistent way in the spirit of 5e.

Isn't there disposition of the NPC toward the PC in there somewhere, or am I conflating editions in my head again?