[Homebrew]Differentiating classes for the Social Pillar

[CubicsRube]

Here is an idea I've had mulling around in my head for a while.

I've always wanted to enhance the social pillar of 5e, but keep the mechanics as light as possible to not interfere with the natural game process when characters socialise.

I wanted to leverage existing mechanics and this is what I've come up with.

Each character gains advantage on their social rolls with certain groups and disadvantafe with others. Anything not listed is just a normal roll.

If a character is multiclassed, they use the class they have the most levels in. If they are even, then they must choose only one for the below to apply.

The social groups are purposely kept broad and can be modified depending on game type, but they are designed to mostly capture a general array of various groups in a fantasy setting. Soldiers for example could be mercenaries or guards, The Devout could be clerics and priests, but also devout lay people, The Underclass might be criminals and bandits, but could also be slaves and other misfortunates. Let me know if you think I've missed a major one! They are still a work in progress.

The rationale is that these classes know how to talk the talk of these people. They know what they really fear and how best to threaten that, and what the typically desire and so know how to tempt or convince them.

Conversely they are out of touch with their polar opposite and jusr aren't as effective with their manipulations.

So here they are:

Bard
Advantage: Nobles, Commoners
Disadvantage: Savages

Barbarian
Advantage: Savages
Disadvantage: Scholars

Cleric
Advantage: The Devout, Scholars
Disadvantage: Cultists

Druid
Advantage: Rural Folk, Feywild creatures
Disadvantage: Nobles, Shadowfell creatures

Fighter
Advantage: Soldiers, Common Folk
Disadvantage: Scholars

Monk
Advantage: Hermits, Common Folk
Disadvantage: The Underclass, Savages

Paladin
Advantage: The Devout
Disadvantage: Cultists, Savages

Ranger
Advantage: Rural folk
Disadvantage: City folk

Rogue
Advantage: The Underclass
Disadvantage: Nobles, Common Folk

Sorceror
Advantage: Elemental creatures, Hermits
Disadvantage: Scholars

Warlock
Advantage: Cultists, Extraplanar creatures
Disadvantage: The Devout

Wizard
Advantage: Scholars
Disadvantage: Soldiers

Thoughts and feedback welcome

 

[Sadras]

This is not a good idea IMO.
Social encounters are better assessed on a case by case basis with many factors under consideration (race, background, language, clothing...etc). Having predisposed modifiers for groups of society is frankly....looking for trouble.

Based on the idea proposed, rogues have a better chance deceiving each other than they do the common folk or nobles.

 

[CubicsRube]

In principle they should, but I'm not sure that often happens.

This is making something codified and therefore something the players can make an active choice in.

Furthermore the idea is to make the classes feel more thematic and impactful in the social pillar like they are the combat pillar. Certainly a DM might adjust the DC on the bases of things such as class, but if it's not explicitly outlined then the player won't even know it. Also it comes down to a rule vs ruling approach in this case and gives more consistency of rulings on a game ny game basis. I know when I DM I'm sometimes tired and not taking all these factors into account and so offloading some of that mental load on the players makes it easier for me as DM.

The DC is still adjustable on a case by case basis should someone wish to do so.

It is a good point about deception rolls however, and I would say it should work the opposite in those cases. A rogue would be at disadvantage to deceive other rogues but at advantage to deceive Common Folk.

 

[Quartz]

I've always wanted to enhance the social pillar of 5e, but keep the mechanics as light as possible to not interfere with the natural game process when characters socialise.

It's an interesting concept but I think you're using the wrong mechanism. I think you should be using Proficiency. A soldier will be Proficient at talking to soldiers, for instance. And I wouldn't apply automatic disadvantage.

Let us know how it works for you.

 

[CubicsRube]

The problem is that proficiency clashes with those that choose to be proficient in persuasion, intimidation and the like.

There are precendents for this in a sense. A crowbar provides advantage to all cases that apply. Antitoxin provides advantage to poison saving throws. Barbarians reckless attack provides advantage on attsck at a cost and the rangers favored enemy provides advantage to tracking rolls.

So this is a mechanic that is explicitly used in class and item features.

I've there no problems in expanding the use of that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The biggest issue I see is the large disparity between the different groups you have put together, especially when it comes to actually speaking with people for whom negotiation is going to be important. Bards get nobles and common folk, who are going to be encountered for Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation hundreds of times more often than like the Sorcerer with its hermits and elemental creatures. How often do your players ever actually talk to hermits wherein they actually need to make any CHA-based checks?

I understand your desire to not step on the toes of the proficiency system and want to give additional bonus to those characters who already have proficiency in Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation... but what you're doing is essentially giving the Friends cantrip away for free to every single character in the game (without even the additional "NPC gets pissed at you after a minute" balancing act.)

Your original point was that you wanted to "enhance" the social pillar of the game. But really, all you are doing is just giving an additional numerical bonus over what PCs already do. Is that really "enhancing" anything? By my view... your social interactions as far as the actual gameplay is concerned are not going to change at all from what you are currently doing, other than the occasional number that is rolled will be higher or lower than what you already have.

So the players occasionally roll two dice instead of one. Okay. Other than that, everything else with what you are doing as you play is exactly the same. I mean maybe your players put much more stock in rolling lots of dice than mine do... but to me, rolling an extra die does not change, let along "enhance" anything at all.

To really enhance or change the social interaction pillar, you'd need to actually do things that change the playstyle of what you are doing. Like for instance incorporate things like the various "social combat" rules that have been created over the years that gives PCs things like "social hit points" and "social attacks and defenses" etc., and you run these interactions as actual D&D fights. Or you find ways to change the actual interplay of the players and you as the DM with how you roleplay... like use the Dread-inspired Jenga tower for social combat where every barb or good point forces the other one to pull a block from the tower. Or like a bidding mechanic like in Name That Tune style where each side makes points to keep raising the DC they think they can reach until one of them challenges the other to prove their assertion and they then have to roll the dice. The methodology for resolving social interactions needs to actually be different from what you already do for it to feel like an actual change.

For my money, its never enough to just throw additional dice or numeric bonus at a problem and think that's going to make things feel different. Even things like many of the feats in the game I've never felt made characters actually feel all that different. People will say "I need the Great Weapon Master feat to really embrace my character concept". But really, even if you have it what happens? Your character plays exactly the same as if they didn't have it... except the damage numbers you tell the DM are higher. But its not like the narration is any different, or the way you behave in the story is any different, or other people react in-game to you any differently. You essentially just gain nothing but higher numbers. And unless you are the types for whom the "board game" aspect of D&D is the king and rolling high numbers is the end-all-and-be-all of your experience (which I'm not denigrating as a style of play)... your play experience ends up unchanged.

Change the style of gameplay when doing social interaction and you and the players will feel different about it.

 

[delericho]

It's an interesting concept but I think you're using the wrong mechanism. I think you should be using Proficiency. A soldier will be Proficient at talking to soldiers, for instance.

Oh, I like that!

Maybe the social skills should be removed in favour of social proficiencies (that are basically like tool proficiencies, but apply to specific types of NPC). Add to that some concept of "social expertise" that applies in some circumstances (negotiations, parties, command...) and it could make for quite a powerful mechanic.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Also, instead of using class, I think background would be far more appropriate. For example, a Barbarian with a Noble background would be at odds with your system. However, works fine in the normal system.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

This seems to have a lot of problems from the basic concept to specific implementation.

A lot of the categories don't seem well-defined, or have huge overlaps. "Savages" is a pretty slippery term, and what category do the underclass or kings of 'savage' groups or nations fit into? Are nobles who live their lives in the countryside 'nobles' or 'rural folk'? How involved does one need to be with a cult before they stop being 'noble' and start being 'cultist'? Is a knight a noble, soldier, city folk, rural folk, or what? For a simple classic example, where do Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, Sam, and Pippin fit in this chart - are they rural, commoners, city folk, or nobles (Notably, Bilbo/Frodo are of high enough social class to afford a servant and make a living by owning property)?

The mechanics of this are extremely problematic to implement, because in social situations people are often attempting to disguise themsleves. To actually use the advantage/disadvantage rules, you have to have the player roll two dice and take one, which flags the creature as 'not what it seems', and will often tell you specifically if more than one character is making rolls. This really hits 'cultists,' 'extraplanar creatures,' 'feywild/shadowfell creatures' hard as they're routinely disguised, but also makes it really easy to spot a noble trying to pass himself off as a merchant. You can accuse the players of 'metagaming' for noticing that you're having them roll advantage or disadvantage when playing, but no one is actually going to fail to notice that.

But really, the fundamental problem you're assuming that each class has a VERY particular background and place in the social order, when they are actually just broad ability sets. It also completely ignores the character's background, which is really odd for something that's based on the character's upbringing. I've listed a bunch of common character archetypes that I've either seen used or are obvious from looking at class descriptions that look completely silly when you try to fit them into this system below, and this clearly isn't exhaustive. For the system to make sense, you need to take the background and adventuring career of the character into account - but if you're looking at that much stuff,

An folk hero who learned music and magic (bard, folk hero background) and now roams the land tearing down tyrants and singing about adventures about gets advantage when talking to the nobles he's bringing down but his epic tales fail to impress 'savages', while a noble knight (cavalier or samurai fighter, noble background) who's lived his life among the highborn is not especially effective at talking to nobles? A professional con man (rogue, charlatan background) gets disadvantage when trying to con nobles or city folk, and can only con poor people? A flamboyant noble by day who sneaks around to assassinate his enemies at night (assassin rogue, noble background) or a swashbuckling pirate king (swashbuckler rogue, pirate or noble background) has a hard time talking to nobles or commoners, but gets advantage to poor people? A warrior from a barbarian tribe who takes a vow to eradicate evil (paladin) is good at talking to priests but not 'savages'?

A warlock (fiend, GOO, any non-scholar background) who's only contact with extraplanar creatures is that he made a pact with one for power gets advantage talking to them, while a wizard (conjuration) who has spent his life studying the best techniques for summoning, controlling, and bargaining with them doesn't? A warlock (celestial, acolyte background) who's sworn a pact with an angel gets advantage dealing with 'cultists' but disadvantage with the devout? A wizard (war magic subclass, soldier background) who's spent his life campaigning with the army and learning to use spells in battle has disadvantage with the soldiers he's spent his life with but advantage with scholars he sneers at?

 

[Satyrn]

I'm gonna echo the thought that you should be placing these features in the backgrounds, not the classes.

It's in the backgrounds where I draw my characters' personality and story from, what I look to when interacting with NPCs. I would also like if I could customize these like every other background piecepie I can make the character's story not what I envision if the default choices aren't as good a fit as they could be.