D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[DND_Reborn]

Even though, lol, it rarely is. I always wondered what the Reaction Adjustment for my Charisma was for in AD&D, and one day I looked it up, and to my shock, there was this whole subsystem and table that DM's were supposed to roll on that none of my DM's seemed to use!

That is too bad, really. As a DM I loved using that system. Often my players had encounters which approached them with caution and suspicion but often enough with curiosity and even friendliness.

Even though the system is absent from 5E, I still run my encounters that way. Unless it is obviously hostile, making CHA-checks can lead to interesting scenarios.

 

[Shardstone]

Fair enough. Maybe I miss an era that never really existed, lol, when players felt like negotiating with enemies instead of just going "woohoo, roll initiative, time to kill some gobbos!".

You're jumping to hyperbole and hypotheticals I didn't make.

A reasonable scenario isyou see them and you try trickery to get them to work with you, maybe talk about how another threat is stalking you both through these wilds or this dungeon. Or you can try to quickly escape and hide your tracks. Or you can try any other number of things other then trying to convince your hostile enemy to literally ignore you, their hostile enemy. Come on, man. You've been playing this game a long time. I shouldn't need to tell you that two enemies meeting face to face in a hostile situation is going to take more then a "Let's just pretend you didn't see us."

 

[JiffyPopTart]

except in a bounded accuracy system something as simple as "We don't' kill you, you don't kill us" shouldn't be that hard.

If it's not a hard challenge then the GM probably should not use the recommended hard DC.

I can imagine your scenario being not even a check (the guard hates their boss), an easy check (one guard wanders in on the party having finished off the entire break room), very hard (loyal servants of an evil goddess), or impossible (golems).

You are hanging a lot of baggage on what amounts to a very weak hook of a simple example not meant to be exhaustive.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And I look at the AC's enemies have and go "if hitting enemies is bounded by the same rules as making skill checks, why am I being asked to roll higher DC's than the AC's of opponents?".

You keep saying stuff like this but also say that you’ve read the rules…. There seems to be some gap in my understanding of your points.

You realize that, if a DM calls for a Cha check to resolve a Social Interaction with a hostile creature, and the modified roll is a 10, the creature won’t help the PCs but it won’t do any harm either, right? I’d say that is easier than, or at least on par with, hitting most monsters with a weapon.

What am I missing about your objection to the suggested DC table?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

except in a bounded accuracy system something as simple as "We don't' kill you, you don't kill us" shouldn't be that hard.

In fact, it is not hard, it is considered easy. For resolving a Social Interaction with a Cha check, it is a DC 10 to achieve your desired result… if a DM calls for a roll in that situation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If it's not a hard challenge then the GM probably should not use the recommended hard DC.

I can imagine your scenario being not even a check (the guard hates their boss), an easy check (one guard wanders in on the party having finished off the entire break room), very hard (loyal servants of an evil goddess), or impossible (golems).

You are hanging a lot of baggage on what amounts to a very weak hook of a simple example not meant to be exhaustive.

except it was the example someone ELSE picked and I just answered... I didn't make the scenero

 

[Micah Sweet]

Look this all started because someone made a comment to the effect of "well the social rules say you can do this with a DC 20".

I am well aware of and have noted that those same rules give you opportunities to lower the DC.

But the presented scenario was that your character was looking a DC 20 in the face to do something that doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and I am simply reiterating, I think that the DC itself is unreasonable for characters.

And since there are very vocal DM's who refuse to even consider the use of Guidance during negotiations on these forums, I don't tend to assume it's available to skew the math more favorably.

The math is favorable enough for me. 60% is higher than I like, frankly.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In fact, it is not hard, it is considered easy. For resolving a Social Interaction with a Cha check, it is a DC 10 to achieve your desired result… if a DM calls for a roll in that situation.

what you are missing is that I didn't make up the scenero I didn't pick the DC... I jumped in AFTER other were told "those rule were clear" and THEN stated DC20 cha check

 

[Swarmkeeper]

what you are missing is that I didn't make up the scenero I didn't pick the DC... I jumped in AFTER other were told "those rule were clear" and THEN stated DC20 cha check

Perhaps what you are missing is the actual quote that brought up the DC 20 Cha check:

Social Interaction rules are in the DMG, starting on p 244. They suggest a DC 20 Charisma check to get hostile creatures to cooperate as long as they aren't taking a risk or sacrificing anything by doing so.

And the actual rules being quoted (DMG pg 245):

DC	Hostile Creature's Reaction
0	The creature opposes the adventurers' actions and might take risks to do so.
10	The creature offers no help but does no harm.
20	The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.

Your desired result of "We don't' kill you, you don't kill us" sounds like a modified roll of 10 or better to me, if a roll is being called for by the DM.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Perhaps what you are missing is the actual quote that brought up the DC 20 Cha check:



And the actual rules being quoted (DMG pg 245):

DC	Hostile Creature's Reaction
0	The creature opposes the adventurers' actions and might take risks to do so.
10	The creature offers no help but does no harm.
20	The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.

Your desired result of "We don't' kill you, you don't kill us" sounds like a modified roll of 10 or better to me, if a roll is being called for by the DM.

so again... you can argue that the other poster got the rules wrong... leave me out of it.