D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Fanaelialae]

Magic can be specialized, so the flametongue can be immune to its own heat, but still vulnerable to the magical heat other things. And I can tell you from experience(not since 1e), that I have had PCs burned further by metal armor melting.

Okay, but that's a house rule. I'm fairly certain there's nothing about melted plate dealing more damage in any of my 1e books.

And what I was pointing out was that this fireball, which merely scorched the fighter a bit, melted a flaming great sword, which really doesn't make much sense when you look at it critically. Molten metal would inflict horrific burns on any exposed skin.

Not saying you're wrong or anything for wanting to do it that way. Just stating my own opinion on the matter.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The flametongue spirit realized the fireball would kill everyone and sacrificed himself to engulf it and, like the frog that wanted to be as big as a bull, bloated to death. Character only suffered minor injury. The armor failed because a cinder felt on a leather strap carryong the rune of enchantment. An unofrtunate steing of bad luck. Pleade upgrade to Dwarven Platemail 1.1.7e where this flaw is patched.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, but that's a house rule. I'm fairly certain there's nothing about melted plate dealing more damage in any of my 1e books.

1e had more holes in it than a strainer, and the DM needed to fill those holes. That's why very few tables played the same exact game. House rules were staple at every table I sat at for that edition.

And what I was pointing out was that this fireball, which merely scorched the fighter a bit, melted a flaming great sword, which really doesn't make much sense when you look at it critically. Molten metal would inflict horrific burns on any exposed skin.

Yep. I lost charisma, too.

Not saying you're wrong or anything for wanting to do it that way. Just stating my own opinion on the matter.

I don't run it at that level of realism myself. For 1e to 3e, I was content to have items make saves and be destroyed and not worry about further damage. There were of course exceptions. Once during 3e a players glass vial containing acid failed the save, so he took some further acid damage, but those were case by case and didn't happen often.

 

[Voadam]

Outside of magic or some other similar power, what can force a player to act in any particular manner?

Besides specifically worded things like the above quoted panache?

Social skills are vaguely written in 5e, and the PH does not have the explicit 'does not work on PCs' language that earlier editions did.

I would advocate against using NPC or fellow PC persuasion or intimidate checks to get PCs to do things.

 

[Maxperson]

Besides specifically worded things like the above quoted panache?

Social skills are vaguely written in 5e, and the PH does not have the explicit 'does not work on PCs' language that earlier editions did.

There are only rolls when the outcome is in doubt, and only the players can decide when that occurs for their PCs. The DM isn't in charge of playing the PCs, so it would be a breach of the social contract for him to use a social skill to make a PC do something. At that point he is in effect playing the PC, which is a major no no.

The social interaction rules in the DMG are also entirely about using the skills and ability checks on NPCs.

 

[Remathilis]

I think there's truth to that, although core 3.x did have Mordenkainen's Disjunction, which could permanently wreck all of your magical gear. While I don't think it was ever used at any of the tables I played at, I've heard some horror stories about high level 3.x games that regularly saw Disjunction used.

Fun story. We decided to end a nearly decade long campaign by facing the powerful epic-level lich antagonist. We were 20th level with suitable epic gear. The lich shows up and immediately disjunctions the party, DC 26 save.

It took nearly an hour of game to resolve that one action. When done, the fighter, ranger and rogue mostly were bystanders unable to harm any of the lich's allies, while the wizard and cleric just used any attack spell that didn't have SR and did half-damage. Eventually, we won, but between the disjunction, flesh to stone and lich fear, better than half the group was playing on their phones during the finale.

Again, I don't miss that.

 

[Remathilis]

There are only rolls when the outcome is in doubt, and only the players can decide when that occurs for their PCs. The DM isn't in charge of playing the PCs, so it would be a breach of the social contract for him to use a social skill to make a PC do something. At that point he is in effect playing the PC, which is a major no no.

The social interaction rules in the DMG are also entirely about using the skills and ability checks on NPCs.

To be honest, I have to same opinion on PC taunt abilities, like 4e's infamous "Come and Get It" fighter ability or other "aggro control" powers. You don't move my pieces in the board, I don't move yours.

 

[Maxperson]

Fun story. We decided to end a nearly decade long campaign by facing the powerful epic-level lich antagonist. We were 20th level with suitable epic gear. The lich shows up and immediately disjunctions the party, DC 26 save.

It took nearly an hour of game to resolve that one action. When done, the fighter, ranger and rogue mostly were bystanders unable to harm any of the lich's allies, while the wizard and cleric just used any attack spell that didn't have SR and did half-damage. Eventually, we won, but between the disjunction, flesh to stone and lich fear, better than half the group was playing on their phones during the finale.

Again, I don't miss that.

Yeah. I wouldn't have used it on a party if it would remove people from the fight. Also, it's too bad you guys didn't have any artifacts or relics. You could have won instantly.

 

[Maxperson]

To be honest, I have to same opinion on PC taunt abilities, like 4e's infamous "Come and Get It" fighter ability or other "aggro control" powers. You don't move my pieces in the board, I don't move yours.

As a DM I don't really care if the PCs cause a change in opinion or influence in an NPC. I have a ton of them and sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't, and other times it will make it worse. It all balances out in the end.

 

[HammerMan]

So how do you recommend social interaction be handled? Are we back to pure "role play it out" since dice rolls that make people like you is bad?

no, but nothing should ever be considered good or neutral that takes you and forces a mind set... again in my OP i spell out I am not requesting things be removed. I am trying to look at them in a modern light.