D&D General Four Ability Scores

[Don Durito]

Will in Shadow of a Demon Lord isn't entirely identical to Charisma in D&D.

Under Social Conflict in Shadows of a Demon Lord core book pg 4.5 it says.

Persuade, Befriend or Intimidate come under Will (but the latter can also be Strength)
However Taunt or Decieve are Intellect.

So Will is similar to Charisma in some functions but not all and there is not one ability that covers all social situations.

 

[Yaarel]

It's a more logical breakdown, definintely.

But I personally don't want the situation where one PC is clearly best in social situations anymore than I want any one PC to dominate in combat.

Not that there aren't other ways to split the pie. You could have particular PCs have ways to be situationally better I guess.

Playstyles for Social Skills are known to differ drastically from table to table.

Some playstyles have the player say, ‘I roll Persuasion to see if I can get the President to do it.’ The rationale is, the character might be much more persuasive than the player. So just roll. (Probably, the playstyle is also focusing on the tactics of the combat pillar and expediting the social pillar.)

Other playstyles − the one I prefer − require the player to explain HOW the character attempts to persuade the President. What is said? What is offered? What factor is called attention to? Or so on. The DM decides yes-no-maybe. If what the player says or does seems likely to persuade the President, then it is an autosuccess. If it seems unlikely to change the mind of the President, then it is an autofail. Only in those situations where the DM wonders if it might go either way, would the DM ask the player to roll a Persuasion check.

My take on it is. The Charisma ability mechanic works well for social challenges. But perhaps it would help if the rules clarify to the DM how the different playstyles can drastically affect how the mechanic plays out.

 

[Yaarel]

Will in Shadow of a Demon Lord isn't entirely identical to Charisma in D&D.

Under Social Conflict in Shadows of a Demon Lord core book pg 4.5 it says.

Persuade, Befriend or Intimidate come under Will (but the latter can also be Strength)
However Taunt or Decieve are Intellect.

So Will is similar to Charisma in some functions but not all and there is not one ability that covers all social situations.

I said Will is completely identical to the way the ability foursome in this thread combines Charisma-Wisdom into a single ability.

Will = Charisma-Wisdom

 

[Don Durito]

If I can convince the king without rolling Persuade why should I take proficiency in Persuade?

Don't I just get an extra proficiency to spend somewhere else due to player skill?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Man this thread is a great reminder of why I don’t have Attributes add to skills in my system.

Your Strength is a resource you can draw upon any time it makes sense to you to do so, and no one at the table challenges it. If challenged, it’s up to the GM. It never adds a modifier to a skill roll, though. Instead, you spend a point of Strength to fix a flubbed roll, or to power an ability that costs Attribute Points.

Any given skill could benefit from any given stat in this way, but if you aren’t spending an AP, you don’t worry about any associations between Attributes and Skills.

 

[Yaarel]

If I can convince the king without rolling Persuade why should I take proficiency in Persuade?

Don't I just get an extra proficiency to spend somewhere else due to player skill?

Because of those situations when the outcome is ambiguous, and trying to persuade the leader is a challenge, the Persuasion skill can be valuable.

 

[Yaarel]

Note, I feel the Persuasion skill should be able to inflict the Charmed condition.

Likewise, the Intimidation skill should be able to inflict the Frightened condition.

In these cases, the use of the skills would be an ‘attack’ − versus the Charisma-Wisdom Will defense.

But I havent decided yet exactly how this should work.

 

[Don Durito]

Because of those situations when the outcome is ambiguous, and trying to persuade the leader is a challenge, the Persuasion skill can be valuable.

I think I said something similar earlier but I think this is best done without the Persuasion skill.

You just need a good underlying system to provide structure. If you say to Faction X "If you distract faction Y by attacking them from the front then we'll sneak in the back and kill the leader", then this sounds like it should call for a persuasion roll. But what's at issue ?- Whether the PCs are telling the truth (if not then there's deception) and whether the PCs are trustworthy.

So if the GM knows how trustworthy they think the PCs are then he also can decide if they are willing to believe the PCs will do what they say. If the NPCs attitude is Hostile, then probably they won't. If it's Friendly then likely they will. So if the PC can build rapport and shift that attitude along, or act in such a way that they can prove trustworthiness - say give over a magic item for safekeeping as a kind of hostage - then the NPCs may believe them.

But this is not so much Persuasion, as providing the groundwork for persuasion. It's a subtle distinction - but I think it is important. It means that you can decide the important things through role-playing but without just relying on GM fiat.

But basically if we call the skill "Build Rapport" rather than Persuasion than it's clearer to the player - that at the crux moment - when the actual act of persuasion is taking place - that the skill is not rolled - which I feel is only being fair and transparent. (Of course if you as a GM are making it clear to the players as an outset that you can to use Persuasion in a way that's different to what they might expect than I guess it's not really an issue.)

 

[Yaarel]

I think I said something similar earlier but I think this is best done without the Persuasion skill.

You just need a good underlying system to provide structure. If you say to Faction X "If you distract faction Y by attacking them from the front then we'll sneak in the back and kill the leader", then this sounds like it should call for a persuasion roll. But what's at issue ?- Whether the PCs are telling the truth (if not then there's deception) and whether the PCs are trustworthy.

So if the GM knows how trustworthy they think the PCs are then he also can decide if they are willing to believe the PCs will do what they say. If the NPCs attitude is Hostile, then probably they won't. If it's Friendly then likely they will. So if the PC can build rapport and shift that attitude along, or act in such a way that they can prove trustworthiness - say give over a magic item for safekeeping as a kind of hostage - then the NPCs may believe them.

But this is not so much Persuasion, as providing the groundwork for persuasion. It's a subtle distinction - but I think it is important. It means that you can decide the important things through role-playing but without just relying on GM fiat.

But basically if we call the skill "Build Rapport" rather than Persuasion than it's clearer to the player - that at the crux moment - when the actual act of persuasion is taking place - that the skill is not rolled - which I feel is only being fair and transparent. (Of course if you as a GM are making it clear to the players as an outset that you can to use Persuasion in a way that's different to what they might expect than I guess it's not really an issue.)

If I understand you correctly, I think that is a good idea.

Instead of the Persuasion skill being used to ‘persuade’ someone to do something specific, what it specifically does is foster mutual goodwill. Hence call it the Rapport skill. In other words, its proficiency helps a Charisma check to improve a hostile creature to an indifferent one, or an indifferent creature to a friendly one.

As such, I would merge Insight-Empathy and Persuasion together to call it ‘Rapport’, so that it includes being able to understand the mind of the other to relate to the other and to convey oneself to the other. This empathy might also sense concerns that motivate the other, including Trait, Flaw, Ideal, and Bond.

A friendly creature wants the player characters to succeed is more likely to consider a logical argument, for example.



That said, I still want to see Charm and Frighten as skills. For example, in 4e, Intimidate had the ability to force surrender, thus ending a combat encounter, with the hostile in custody. This is a kind of use of Frighten.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think 4 abilities is inherently more efficient or "elegant" than 2, 6 or 8.

I think more stats might be a better solution than fewer, but anything that ends up less broken would be a good idea.

I want to point out, the foursome of this thread can also be presented as an eightsome:

• Strength: size, reach, melee attacks, grappling, carrying capacity
• Constitution: fortitude save, hit points

• Dexterity: manual dexterity (fine motor skills), ranged attacks
• Athletics: reflex save, body agility (gross motor skills), AC bonus, speed (jump, climb, balance, fall)

• Charisma: rapport (insight, empathy, goodwill), persuasion (charm), intimidation (frighten), performance (art)
• Wisdom: will save

• Intelligence: knowledge, lore skills
• Perception: perception save, investigation (senses, analysis, intuition), deception



The gaming systems that have eight or so abilities tend to be clear (unambiguous and without overlap) about what each ability means. On the other hand, they seem to be unequal in value, and difficult to balance.

By contrast, clustering related abilities together results in balance. The balance is more robust too, so that when one ability in a cluster is less useful in an encounter, its related ability in the cluster might still retain usefulness or even gain usefulness.