How does social interaction work in D&D 5e?

[SparksMcGee]

I've been flipping over the books, but I have yet to understand it completely.
You make Charisma checks, adding proficiency bonus if you're proficient in a specific skill. However, what are you rolling against? Is it a fixed DC? Is it the target's Wisdom (Insight)? Are there are any rules adjucating social interaction better than that small list under Charisma?

[archaeo]

I've been flipping over the books, but I have yet to understand it completely.
You make Charisma checks, adding proficiency bonus if you're proficient in a specific skill. However, what are you rolling against? Is it a fixed DC? Is it the target's Wisdom (Insight)? Are there are any rules adjucating social interaction better than that small list under Charisma?

The PHB doesn't really give a lot of guidance on this, or, rather, leaves it open-ended for the DM to decide how to handle it. The DM might set a DC for, say, a charisma (intimidate) check, or do an opposed roll between the PC's charisma (deception) and the NPC's wisdom (insight). You could also just eyeball a DC to beat with the deception check; really, whatever's easier.

The DMG comes out (at Wizard's partner stores) in literally a week, and a look at the table of contents (http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64732&d=1414184488&stc=1) suggests there'll be two pages covering social interactions, where one is likely to find more rules governing the topic.

[pibby]

There are several ways I deal with Charisma checks. Sometimes I set the DC to a ballpark number and sometimes it is an opposed check. For skill checks in general, I refer to how it was done in previous editions and make adjustments as I see fit. In any case, the PCs have to be roleplay or at least convey their intentions before making the check. From there give advantage, disadvantage, or even modifiers (which shouldn't be more than +5 or less than -5) as you see fit.

For Deception checks I have it go against opposing or passive Insight. Opposing checks if the defending party would think what the other party said could be suspicious, Deception against a passive Insight if the defending party wouldn't actively be suspicious.

For Persuasion it depends on what the PC is trying to convince an NPC to do; I refer to the DC chart that is in the section that talks about Ability checks. A DC 10ish for something the NPC would agree or believe, DC 15ish for something the NPC is unsure of, DC 20ish for something the NPC would normally not agree to, and a DC 25-30 for something the NPCs would hardly ever agree with. the PC would then have Advantage if the NPC is particularly friendly with them, Disadvanage if the NPC is unfriendly or even hostile to them.

The Intimidate skill is a hostile form of Persuasion, except that I don't add Advantage or Disadvantage for the reasons I would normally grant them for Persuasion. It can also be argued that threats that a character makes can actually be an aggressive form of Deception. For example, a PC threatens the baker that he will kill the baker's family if he doesn't get his bear claws fresh from the oven. If the PC really intended on doing that, the situation would be handled like a Persuasion check but uses the Intimidate skill. If the player actually wasn't going to do that, it would then be handled like a Deception check using the Intimidate skill. Or perhaps the PC threatened in a passive-aggressive manner and whispered the empty threat into the baker's ear. In that case I'd let the PC use Deception or Intimidate, whichever is better.

[Person_Man]

D&D arose from tabletop war games. The big innovation of Gyganx->Chainmail->D&D was that players used a small number of miniatures to navigate a dungeon and fight a series of discrete tactical battles/encounters/traps, rather then using a ton of miniatures organized into units to fight one big strategic/historical battle (which is a lot more expensive, difficult to set up, and nearly impossible to walk away from mid-battle and restart playing at a later time unless its in your basement and no one is going to touch 100+ miniatures for a week when it gets to be too late and everyone has to go home). Roleplaying got added on an ad hoc basis by players who just ended up imbuing their miniatures with personalities, which is a lot easier to do when you're managing a much smaller number of them. Over time the fluff/roleplaying/alignment aspects of the game were formalized, added to, and have grown tremendously. But D&D has never done a great job of providing in-depth roleplaying mechanics or advice within their core books, which is a real shame, in my opinion.

[TheOOB]

Social checks are (typically) Charisma based checks against a DC set by the DM, just like climbing a wall or forcing a door open. Convincing a guard of something easy might have a DC of 10, while convincing them of something REALLY difficult might have a DC of around 25. If you want you can make an interaction an opposes check, most likely using Wisdom(insight) as the NPC's "defense".

In previous editions the social system have ranged from barely there to downright terrible. This edition seems to be going for the former. I'm sure we'll see more in the DMG and future supplements.

Honestly though, I've never played an PnP RPG that handled the mechanics for social interaction "well"

[Demonic Spoon]

Out of curiosity, what would people want from a social interaction subsystem? It seems like most of it is always going to come from the players roleplaying their characters, with a roll just to account for the fact that the player himself may be more or less charismatic than his character.

[archaeo]

Honestly though, I've never played an PnP RPG that handled the mechanics for social interaction "well"

Which is really just to say that adjudicating "social interaction" in some reliable, quantifiable fashion is incredibly difficult, even in the real world. 5e gives a very small number of blunt instruments to handle social encounters, but any system that attempts to abstract social interactions will inevitably end up falling short.

I get the impression that Mearls & Co. didn't want to go in the other direction, creating a huge system of onerous social rules. To some extent, I expect that tables that put a big emphasis on roleplay often don't need a bunch of rules to handle their storytelling, and tables disinterested in roleplaying won't use the rules anyway. The ability checks suggested in the PHB (and inevitably expanded upon in the DMG) are enough of a mechanical foundation to allow for rolling the dice when it's necessary, which is probably all that you need; if your players want to really get some RP done, they'll do all the heavy lifting narratively, while simple rules are perfect for tables where most of the social stuff is handled abstractly.

[huttj509]

Social checks are (typically) Charisma based checks against a DC set by the DM, just like climbing a wall or forcing a door open. Convincing a guard of something easy might have a DC of 10, while convincing them of something REALLY difficult might have a DC of around 25. If you want you can make an interaction an opposes check, most likely using Wisdom(insight) as the NPC's "defense".

In previous editions the social system have ranged from barely there to downright terrible. This edition seems to be going for the former. I'm sure we'll see more in the DMG and future supplements.

Honestly though, I've never played an PnP RPG that handled the mechanics for social interaction "well"

Mistborn RPG has one of the examples as a prolonged scene to gaslight a guard captain into thinking he's seeing ghosts so he'll be unfit for duty when the attack comes later.

And another one involving 2 merchants trying to drive each other out of business.

It treats physical, mental, and material/reputation resources as their own tracks, that can be attacked in different ways, but using the same mechanics. Trying to convince someone to do something he doesn't want is an attack against his willpower, and can be done using your physical (torture), resources (bribery), or mental attributes. It also makes clear that it's not just "when it hits 0," and that people can and will capitulate before being completely ruined/broken/incapacitated.

[Beleriphon]

Mistborn RPG has one of the examples as a prolonged scene to gaslight a guard captain into thinking he's seeing ghosts so he'll be unfit for duty when the attack comes later.

And another one involving 2 merchants trying to drive each other out of business.

It treats physical, mental, and material/reputation resources as their own tracks, that can be attacked in different ways, but using the same mechanics. Trying to convince someone to do something he doesn't want is an attack against his willpower, and can be done using your physical (torture), resources (bribery), or mental attributes. It also makes clear that it's not just "when it hits 0," and that people can and will capitulate before being completely ruined/broken/incapacitated.

FATE does something similar in that you have a physical stress track and a mental one. With the emphasis on evocative descriptions rather than hard coded abilities losing a social interaction could mean the character gets A Terrible Disgrace rather than a -1 to future rolls. Also, the if you get "taken out" of an interaction the guy doing the taking out action decides what happens, if you choose to give up on your own you get to choose how that happens (ie. run away from a fight, or admit that you can't prove that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong.... for now).

[Person_Man]

Out of curiosity, what would people want from a social interaction subsystem? It seems like most of it is always going to come from the players roleplaying their characters, with a roll just to account for the fact that the player himself may be more or less charismatic than his character.

I personally was hoping that the default would be that everything is just handled by strait Ability Score checks, and classes or backgrounds grant Proficiency in Ability Scores. In other words, players wouldn't have to parse out Skills, Saves, Checks, and attack rolls into different things fiddly sub-categories. If a Rogue is Proficient in Dexterity and Intelligence, then he adds his Proficiency bonus to anything covered by those Ability Scores, period. This has the benefit of making the game much much simpler and easier to play. And players basically free-form roleplay whatever they want, and players with Charisma Proficiency (Bards, Paladin, Sorcerer, Cleric, Warlock) being somewhat better at it.

Then the advanced/optional system would create a more highly granular system of some kind that did parse out specific bonuses and cool special roleplaying abilities for different things, but organized around a single narrative rules construct. The best example I can think of would be the FATE, which has the awesome FATE Point, Aspect, and Stunt system. But there are many, many other examples that they could have drawn on. Or they could have just created a new one, which could have been even more innovative.

But because 5E design was firmly rooted in going back to D&D traditions, the default rules basically force everyone to split the difference. Everyone must choose Ability Scores, Background, Skills, etc, but at the end of the day 90% of the options are basically just minor fiddly bonuses.

[Thrudd]

Here's how I handle social interactions in D&D: When PC's encounter an NPC or intelligent monster and want to talk, I roll for reaction (secretly). This is modified by the talking character's charisma bonus. The reaction roll determines if the NPC or monster is favorably or unfavorably inclined toward them, and each reaction category has guidelines regarding the NPC's behavior and attitude. In 3e and 5e, where characters have skills of persuasion, the result of their roll may push the NPC reaction into a more favorable state. In AD&D, common sense and role play guide the outcome, apart from the guidelines determined by the initial reaction roll.

[Selkirk]

i actually like that there aren't 'social' rules. after a long speech convincing the king it blows to roll a 3 and then fail :D. now the downside of this is that charisma is a meaningless stat but it's pretty much a meaningless stat anyways :D (the players that are good at roleplaying or into a certain campaign are going to be the 'talkers'-regardless of charisma score)..

i would say play it by ear and make sensible rulings (will the king hand over his kingdom? no...no matter how good the speech). in certain situations a dc check might help. say i'm trying to fast talk the guards (dc15) that way only high cha chars could make it work.

[Easy_Lee]

i actually like that there aren't 'social' rules. after a long speech convincing the king it blows to roll a 3 and then fail :D. now the downside of this is that charisma is a meaningless stat but it's pretty much a meaningless stat anyways :D (the players that are good at roleplaying or into a certain campaign are going to be the 'talkers'-regardless of charisma score)

I kind of hate this sentiment, since I don't think any stat ought to be meaningless. CHA is supposed to represent force of personality and persuasiveness. People with high charisma are good at convincing others to do things the other doesn't want to. One might help another on a charisma check too, a kind of "peer pressure".

Regarding OP's question, the only rules I'm aware of, pre-DMG, are the general guidelines for skill checks. 10 is easy, 20 is hard, 30 is near-impossible. Those numbers don't take level into consideration, so I'd be tempted to use something closer to 6, 16, and 26 plus proficiency for general DCs.

Fortunately, CHA is one of the easiest stats to do opposed checks for. Just roll persuade and the like vs the opponent's persuasion check, or give them a wisdom save against the skill check. That creates a scaling system where particularly savvy or wise targets are hard to fool.

[MaxWilson]

I've been flipping over the books, but I have yet to understand it completely.
You make Charisma checks, adding proficiency bonus if you're proficient in a specific skill. However, what are you rolling against? Is it a fixed DC? Is it the target's Wisdom (Insight)? Are there are any rules adjucating social interaction better than that small list under Charisma?

I can imagine situations where the target's Wisdom/Insight actually lowers DC. If you are trying to use reason to get someone to do something:

1.) If it's against his own best interests, and he's smart enough to know it, it fails automatically. (Could attempt to deceive him instead but that isn't the approach we're considering.) Persuasion is a catalyst, but it only works if there's a ground state to move toward.
2.) If it's in your interest and doesn't really help or hurt him, a flat DC might be appropriate, but it will be an easy check. "Hey man, can you give me a hand with this crate?" Most people probably will as long as they generally like you.
3.) If it's in your interest and in his own best interest, only a particularly stubborn person would refuse. Use his Wisdom modifier or Insight as an additional bonus to your roll (or subtract it from the DC, it's equivalent). "Hey man. If you charge the orcs right now, they'll know we're here and will kill us. Wait just a minute until the wizard finishes casting Wall of Stone."

[Selkirk]

I kind of hate this sentiment, since I don't think any stat ought to be meaningless. CHA is supposed to represent force of personality and persuasiveness. People with high charisma are good at convincing others to do things the other doesn't want to. One might help another on a charisma check too, a kind of "peer pressure".

Regarding OP's question, the only rules I'm aware of, pre-DMG, are the general guidelines for skill checks. 10 is easy, 20 is hard, 30 is near-impossible. Those numbers don't take level into consideration, so I'd be tempted to use something closer to 6, 16, and 26 plus proficiency for general DCs.

Fortunately, CHA is one of the easiest stats to do opposed checks for. Just roll persuade and the like vs the opponent's persuasion check, or give them a wisdom save against the skill check. That creates a scaling system where particularly savvy or wise targets are hard to fool.

yeah and i sort of agree but social 'rules' are always an exercise in frustration and again during gameplay more vocal players will be talking regardless of charisma score. and it's never made sense to me that the sorcerer for instance would be the leader of a party :D. and why wouldn't a barbarian (6ft tall and 250 lbs) just naturally be intimidating? so cha as it's developed is a 'dump' stat with little to no effect on gameplay.

and rolling makes it worse. from above- if i've worked up an entirely convincing argument and my character has high cha but due to a low die roll i fail ...it's much worse than missing a sword swing. so dc's are probably the limit to 'social' checks for me.

[Easy_Lee]

and rolling makes it worse. from above- if i've worked up an entirely convincing argument and my character has high cha but due to a low die roll i fail ...it's much worse than missing a sword swing. so dc's are probably the limit to 'social' checks for me.

I think there's a way to finesse that. I'm biased in favor of charisma being useful, of course =). But hear me out.

Let's say you've got your big tough barbarian rolling intimidate. Maybe the DC he has to meet is lower since he's naturally intimidating. Similarly, maybe having a good plan or convincing argument lowers the DC. And maybe a particularly bad idea is a high DC.

I don't think it's fair to just chuck CHA, though. And we all know or knew those people who could talk us into bad ideas IRL. It reminds me of a commercial where two guys give the same suggestion at a business meeting. People dismissed the first guy, but liked the second because he sounded confident and made a chopping gesture with his hand. I think of CHA kind of like that.

Plus there are a lot of fantasy characters who rely on their charisma. The Bene Gesserit sisterhood from the Dune books would be an extrme version of what charisma is good for.

[Scirocco]

There is an option to use different ability checks for skills depending on the situation like Str (Intimidation) on the Barb if they're going all Darth Vader on a guy.

[Demonic Spoon]

There is an option to use different ability checks for skills depending on the situation like Str (Intimidation) on the Barb if they're going all Darth Vader on a guy.

That's silly. By that logic, the wizard should be able to use Int for intimidation if he is surrounded in magical auras and shooting flames from his fingers.

Charisma represents your ability to exert your will, and convincing someone that you can and are willing to hurt them definitely counts. Looking like you are strong enough to do so easily is just a circumstantial bonus.

[Selkirk]

I think there's a way to finesse that. I'm biased in favor of charisma being useful, of course =). But hear me out.

Let's say you've got your big tough barbarian rolling intimidate. Maybe the DC he has to meet is lower since he's naturally intimidating. Similarly, maybe having a good plan or convincing argument lowers the DC. And maybe a particularly bad idea is a high DC.

I don't think it's fair to just chuck CHA, though. And we all know or knew those people who could talk us into bad ideas IRL. It reminds me of a commercial where two guys give the same suggestion at a business meeting. People dismissed the first guy, but liked the second because he sounded confident and made a chopping gesture with his hand. I think of CHA kind of like that.

Plus there are a lot of fantasy characters who rely on their charisma. The Bene Gesserit sisterhood from the Dune books would be an extrme version of what charisma is good for.

good points here. and i think there is a definite case to be made for situational charisma..both in terms of social status(class) and in racial terms. a dwarven barbarian might have low charisma when dealing with a court of human nobles...but should have high charisma when dealing with the dwarven council. for that matter a character of noble background would have an easier time at court and perhaps would get guarded/false answers from peasants-just based on class.

and i definitely agree that dc's should be scaled based on how effective/reasonable an argument is. asking the mayor for 1000 gp reward for killing 2 goblins? has to be shot down immediately :D. but a 20 gp reward for also killing an ogre that was with the goblins? maybe. +3 on dc or something.

and i actually love the idea of charisma but tying it to a class is a failing i think. i always imagine the warriors and clerics as leaders of the parties (rogues and bards could be masterminds and tacticians). sorcerers shouldn't be leaders of parties just based on charisma (they only have high cha because of mechanical necessity).

but..a lot of this is just roleplaying to me. we went to town after our long dungeon crawl and interacted with numerous npc's and didn't roll one die. the relationships between our chars and the npc's had built up thru the campaign and the interactions were based largely on that (in fairness it's different than when they first arrived in town). but still the conversations seemed natural and flowed in ways that helped the campaign. rolling die checks for these conversations would have felt forced.


That's silly. By that logic, the wizard should be able to use Int for intimidation if he is surrounded in magical auras and shooting flames from his fingers.

Charisma represents your ability to exert your will, and convincing someone that you can and are willing to hurt them definitely counts. Looking like you are strong enough to do so easily is just a circumstantial bonus.

i would argue that the bloodied half orc barbarian threatening the last goblin with death is more than a circumstantial bonus...compared to say the halfling bard :D.

[Scirocco]

That's silly. By that logic, the wizard should be able to use Int for intimidation if he is surrounded in magical auras and shooting flames from his fingers.

Charisma represents your ability to exert your will, and convincing someone that you can and are willing to hurt them definitely counts. Looking like you are strong enough to do so easily is just a circumstantial bonus.

Hoisting a guy up in the air by his neck is definitely a Str(Intimidation). The variant rule is already in the rulebook (pg.175) and specifically calls out a Barb demonstrating his strength for the check.

[Demonic Spoon]

good points here. and i think there is a definite case to be made for situational charisma..both in terms of social status(class) and in racial terms. a dwarven barbarian might have low charisma when dealing with a court of human nobles...but should have high charisma when dealing with the dwarven council. for that matter a character of noble background would have an easier time at court and perhaps would get guarded/false answers from peasants-just based on class.

and i definitely agree that dc's should be scaled based on how effective/reasonable an argument is. asking the mayor for 1000 gp reward for killing 2 goblins? has to be shot down immediately :D. but a 20 gp reward for also killing an ogre that was with the goblins? maybe. +3 on dc or something.

and i actually love the idea of charisma but tying it to a class is a failing i think. i always imagine the warriors and clerics as leaders of the parties (rogues and bards could be masterminds and tacticians). sorcerers shouldn't be leaders of parties just based on charisma (they only have high cha because of mechanical necessity).

but..a lot of this is just roleplaying to me. we went to town after our long dungeon crawl and interacted with numerous npc's and didn't roll one die. the relationships between our chars and the npc's had built up thru the campaign and the interactions were based largely on that (in fairness it's different than when they first arrived in town). but still the conversations seemed natural and flowed in ways that helped the campaign. rolling die checks for these conversations would have felt forced.



i would argue that the bloodied half orc barbarian threatening the last goblin with death is more than a circumstantial bonus...compared to say the halfling bard :D.

Why would you even roll for that? The last goblin is at your mercy, you don't need to convince him that you could hurt him.

Counterexample to the Barbarian scenario: you're trying to intimidate a merchant in the middle of a city, flanked by bodyguards. Is the hulking brute, who would be caught and hanged if he tried anything violent, be more threatening than the halfling thief that could sneak into his house at night and off him in his sleep? The enchanter who could use magic to manipulate him and the people around him?