How to react to this house rule

[Boci]

So I'm playing a bratty 14 year old half-elf warlock, proficient with diplomacy, hgih charisma a given. We were in a cave and were trying to decide marching order as we headed for the exit having gotten into a few fights already. The cleric didn't want to take their usual position towards the front since they were almost dead and said I should go instead, since I was at full HP. My character didn't like that one bit and so dabbed some rouge on her cheek and argued that he was much better armoured than her and beside it was his duty to protect the weak and children. My DM had us roll opposed charisma checks, so it was my +6 with advantage vs. the cleric's regular roll with a +0 modier, so ofcourse I won. The GM then told the cleric that this meant he agreed with my character. Ofcourse a minute later friends wore off and the cleric realized my character had tricked him, but by then he didn't want to make a deal out of it then as we were already moving towards the exit.

Later, my character was trading snarky comments with an NPC guard, until he had enough and threatened my character. We rolled opposed intimidation, I wasn't proficient this time but still had a high charisma modifier. I don't know what the guard's modier was but my character won. I got the feeling that if the guard had run my character would have been forced to run away.

Now, I honestly don't mind this house rule, but then it is hugely beneficial to my character so maybe I'm not the best judge. The cleric didn't complain but both he and the DM are newer to the game. Do I raise this issue? With the player first, the DM first, in front of the whole group at the start of next session, or should I just see how it works out?

[Lunali]

Depends greatly on what the actual rule is. If it's just that an opposed CHA check makes someone take your side, that's massively overpowered. Different goals and arguments should have different difficulties.

As a side note, I'm not a fan of binding CHA checks between players. If you want to roll for it, a better solution would be to present your argument and the "defending" player sets a DC to persuade their character of that argument. The only time I think opposed checks make sense is deception vs insight.

[ImproperJustice]

Yeah. Our GM generally outlaws interaction skills between PCs as part of his non-PVP policy.

Other groups may have different ideas, but it seems to work out for us to resolve inter party conflict both in and out of character with Real lofe social skills.

[JNAProductions]

Gonna echo saying that, in a player to player sense, this is an awful rule.

It also seems way too easy to abuse.

[guachi]

I'd walk if my DM did to me what he did to the cleric.

I hate this kind of thing so much that when I DM I tell players that anything solely between players the players get to decide the rules and a player can always say "no".

Want to attack another PC? Both have to agree and one party can always say "no" and the attack doesn't happen.

[Samayu]

Interpersonal conflict needs to be role-played. Care should be taken to remain true to the character. The GM can use gentle prodding if they feel the player is not doing something the character would, but don't force them with die rolls.

We have one player who likes to use the dice to help him make up his mind. It's all in fun, and he doesn't abuse it. In fact, he very often comes out on the losing end. "Oh yeah, I totally believe you!"

[Dudewithknives]

I hate the no personal skills used on players.

I used to play with a guy who always made it his mission to play a character whose entire personality was built to piss off one other PC, most of the time mine because I tend to play lawful characters and he always plays CN and is pretty much a troll IRL as well.

I was playing a LE Warlock of The Great Old One. specifically The King in Yellow but that is not the point.
Everywhere we went I would subtly spread the word of my master and recruit for him.
I was BY FAR the most devout person in the group and we had 2 clerics.
At one point I made a deal with the second largest house of dwarves that the KIY will give them the power to move up to the greatest house if they at least pay lip service to him.
The other PC found out about it because the DM literally wanted us to interact more, so he handed him the info.
The other PC promptly took that info to the biggest church of Moradin(or whoever the holy wargod like guy was in charge of the dwarves) and had the entire house wiped out and then had all people who worshipped the KIY tracked down and killed, except me.
His reasoning was he just wanted to show me that he could wreck everything I worked 13 level for in one night.
Needless to say my character plotted his death.
But the DM reminded us of, "No pvp, and if I tried anything I would autolose the fight and die, because he would not put up with that kind of thing."

So it is either going to be PVP is free and allowed in all ways, Role playing and Roll playing.
Or
Nobody is allowed to do anything that is more bothersome than a minor inconvenience to another PC.
Or
I don't play.

As a subnote, I left that entire gaming group I had been friends with for 20 years over crap like that, it happened often.
It seems that pissing me off in a game was a fun pastime for the pothead crowd because I took gaming seriously.

[Kane0]

I’d have a word with the DM about rolling social skills against PCs. And mins spells too while i’m at it.
I’ve had bad experiences with that sort of thing, there are literally as many NPCs as the DM can come up with to screw around with but each player generally only has one PC. Don’t screw over their fun by leveraging mechanics to get your way.

[Asmotherion]

I think that, together with a good RP, that's how Charisma should be supposed to work, more or less.

Charisma Checks between players... I think they should not directly affect the outcome of their actions, but rather how the other perceives the other's intention. In intimidation's case, it should also affect the actions on a succesful check.

On NPCs you are much more free to affect the outcome of their actions, as for example tell them that a house is haunted to prevent them from getting in (or rush in, if they are some heroic types) on a succesful check.

[Zippdementia]

Checks between players can be useful and appropriate, if the players are not sure how their character would react.

I had a situation where two player characters got into an argument and one side (Karina) made a REALLY good point. The opposing player (Abenthy) felt that his character would not budge from his stance due to his character flaw, but the argument was so good he wasn't sure if his character would be able to resist it.

So we rolled Charisma. Abenthy won the roll and didn't budge. It was actually a pretty cool moment.

But such rolls should be made only when the players feel it is appropriate and both players are on board with it.

[GlenSmash!]

In my game if one player is trying to convince another player to do something, its up to the player to decide what their character does.

Dice are for when a DM presents a scenario to the players, the player says what the do, and the DM determines the outcome is uncertain. Using them for a scenarios in between players just isn't a good strategy.

The opposed intimidation rolls strategy is less of a problem, but I still would have just set a DC in that scenario.

[Unoriginal]

CHA is countered by WIS, usually. If you made an opposed CHA check for intimidation purpose, to me it'd look like both you and the guard are trying to shoo the other away.



I hate the no personal skills used on players.

I used to play with a guy who always made it his mission to play a character whose entire personality was built to piss off one other PC, most of the time mine because I tend to play lawful characters and he always plays CN and is pretty much a troll IRL as well.

I was playing a LE Warlock of The Great Old One. specifically The King in Yellow but that is not the point.
Everywhere we went I would subtly spread the word of my master and recruit for him.
I was BY FAR the most devout person in the group and we had 2 clerics.
At one point I made a deal with the second largest house of dwarves that the KIY will give them the power to move up to the greatest house if they at least pay lip service to him.
The other PC found out about it because the DM literally wanted us to interact more, so he handed him the info.
The other PC promptly took that info to the biggest church of Moradin(or whoever the holy wargod like guy was in charge of the dwarves) and had the entire house wiped out and then had all people who worshipped the KIY tracked down and killed, except me.
His reasoning was he just wanted to show me that he could wreck everything I worked 13 level for in one night.
Needless to say my character plotted his death.
But the DM reminded us of, "No pvp, and if I tried anything I would autolose the fight and die, because he would not put up with that kind of thing."

So it is either going to be PVP is free and allowed in all ways, Role playing and Roll playing.
Or
Nobody is allowed to do anything that is more bothersome than a minor inconvenience to another PC.
Or
I don't play.

As a subnote, I left that entire gaming group I had been friends with for 20 years over crap like that, it happened often.
It seems that pissing me off in a game was a fun pastime for the pothead crowd because I took gaming seriously.


Destroying 13 levels worth of PC work like that is absolutely PvP. Your DM was just blatantly siding against you.

[MoiMagnus]

I hate the no personal skills used on players.

I used to play with a guy who always made it his mission to play a character whose entire personality was built to piss off one other PC, most of the time mine because I tend to play lawful characters and he always plays CN and is pretty much a troll IRL as well.

I was playing a LE Warlock of The Great Old One. specifically The King in Yellow but that is not the point.
Everywhere we went I would subtly spread the word of my master and recruit for him.
I was BY FAR the most devout person in the group and we had 2 clerics.
At one point I made a deal with the second largest house of dwarves that the KIY will give them the power to move up to the greatest house if they at least pay lip service to him.
The other PC found out about it because the DM literally wanted us to interact more, so he handed him the info.
The other PC promptly took that info to the biggest church of Moradin(or whoever the holy wargod like guy was in charge of the dwarves) and had the entire house wiped out and then had all people who worshipped the KIY tracked down and killed, except me.
His reasoning was he just wanted to show me that he could wreck everything I worked 13 level for in one night.
Needless to say my character plotted his death.
But the DM reminded us of, "No pvp, and if I tried anything I would autolose the fight and die, because he would not put up with that kind of thing."

So it is either going to be PVP is free and allowed in all ways, Role playing and Roll playing.
Or
Nobody is allowed to do anything that is more bothersome than a minor inconvenience to another PC.
Or
I don't play.

As a subnote, I left that entire gaming group I had been friends with for 20 years over crap like that, it happened often.
It seems that pissing me off in a game was a fun pastime for the pothead crowd because I took gaming seriously.

PvP was not the solution. It usually only make things worse rather than solve the problem.

Each player play with different goal, it can be munckin, explorator, .... A player for "mission to play a character whose entire personality was built to piss off one other PC", has a quite simple category of player: it is "a**hole".

And the only way to solve this problem (as for most problems between players) is meta:
You either convince someone to change of behavior, or you ban someone.

And since the DM was not seeing the problem (or siding with the "a**hole"), then you leaving the table was a predictable outcome.

[Unoriginal]

PvP was not the solution. It usually only make things worse rather than solve the problem.

Each player play with different goal, it can be munckin, explorator, .... A player for "mission to play a character whose entire personality was built to piss off one other PC", has a quite simple category of player: it is "a**hole".

And the only way to solve this problem (as for most problems between players) is meta:
You either convince someone to change of behavior, or you ban someone.

And since the DM was not seeing the problem (or siding with the "a**hole"), then you leaving the table was a predictable outcome.

Ruining a fellow player's work is PvP, even if it's indirectly. And the DM allowed the other guy to have a total "win" in spite of all the reasonable objections one could have put in this scenario.

Leaving the table was the best thing to do.

[Boci]

I'll mention the intimidate being opposed by wisdom instead of intimidate, though this does make it a bit harder to resist, though he may not find that a problem. Maybe make it a will save so you its possible to get proficiency to resist.


Depends greatly on what the actual rule is. If it's just that an opposed CHA check makes someone take your side, that's massively overpowered.

That, seems to be what is it. I guess maybe house rule is a bad term for it, since it was more of a rules call the DM made, so its not like I have the exact text for how the interaction worked. I wanted cleric to lead, cleric wanted me to lead instead, so we rolled opposed persuasion.

The DM did make it clear he wanted to hear our actual arguments rather than just a die result, but when we both made them it was the dice that decided. So I imagine unreasonable requests won't work, and situational modifiers do apply I'm pretty sure. I think the guard might have gotten advantage on their intimidate roll against my character because they threatened to do something horrible to her for example.

So it seems most people agree this should be talked over. With who first though? The priest, the DM or the group? Also the RAW on the situation, can you use persuasion on PCs by default in 5e? I know you explicit couldn't in 3.5, but was that part of the rules included in 5e? I assumed it was but I realized I don't actually know.

[Lunali]

The DM did make it clear he wanted to hear our actual arguments rather than just a die result, but when we both made them it was the dice that decided. So I imagine unreasonable requests won't work, and situational modifiers do apply I'm pretty sure. I think the guard might have gotten advantage on their intimidate roll against my character because they threatened to do something horrible to her for example.

Who decides what is unreasonable and what modifiers apply? IMO, it should be the person controlling the character, usually the DM, but in the case of other players, it should be them.


So it seems most people agree this should be talked over. With who first though? The priest, the DM or the group? Also the RAW on the situation, can you use persuasion on PCs by default in 5e? I know you explicit couldn't in 3.5, but was that part of the rules included in 5e? I assumed it was but I realized I don't actually know.

Talk it over with the priest, then the rest of the group if they're involved, the DM shouldn't participate in intra-party activity unless you need an arbiter. RAW it's left up to the DM who can be persuaded, what the check will be and the DC of the check.

[Edenbeast]

So it seems most people agree this should be talked over. With who first though? The priest, the DM or the group? Also the RAW on the situation, can you use persuasion on PCs by default in 5e? I know you explicit couldn't in 3.5, but was that part of the rules included in 5e? I assumed it was but I realized I don't actually know.

I would say the group. 5e doesn't explicitly say (I think), but in my mind these skills are intended for interactions with npc's and the world in general, and only rarely should they be used between PC's. One exception I can think of is a game of armwrestling. But when deciding who goes first, I'd say role-play it without dice-rolls. If the players don't come to a conclusion, the DM could say you spend the next hour arguing and could even throw in a random encounter to create some pressure.


Ofcourse a minute later friends wore off and the cleric realized my character had tricked him, but by then he didn't want to make a deal out of it then as we were already moving towards the exit.

"Friends" should not be used between PC's.

[Boci]

"Friends" should not be used between PC's.

That seems irrelevant. Friends gives advantage on charisma checks. If you're allowed to use charisma checks between PC, then presumably you're allowed to use friends to gain advantage. If you're not allowed to use charisma checks between PCs, then using Friends for advantage won't do any good.

[Edenbeast]

That seems irrelevant. Friends gives advantage on charisma checks. If you're allowed to use charisma checks between PC, then presumably you're allowed to use friends to gain advantage. If you're not allowed to use charisma checks between PCs, then using Friends for advantage won't do any good.

It gives advantage on charisma checks against one creature of your choice. The spell description specifically states that when the spell ends the creature becomes hostile towards you. It is designed for interacting with NPC's not between PC's. It is relevant, and worth discussing at your table, especially since you mentioned your DM is relatively new. It's tricky to use the spell this way, and if I was DM I would not allow it.

[Unoriginal]

True, the PC should have attacked yours. Or at least reacted so negatively they would have let you die given the chance.

[Edenbeast]

True, the PC should have attacked yours. Or at least reacted so negatively they would have let you die given the chance.

Not necessarily use violence, but seeking retribution in some other form.

[Boci]

It gives advantage on charisma checks against one creature of your choice. The spell description specifically states that when the spell ends the creature becomes hostile towards you. It is designed for interacting with NPC's not between PC's. It is relevant, and worth discussing at your table, especially since you mentioned your DM is relatively new. It's tricky to use the spell this way, and if I was DM I would not allow it.

Even if I didn't use friends, I still would have rolled roll +6 persuasion vs. the clerics +0. Whether or not charisma checks can be used against other PCs seems way more important than whether or not Friends can be used.


True, the PC should have attacked yours. Or at least reacted so negatively they would have let you die given the chance.

That's up to them to deicide, I told them what the spell said about that, but they chose to do nothing since we were busy making our way out. They actually saved my character later that session, which will likely result in her being less inclind to use that spell on them in future.

[Sinon]

Even if I didn't use friends, I still would have rolled roll +6 persuasion vs. the clerics +0. Whether or not charisma checks can be used against other PCs seems way more important than whether or not Friends can be used.

That's up to them to deicide, I told them what the spell said about that, but they chose to do nothing since we were busy making our way out. They actually saved my character later that session, which will likely result in her being less inclind to use that spell on them in future.

Firstly, I am also extremely opposed to any sort of PvP nonsense.

And that nearly always starts with a player choosing to play a problematic character. In RL games and in every discussion like this, it starts with a person deciding to play a character who doesn't work well with others in a game that requires you to work well with others.

A conflict inevitably results.

In this instance, I think an opposed Cha check for two characters who (with good in-character motivation) won't either back down should have been fine. Speeds things up, gets the action going again.

But you used magic. And that's a problem.

The Friends cantrip has the hostility rider there for a reason. Additionally, there is no expiration on that. You can't shrug off enchantments or ignore them because it suits you.

If you were charmed, you'd have to regard the caster as a friendly acquaintance. The DM should require you to RP that.

Likewise, the cleric should have had to RP their hostility as well. (Consider that, in-character, your warlock knows that the cleric is going to be hostile.) The cleric would have a lot of leeway on how they'd RP their hostility, but unless they have an in-character reason for continuing to work with your character, they shouldn't have. (I'd have let your character die, and I'd ask for an XP bonus for RP when I did so.)

The DM should have considered the consequences of your using that spell on another PC and made those consequences clear when you said you were still going use it.

Were I your DM, I'd have serious reservations about continuing to include a player who, fully informed, still chose to go PvP in that manner.

[Damon_Tor]

I like it when a player invites another to use opposed social roles to settle a dispute. But there are some key words there: both players have to consent to this, and ultimately, it's up to those players to decide what the result of those rolls means to their characters.

[Boci]

And that nearly always starts with a player choosing to play a problematic character. In RL games and in every discussion like this, it starts with a person deciding to play a character who doesn't work well with others in a game that requires you to work well with others.

My character does work well with others. In the fight before this she ran out of cover to within 10ft of 4 archers so she could fey presence them and cause them to waste a round of shooting (two of the arrows going into her) so the party could drag the unconcious barbarian behind cover. You're taking a single action of my character and assuming that defines her.


Likewise, the cleric should have had to RP their hostility as well. (Consider that, in-character, your warlock knows that the cleric is going to be hostile.) The cleric would have a lot of leeway on how they'd RP their hostility, but unless they have an in-character reason for continuing to work with your character, they shouldn't have. (I'd have let your character die, and I'd ask for an XP bonus for RP when I did so.)

Your character would let a 14 year old girl die because she cast a spell on you that whilst very rude and a violation of your mind, did not actually hurt you in the long run? I mean, sure if you're character is vindictive and evil, then yeah, that's worth bonus XP for RP-ing.

[Keravath]

I agree with the crowd that inter-party social conflicts should not be resolved with dice rolls. The players play the characters and they decide. If the role played character finds the argument convincing weighing in the high stat in their decision then they play it how they like. If the player decides they want to roll a dice themselves to help them decide then that is fine too but it should never be resolved with an opposed dice roll imposed by the DM.

If you used the friends cantrip then your fate is sealed ...

"When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you".

You might get a better reaction for a minute but the cocky teenager casting friends on party members will find out what it means to have party members hostile towards them very soon. The other party members who witnessed the casting of the cantrip are also likely to react badly unless it is a mostly evil party in which case they might chuckle.

Anyway, once the friends ended after 1 minute ... the cleric is unlikely to walk at the front and is very likely to be angry.

Bottom line is that the situation is now setup for some real intra-party conflict. If I was the cleric, the odds of you getting a healing word if you need it might be pretty slim now ... though it depends on the cleric's alignment and outlook to some extent.

-----------

Anyway, trying to force a party member to take some action and using spells or class abilities to enforce it IS PVP even if you aren't directly attacking them ... and you really need to have a discussion with group as to what sort of campaign you folks want to play.

[mephnick]

I only allow checks between PCs if both parties agree to the terms of the check and consent to it.

If one players say "I'll never go along with that." That's it. The other player will have to convince them in or out of character to go along with it by talking it out.

If both players agree to let the dice decide and agree to abide by the dice like good sports, then I allow it.

If someone agrees to abide by the dice and then gets cranky with the result, I know they aren't trustworthy and don't let it happen again.

[Sinon]

My character does work well with others. In the fight before this she ran out of cover to within 10ft of 4 archers so she could fey presence them and cause them to waste a round of shooting (two of the arrows going into her) so the party could drag the unconcious barbarian behind cover. You're taking a single action of my character and assuming that defines her.I'm limited to the information you first provided.

And even with this new info, I stand by my assessment. OK, you did some good things, but you also described the character as "bratty" and cast a spell on a fellow character in order to get your way, a spell with a consequence of hostility, which presumably you understood and considered irrelevant.

I'm sure you've done lots of helpful, great things, but you also sowed discord in the party in what, based on your description of yourself, was at least in part motivated by childish petulance.

When I say you are playing a problem character it is because you are playing a character who has caused (at least by the standards of any group I've been in) at least one serious problem.

To be clear: maybe this isn't a problem for your group. Now. But if you don't confront this, at least to yourself, you will very likely have issues later.


Your character would let a 14 year old girl die because she cast a spell on you that whilst very rude and a violation of your mind, did not actually hurt you in the long run? I mean, sure if you're character is vindictive and evil, then yeah, that's worth bonus XP for RP-ing. I am not only magically compelled to regard you as hostile, but you also have a history of using aggressive magic against me, resulting in my putting myself at increased risk.


The cleric didn't want to take their usual position towards the front since they were almost dead and said I should go instead, since I was at full HP.It doesn't matter that we survived. The fact that we survived doesn't alter the facts.

If a similar situation were to arise, do I have any reason to think you wouldn't do it again?

Would letting you die be a vindictive move? Yes. Evil? Hard to say, but since attacking you outright is a legitimate response, as per the spell description, I don't see how that's more evil than merely not putting my life at risk for you or saving my resources (like healing spells) for actual friends whom I believe will also have my back.

Let me ask: has the cleric shown any sign of hostility toward your character?
How has the cleric behaved when confronted by hostile NPCs or monsters?
How did the other characters react to this?

[Maelynn]

she cast a spell on you that whilst very rude and a violation of your mind, did not actually hurt you in the long run?

You might want to look up the definition of hostile. The spell clearly states that the target of the spell becomes hostile towards the caster. That hostility can range from having a row to killing the other, depending on how the relationship between the characters was and how much the act affected the character.

Because, like you said yourself: it's a violation. Your character assaulted him, without consent. Doesn't matter whether it's a physical or mental penetration, it's still a violation. And the result, the victim turning hostile, is not only as per the rules but also very understandable. The fact that the player behind the victim didn't make a big deal out of it makes him the better player, imho.

[Boci]

Would letting you die be a vindictive move? Yes. Evil? Hard to say

No its not. An adult letting a young character die through a vindictive move is evil. There's no getting out of that. You can backfist her and tell her not to do that again. This is the middle ages, parents are given a bit more leeway for raising their children, and the party members are basically her parents. But yeah, you cannot let her die and claim a non-evil alighment.


Because, like you said yourself: it's a violation. Your character assaulted him, without consent. Doesn't matter whether it's a physical or mental penetration, it's still a violation. And the result, the victim turning hostile, is not only as per the rules but also very understandable. The fact that the player behind the victim didn't make a big deal out of it makes him the better player, imho.

THank you for confirming my understanding of my own words. I'm not saying a character can't react badly to this situation. I didn't even say you can't let her die as a result. I just said that if you did, you are evil.

[Unoriginal]

Your character would let a 14 year old girl die because she cast a spell on you that whilst very rude and a violation of your mind, did not actually hurt you in the long run? I mean, sure if you're character is vindictive and evil, then yeah, that's worth bonus XP for RP-ing.

The spell literally makes you hostile to the caster.

You can't say "the spell's effects allows me to do that" and then ignore part of the effects.

Also I think you're understating how much of a violation it is.


situation. I didn't even say you can't let her die as a result. I just said that if you did, you are evil.

As long as you admit that your character is evil too for inflicting that on someone.

[Boci]

The spell literally makes you hostile to the caster.

You can't say "the spell's effects allows me to do that" and then ignore part of the effects.

Also I think you're understating how much of a violation it is.

I have never ignored any parts of the spell, I don't know why people seem to think that. Hostile or not, letting a 14 year old die is evil.


As long as you admit that your character is evil too for inflicting that on someone.

Yes, I never disputed that.

[Dudewithknives]

I would have to wonder why the party is venturing in dangerous areas with annoying baggage with them.

You cast a spell to manipulate a party members mind and at the very least you are getting left in the next town. If

Letting the person die is definitely not good, but I would. It call it outright evil.

[Sinon]

No its not. An adult letting a young character die through a vindictive move is evil. There's no getting out of that. You can backfist her and tell her not to do that again.
I didn't address this the first time you said it, but I have to now:

You don't get a pass on disruptive behavior because you chose to make your character a kid. Oh, and it isn’t the middle ages; it’s D&D, where some creatures mature at 8 and other live to be 700.

The fact that you're making such an argument only makes me more certain your DM needs to have a serious conversation with you and less certain that it will actually matter.

This goes back to what I said before about players creating problem characters.

Obviously, D&D is not realistic, but I think people do like to play characters who behave in logically consistent ways.

Yes, maybe a bratty kid is fun for you to play.

But how many of your fellow players sat down and said to themselves, “OK, I want to play a character who’s a doormat, willing to put up with the shenanigans of teenaged jerk who aggressively uses magic against me whenever they don’t get their way.“

If your answer isn’t, "All of them," you’re creating a problem. The other players have to mute the reactions of their characters just to keep the game going, or react in-character and wreck the game with even more PvP.


You're taking a single action of my character and assuming that defines her.Right back at ya.

I am not going to participate in some nauseating "is it evil" discussion.

You attacked another character.
You should expect a response.

That other character is magically compelled to regard you as hostile.
You should expect a response.

Bring an "I'm sorry pizza" to your next session along with a special "I won't do that again Mountain Dew" (or whatever you whippersnappers drink) for the cleric.

Or, don't. Maybe they did sign on to play that way.

[Boci]

But how many of your fellow players sat down and said to themselves, “OK, I want to play a character who’s a doormat, willing to put up with the shenanigans of teenaged jerk who aggressively uses magic against me whenever they don’t get their way.“

I don't need them to be doormats. I never said this, and in tfact mentioned some courses of action they could take, like backfisting her, which isn't doormatty.

Plus its important to realize I didn't know the friend would even work in the way it did.


Right back at ya.

That doesn't work. An adult letting someone die through vindictiveness is not the same as bratty teenagers childish petulance. You can define the formers character from that one action. The latter, not so much.



You attacked another character.
You should expect a response.

I did expect a response. I was dissapointed when the cleric didn't respond to it. I didn't mention that because this thread was about the house rule, not the situation it first arose in. Sorry, but you've completly misjudged me and the situation.


I would have to wonder why the party is venturing in dangerous areas with annoying baggage with them.

Because she's useful? Like I get it, the friends thing was annoying, that was kinda the point (didn't know it would work, but that's why she tried), but it ultimatly didn't have any negative consequences for the party, where as my character had been immensly helpful in several other situations, contributing in combat, prevent some guards from raising the alarm and absorbing a whole round sworth of shooting.

[Honest Tiefling]

I hate the no personal skills used on players.

I used to play with a guy who always made it his mission to play a character whose entire personality was built to piss off one other PC, most of the time mine because I tend to play lawful characters and he always plays CN and is pretty much a troll IRL as well.

I didn't need to rest to tell you that this isn't a good argument that interpersonal skills shouldn't be used on player characters because this game already sounds like a dumpster fire. Reading the rest has informed me that it is so much of a dumpster fire that it is actually a portal to the para-elemental plane of dumpster fires. The DM just had it out for you, plain and simple. Please tell me you have found a more sensible group to play with.

Through, a question for the OP: Do any of the other players have issue with this? Having the cleric roll once might be cool with the player, but I don't think checking on things and asking them outside of the game is going to be a bad idea. See if anyone else seems annoyed or disengaged with the story. If no other player objects, then I think it's really up to you to decide if you want to address it. Personally, I think it is very OP and rewards raw charisma score instead of backstory or roleplaying, but maybe it's working out well for you guys.

[Boci]

Through, a question for the OP: Do any of the other players have issue with this? Having the cleric roll once might be cool with the player, but I don't think checking on things and asking them outside of the game is going to be a bad idea. See if anyone else seems annoyed or disengaged with the story. If no other player objects, then I think it's really up to you to decide if you want to address it. Personally, I think it is very OP and rewards raw charisma score instead of backstory or roleplaying, but maybe it's working out well for you guys.

The cleric seemed fine with it, he didn't make a big deal out of it and later he saved my character, I'm hardly an expert face reader but the player seemed okay about it, but then he's a new player, he might think this is just how D&D works, rather than an a-typical rulling from the DM.

I do have reservations about the OP-ness of this too, hence why I'm not sure why so much energy is being focused on the friends thing, because here the things, friends is good in this situation. A minute later, they get to call my character on what she did, they get options on how to act. Without friends, my character still likely wins, +6 persuasion vs. -1 or 0 for the rest of the party. Without advantage I may win less often, but it will still be the majority of the time, and then they won't get an out. It much less interactive if I don't use Friends.

[Dudewithknives]

I don't need them to be doormats. I never said this, and in tfact mentioned some courses of action they could take, like backfisting her, which isn't doormatty.

Plus its important to realize I didn't know the friend would even work in the way it did.



That doesn't work. An adult letting someone die through vindictiveness is not the same as bratty teenagers childish petulance. You can define the formers character from that one action. The latter, not so much.



I did expect a response. I was dissapointed when the cleric didn't respond to it. I didn't mention that because this thread was about the house rule, not the situation it first arose in. Sorry, but you've completly misjudged me and the situation.



Because she's useful? Like I get it, the friends thing was annoying, that was kinda the point (didn't know it would work, but that's why she tried), but it ultimatly didn't have any negative consequences for the party, where as my character had been immensly helpful in several other situations, contributing in combat, prevent some guards from raising the alarm and absorbing a whole round sworth of shooting.

Every character can be useful, that is part of the game an the way things are built. Your character as a person is annoying and casts enchantment spells at party members.

You chose to play a character that is immature and annoying.
You chose to role play them casting hostile spells against your team.
Don’t get upset when the group replaces your immature 14 year old with a different character whose personality and talents help the group just as much.

If I was playing the character you cast friends on you would have been stabbed and then left behind at the nearest town.

You cast a spell that you know makes a teammate hostile to you, you will get hostility.

[Boci]

Every character can be useful, that is part of the game an the way things are built. Your character as a person is annoying and casts enchantment spells at party members.

Yes, but that's metagaming. The party doesn't know that getting rid of my character will cause a new one to replace them. Its not my current character vs. a potential nother, if my character vs. not my character and being one bratty teenager down. And whilst my character is annoying, they are doing more than enough to justify their presence.

[Sinon]

That doesn't work. An adult letting someone die through vindictiveness is not the same as bratty teenagers childish petulance. You can define the formers character from that one action. The latter, not so much.Great you win. I'm evil.
That decidedly irrelevant aspect of the discussion is done.


I did expect a response. I was dissapointed when the cleric didn't respond to it. I didn't mention that because this thread was about the house rule, not the situation it first arose in. Sorry, but you've completly misjudged me and the situation.OK, your houserule is more of a ruling. The DM made a call. I would have handed the cleric situation similarly, except with the warning that your behavior as a player is inconsistent with the sort of game I'm willing to run and if you want to play that way in the future, one of us won't be here.

My opinion is that while sometimes opposed checks like this between players is appropriate, it should rarely be an issue.

If a significant number of your in-character interactions need dice, that’s a sign of a larger problem.


But the conversation has taken a turn to what may very well be one of those larger problems.


I don't need them to be doormats. I never said this, and in tfact mentioned some courses of action they could take, like backfisting her, which isn't doormatty. But they didn't react, at all as far as I can tell from the details you've provided.

I don't know why they didn't, but I suspect it was because they didn't want to escalate things. And physically attacking you would have. This is how gaming groups break up, and even mediocre games can be hard to find.

Seriously.

You attacked another player's character. The rest of the party did not attack your character.

Unless they all have really great in-character reasons not to have done so, and I mean reasons powerful enough to ignore a magically imposed condition, then it was the PLAYERS choosing to tolerate your behavior.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad by telling you that your fellow players are merely tolerating you.

But I think there's a good chance that some of your fellow players may be merely tolerating you.


Plus its important to realize I didn't know the friend would even work in the way it did.Even if we regard, "I didn't read the spell description" as a defense, you do know now.

Maybe the rest of your group didn't either. But they very likely didn't appreciate the way things went down and will be less likely to do so in the future.

Do you still think your behavior was appropriate? If you do, ok, we're at an impasse. Bye.

If you don't, make it right to your group.

Just so we're very clear: I don't think you're a bad person because you played this way. i think there is some inexperience all around, and that you might be having a greater impact on other people's fun than you're open to admitting here.

I think your group has issues to work out regarding PvP and RP and how an individual's decisions affect everyone else.

I'm telling you this as a guy who has walked away from games.

I'm telling you this a guy who's had to tell a person the rest of us didn't want him back.

And even if I am 100% up to my eyeballs in manure in every other way, you still should have a conversation with your group about this and pizza and cold beverages have never made a bad first impression when you have to initiate that sort of discussion.

[Honest Tiefling]

The cleric seemed fine with it, he didn't make a big deal out of it and later he saved my character, I'm hardly an expert face reader but the player seemed okay about it, but then he's a new player, he might think this is just how D&D works, rather than an a-typical rulling from the DM.

I believe I should strongly urge you to speak with the player and ask if they are okay with it. Better to keep a new player that is workable than to make them burn out and become frustrated when a bit of communication could have prevented that.


I do have reservations about the OP-ness of this too, hence why I'm not sure why so much energy is being focused on the friends thing, because here the things, friends is good in this situation. A minute later, they get to call my character on what she did, they get options on how to act. Without friends, my character still likely wins, +6 persuasion vs. -1 or 0 for the rest of the party. Without advantage I may win less often, but it will still be the majority of the time, and then they won't get an out. It much less interactive if I don't use Friends.

It's a problem because you can just whip it out and win an argument. Other players might not feel like they have enough agency and feel like they are your minions. I'm not saying you would intentionally abuse it, but you did admit to not being able to read people on the fly. I don't think you should STOP with the friends spell if everyone is okay with it, just maybe make sure everything is going alright.

I also suggest rolling with the age thing or something else of her backstory to shove the spotlight onto other characters. At least one is quite new, why not use that charisma score to nudge them onto center stage for a bit? Or even hinting at ways to control YOUR character somehow.

[Boci]

And the fact that the other PCs didn't respond is where things went.

But they didn't react, at all as far as I can tell from the details you've provided.

They didn't react yes, but its unfair for you to say I want doormats, because I didn't want doormats and even if I did I couldn't have controlled how the players. You're coming off as trying to dmeonize me by making up context that flat out doesn't exist.


I don't know why they didn't, but I suspect it was because they didn't want to escalate things. And physically attacking you would have.

No it wouldn't have. No one on this thread thinks that, not even me.


Even if we regard, "I didn't read the spell description" as a defense, you do know now.

No no no. I did read the spell and I knew how it worked. I didn't know it would work, not how it work. I didn't know it would work, because I kinda expected my DM to not let persuasion checks work on PCs, which would have meant friends didn't really work in the situation.


And even if I am 100% up to my eyeballs in manure in every other way, you still should have a conversation with your group about this and pizza and cold beverages have never made a bad first impression when you have to initiate that sort of discussion.

Sorry, but willingly or not you misread and misjudged too much for me to do that.


It's a problem because you can just whip it out and win an argument.

But I can win an argument without friends, and then they don't get to change their mind a minute later. Persuasion plus friends give me a 90% chance to win an argument for 1 minute. Persuasion without friends gives me a 70% chance to win an argument forever. The latter seems more problomatic to me. I feel that is a very important detail everyone else is overlooking.

[Sinon]

They didn't react yes, but its unfair for you to say I want doormats, because I didn't want doormats and even if I did I couldn't have controlled how the players. You're coming off as trying to dmeonize me by making up context that flat out doesn't exist.It doesn't matter what you want.

When you go PvP, which is what you did, other players have to deal with it in-character, which escalates the situation, or ignore it and hope the problem goes away.

I defined the latter as "playing a doormat," but we don't need to argue about definitions. What matters is that your behavior created a situation where the other players were forced to make a choice between two bad options: escalating the PvP or playing characters who tolerate your behavior.

You've said that you suggested to the other players that they could "backfist" your character.

That is an escalation. (Starting to wonder if we do need to discuss some definitions.)

Regardless, the rest of the party chose to do nothing at all. If my suggestion as to why they made that choice is wrong, well, why do you think they didn't do anything?

I asked before: Did any members of the party do anything in-character in response to your attacking the cleric with this spell?

I have another question, too: do you want a PvP game? If you do, fine. Not my bag, but, you know, whatever.

I might, though, point out that there is some evidence for the claim that your fellow players don't, since, well, they didn't respond to your attacking one of them.


No no no. I did read the spell and I knew how it worked. I didn't know it would work, not how it work. I didn't know it would work, because I kinda expected my DM to not let persuasion checks work on PCs, which would have meant friends didn't really work in the situation.OK, hold up. I went back a reread your initial claim, and the reason I interpreted it the way I did is because this explanation makes even less sense:

You're saying, you knew the spell would cause the other PC to become hostile. You know what "hostile" means. But you thought it wouldn't cause hostility because the DM wouldn't let the spell work in that situation.

And when the DM did let the spell work, you did it anyway.


Sorry, but willingly or not you misread and misjudged too much for me to do that.I've misjudged you so much you're unwilling to have a conversation with your friends.

Sorry? I guess?

[Boci]

You've said that you suggested to the other players that they could "backfist" your character.

That is an escalation. (Starting to wonder if we do need to discuss some definitions.)

You are the only person on this thread so far who thinks that by my count. Everyone else things its a justified response or too mild.


You're saying, you knew the spell would cause the other PC to become hostile. You know what "hostile" means. But you thought it wouldn't cause hostility because the DM wouldn't let the spell work in that situation.

I didn't know what the spell would do, because different DM's would make different rule calls. There are plenty of DMs on this thread where it would not have worked, and I didn't know which one my DM would go with. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.


And when the DM did let the spell work, you did it anyway.

Did it anyway? I'd already done it. I couldn't take it back by then.


I've misjudged you so much you're unwilling to have a conversation with your friends.

Sorry? I guess?

Nope, you missed what I was saying. Again. I was already going to talk to them, as noted in the first post. Its GitP, ofcourse talk about it was going to be the advice given, I know the forums well enough to predict that they weren't going to like persuasion on PCs. I did ask who I should talk to first, and here I was less certain, the players, the DM or the group. I'm going to talk to them, you can't stop that, but you have failed to convince me your advice is worth listening to.

[Mellack]

My reading is that you are disrupting the gameplay of the players. I suggest that you talk this over with the group, especially the player of the character you cast on, and apologize. This really has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game, it has to do with playing a cooperative game with a group of people to have fun. I believe you damaged that fun. If you want it to remain a fun game that everyone is welcome at, you need to work this out with the other players so that everyone feels they are able to contribute and work together.

[Boci]

My reading is that you are disrupting the gameplay of the players.

Based on what? The cleric gave no indication they minded to my eyes. What do you think you've read that I missed?

[Mellack]

Based on what? The cleric gave no indication they minded to my eyes. What do you think you've read that I missed?

You forced them to play their character in a way they did not desire. A character is really the only thing that a player has control of in the game. Denying them that control is disruptive to gameplay IMO. That you had to force them against their will shows that they minded.

[Sinon]

Everyone else things its a justified response or too mild.I concede. This logic is undeniable.


I didn't know what the spell would do, because different DM's would make different rule calls. There are plenty of DMs on this thread where it would not have worked, and I didn't know which one my DM would go with. Not sure whats so hard to understand about that.But you cast a spell, the function of which is to influence another's behavior, on another PC, and the stated effect of that spell, whether you succeed in a Cha check or not, is the target becomes hostile.

And you did this on the assumption that the DM would say, "No, you can't do that."

Really?

I know more things happen later, but i clearly need you to walk me though it step-by-step.

I promise I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. I am genuinely confused.

[Boci]

You forced them to play their character in a way they did not desire.

You don't know that. I don't know that. All we know if that his character didn't want to lead.


But you cast a spell, the function of which is to influence another's behavior, on another PC, and the stated effect of that spell, whether you succeed in a Cha check or not, is the target becomes hostile.

And you did this on the assumption that the DM would say, "No, you can't do that."

Really?

No. I cast a spell my character uses to get her own way, and as a player I wasn't sure how the DM would rule it in that situation. Maybe it would work the same, maybe the DM would say no perusasion on fellow PC, nullyfying any positive effects of the spell. I didn't mind the hostile part, as previously noted I dissapointed when nothing came of it. Also I was looking for an excuse to cast it because I liked described the applying of rouge as part of the spell's somatic components.

[Mellack]

You don't know that. I don't know that. All we know if that his character didn't want to lead.

And you forced them to. To me that breaks the rules of polite group gameplay.

[Mellack]

I didn't mind the hostile part, as previously noted I dissapointed when nothing came of it.

I am confused by that. It would seem the natural result of making them hostile would be for the group to stop adventuring together, essentially ending the game. You were disappointed they ignored it so the game could continue?

[Boci]

I am confused by that. It would seem the natural result of making them hostile would be for the group to stop adventuring together, essentially ending the game. You were disappointed they ignored it so the game could continue?

No, I assumed Chiandra would face condequences (eg. a stern talking to and/or a backhand to the face) for her actions and it would be a learning moment for her.

Its strange how the people saying I was wrong for using friends to influence the cleric seem to be really keen to dictate exactly what the cleric needed to do in response to the spell in defiance of what they chose to do.

[Mellack]

No, I assumed Chiandra would face condequences (eg. a stern talking to and/or a backhand to the face) for her actions and it would be a learning moment for her.

Its strange how the people saying I was wrong for using friends to influence the cleric seem to be really keen to dictate exactly what the cleric needed to do in response to the spell in defiance of what they chose to do.

Can you point out where I said what the cleric should do? Or was that in reference to someone else?

Have you asked the player how they felt and why they acted as they did? That would be the person who you effected.

[Boci]

Can you point out where I said what the cleric should do? Or was that in reference to someone else?

It was aimed at several people, including you. You said this should have resulted in "the group to stop adventuring together", which seems to suggest a particular course of action for the cleric.


Have you asked the player how they felt and why they acted as they did? That would be the person who you effected.

That was one of the questions in this thread, who do I talk to first, the player, the DM or the group as a whole.

[Sinon]

No. I cast a spell my character uses to get her own way, and as a player I wasn't sure how the DM would rule it in that situation. Maybe it would work the same, maybe the DM would say no perusasion on fellow PC, nullyfying any positive effects of the spell. I didn't mind the hostile part, as previously noted I dissapointed when nothing came of it. Also I was looking for an excuse to cast it because I liked described the applying of rouge as part of the spell's somatic components.
OK, so you WANTED a PvP situation. The fact that the DM let you persuade the cleric is the problem! The DM's ruling is a bug, not the feature in your plan.

You attacked a fellow party member expressly for the purpose of creating the hostility in the hopes of getting backfisted by the cleric - which, dang, I'm recalling that you said you could win without the spell. I get it.

(Which is not escalation, unless you were on an escalator, which, I know, silly.)

Yep. You're right. I misread this whole thing.

Though, in fairness, I did ask if that was what you wanted.

[Mellack]

It was aimed at several people, including you. You said this should have resulted in "the group to stop adventuring together", which seems to suggest a particular course of action for the cleric.



You misunderstood then. I in no way suggested that was what the player should have done, and indeed the very next sentence gave a good reason why they would choose not to act in such a way. Because it is a game would be a valid reason for them to overlook such an action. You are reading things that are not there.

[Mellack]

Many players and groups are against any PvP. Often this is discussed before gameplay begins. You need to talk with the group about how they intend to deal with it and I would suggest if any player is not 100% accepting of it to not have any PvP at all.

[Boci]

OK, so you WANTED a PvP situation. The fact that the DM let you persuade the cleric is the problem! The DM's ruling is a bug, not the feature in your plan.

You attacked a fellow part member expressly for the purpose of creating the hostility in the hopes of getting backfisted by the cleric -

I would have been happy with either outcome really. Spell fizzles, fine, creates a roleplay moment (Why didn't that work? It worked before!), spell works and cleric gets angry, fine. I guess of all the outcome possible, the spell working and the cleric not getting angry was likely my least favorite outcome, but I didn't consider that possibility.


which now that I'm recalling that you said you could win without the spell.

That's just a statistical fact. The DM had us roll opposed persuasion checks. +6 vs. +0 means I will likely win without advantage.


You misunderstood then. I in no way suggested that was what the player should have done, and indeed the very next sentence gave a good reason why they would choose not to act in such a way. Because it is a game would be a valid reason for them to overlook such an action. You are reading things that are not there.

There is a fair bit of middle ground between "end the adventure" and "overlook it completly".

[Sinon]

There is a fair bit of middle ground between "end the adventure" and "overlook it completly".Yes, it's called Player v Player.


...cleric gets angry, fine. I guess of all the outcome possible, the spell working and the cleric not getting angry was likely my least favorite outcome, but I didn't consider that possibility.Yes, this is called Player v Player.


That's just a statistical fact. The DM had us roll opposed persuasion checks. +6 vs. +0 means I will likely win without advantage.Though I am often confused by the way numbers work, it wasn't the first-grade math I was commenting on, but the significance of your bringing it up in the first place.

[Mellack]

There is a fair bit of middle ground between "end the adventure" and "overlook it completly".

There is, but just as you couldn't guess how they would react, they couldn't guess how you would react. They might have believed that retaliation would lead to full attack. They probably took the safest and easiest route which was to ignore it. This is doubly true if they are a newer player as I think you said they are.
I would suggest you start by apologizing and talking with the cleric's player and then discuss it with the whole group.

[Dudewithknives]

Yes, but that's metagaming. The party doesn't know that getting rid of my character will cause a new one to replace them. Its not my current character vs. a potential nother, if my character vs. not my character and being one bratty teenager down. And whilst my character is annoying, they are doing more than enough to justify their presence.

There is nothing metagaming about the PCs looking at your character and saying “this person is not helping us and needs to be replaced, we we get to the next town we are dropping them and looking for another good talker”

If you are bothersome to a group of adventurers who are already dealing with deadly situations Fairly regularly, don’t be surprised when the adventuring party drops you.

Also you were outright meta gaming doing it in the first place because you said you cast it to try to see if the dm would let it go, and if they did you could get a plot point.

At that point your character would be gone from the group, do it again and you would be gone from the table.

[Boci]

Though I am often confused by the way numbers work, it wasn't the first-grade math I was commenting on, but the significance of your bringing it up in the first place.

Because it means I likely didn't need to use friends on the cleric for my character get her way? I could have just rolled persuasion and won, and then he wouldn't have even have had a chance to change his mind. I brought it up because it highlights a seperate issue, that if persuasion can be used on PCs, going forwards my character could guild the party more times than not, even better without friends because then theres no 1 minute duration.


There is nothing metagaming about the PCs looking at your character and saying “this person is not helping us and needs to be replaced, we we get to the next town we are dropping them and looking for another good talker”

Yes, but my character was helping them. I mentioned this, you quoted the posts where I mentioned that, so I assume you saw that.


Also you were outright meta gaming doing it in the first place because you said you cast it to try to see if the dm would let it go, and if they did you could get a plot point.

It would be metagaming not to do it. My character didn't have a reason not to try.


At that point your character would be gone from the group, do it again and you would be gone from the table.

As the Spartans alledgedly replied to the Athens, "If" (I was playing at your table). But I'm not. So bringing it up doesn't add a whole bunch.

[Mellack]

As the Spartans alledgedly replied to the Athens, "If" (I was playing at your table). But I'm not. So bringing it up doesn't add a whole bunch.

You asked for opinions. Bringing up how other tables would handle this is exactly what this forum is for. That you do not seem to want those opinions now seems self-serving.

[Boci]

You asked for opinions. Bringing up how other tables would handle this is exactly what this forum is for. That you do not seem to want those opinions now seems self-serving.

Phrasing means a lot. "I think you did wrong" is fine, I didn't snap at you for saying I was being disruptive, but adding the context of what would happen at your own table doesn't add anything over "this is what I think" and I find it a far less pleasant way of phrasing it.

Also technically, I never asked for opinions about my character, but rather about the houserule and how to discuss it with the others.

[Dudewithknives]

Phrasing means a lot. "I think you did wrong" is fine, I didn't snap at you for saying I was being disruptive, but adding the context of what would happen at your own table doesn't add anything over "this is what I think" and I find it a far less pleasant way of phrasing it.

Also technically, I never asked for opinions about my character, but rather about the houserule and how to discuss it with the others.

I think I understand why your group does not get along.

[Boci]

I think I understand why your group does not get along.

We do get along. We have had no problems so far. I never said we don't get along. What is it with people making up non-existent context to justify their opinions in this thread?

[Sinon]

Because it means I likely didn't need to use friends on the cleric for my character get her way? Yes, 6 > 0; I have recourse to a numberline if things get harder; thanks for the help.

I once had a neighbor spend five minutes talking about the difference in cost between two auto-body shops before I realized my son had backed the grocery-getter into his Buick the day before.

There I was thinking he just liked to hear himself talk about irrelevancies, when WHAT! - got hit by the lesson.


I could have just rolled persuasion and won, and then he wouldn't have even have had a chance to change his mind.What?
OK, firstly, what in the spell suggests it’s effects automatically end at the end of the minute? Nothing.

When the spell ends, I lose my advantage, but not necessarily the effects of previously made skill or ability checks.

This is clearly a DM judgement call; I would suggest that checks like Deception might end when the character becomes hostile, but one like intimidation or the Cha check in your scenario? Not necessarily.

Something like Persuasion? Nearly half the arguments on the internet are being carried on by people who have known they were wrong for dozens of posts and are persevering only because they hate they person they’re arguing with so much.*

Likewise, there is no rule that says once a person is Persuaded/Deceived/Intimidated, they are so permanentlyX under normal circumstances.

People can get new information, be influenced by another, lots of things.

I wouldn’t let a player just choose to shrug it off, but circumstantially, they’ll get chances.


if persuasion can be used on PCs, going forwards my character could guild the party more times than not, even better without friends because then theres no 1 minute duration.Persuasion is used
…when acting in good faith, [sic] foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see he king, negotiating peace between waring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk. The lines between DCs on this, as well as those between what one can and cannot be persuaded of, are so vague that it is clearly, and I believe intentionally, entirely in the hands of the DM. And if DM is fine with one player running roughshod over the others, hey - not my kind of game.

Especially in a PvP campaign, a DM should be very careful about the extent to which they will allow skills like this to influence PCs.

*About 65% of participants know the other person was wrong, are relatively sure the other person knows that they know, and are only continuing to engage out of schadenfreude and ennui.

XI am using permanently as an antonym of "chance to change your mind."
I do not mean to suggest that Boci thinks that there was no way for the effect of a Cha check to wear off. I am using this comparison as a rhetorical device in my argument that, counter to Boci's apparent claims, the duration of any effect of a Cha check is not directly affected by the Friends spell.

[Boci]

I cannot think of a way to simplify it further. I can clarify that "permenient" was in fact meaning "not automatically undone after one minute" and didn't actually mean forever, but you seem to have grasped that much and are still confused.

The best I can think of is to say:

"Barring special cases like sneak attack, advantage does not let you do anything you couldn't already do, it simply increase your chance of success. Therefore, the friends cantrip alone cannot be the issue, as I can still roll high without it and achieve the same result."

If that doesn't work then we will have to call it quits, because then I definitly cannot make you understand.

[Guy Lombard-O]

"Yes, but my character was helping them. I mentioned this, you quoted the posts where I mentioned that, so I assume you saw that."

"It would be metagaming not to do it. My character didn't have a reason not to try."


It's probably a fool's errand to weigh in, but...

Your character helped them...sometimes. Then you decided not to. You let the party healer, the cleric, take point when he was almost dead. One surprise ambush and he'd likely be dead. Meanwhile, you're at full hit points. You decide that your warlock brat will not only refuse to pull her weight, but then decide to go PVP to stick the moribund cleric back on point. To make sure you get your way, you use a spell against a PC (that you're aware causes hostility - apparently hoping to sew discord). And you're reasoning behind this is that your character didn't have a reason not to try???

I can at least help you there, if nothing else. Your definition of your character helping them allows for risking the life of the (only?) caster who probably does healing best. You risked killing off a new player PC, because you wanted to create a plot point. You wanted to create hostility in the PC, while also risking (cuz your not great at reading people) creating hostility in the player. You made a tactically bad decision, and then went all out trying to make it stick using skills and spells PVP. That seems like lots of reasons why your character (and you) shouldn't have tried this.

A couple of earlier posters said they'd have stabbed or at least ditched your character. Maybe I'm just passive-aggressive. Or maybe I just like karma. But if that was my cleric, I'd have waited until you were yourself near-dead, and then repaid you with the kind of "help" you seem to think is okay for your fellow party members (hint: it isn't the kind most people are hoping for from the party cleric).

After your unfortunate demise, I'd be watching you carefully for any signs that your new character shared any unfortunate misunderstandings about the way party members should help each other to have a fun and cooperative storytelling game where the PCs have each other's backs and everyone's viewpoints and interests are honored.:smallwink:

[Boci]

Your character helped them...sometimes. Then you decided not to. You let the party healer, the cleric take point when he was almost dead."

Nope, the party barbarian took point. The disagreement was over who should take second place. Its in the opening post, "towards the front", not at the front.


A couple of earlier posters said they'd have stabbed or at least ditched your character. Maybe I'm just passive-aggressive. Or maybe I just like karma. But if that was my cleric, I'd have waited until you were yourself near-dead, and then repaid you with the kind of "help" you seem to think is okay for your fellow party members (hint: it isn't the kind most people are hoping for from the party cleric).

Latter that session three thugs tried to gang rape my character. In their place you could have let it happen for karma. This cleric though chose to interverne and save my character.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Nope, the party barbarian took point. The disagreement was over who should take second place. Its in the opening post, "towards the front", not at the front."

OK, well that is certainly far better. Good to know.

"Latter that session three thugs tried to gang raped. In their place you could have let it happen for karma. This cleric though chose to interverne and save my character.

Yikes! I think maybe your table has some larger issues if that's happening at the table.

Edit: sorry, my first comment somehow ended up in the middle of yours.

[Sinon]

Nope, the party barbarian took point. The disagreement was over who should take second place.
The only thing crazier than this information coming out after thee pages is the utter irrelevance of it.


You're DM might need to look more carefully at the rules for skill and ability checks.

You made your game a PvP game because that's what you wanted to play.

You are awesome at RPing 14-year-olds - and I mean this because of your "rouge on the cheek" comments, no other reason.

[Boci]

Yikes! I think maybe your table has some larger issues if that's happening at the table.

No one seemed to mind. I certainly didn't. Plus the cleric and the rest of the party saved my character. And going forwards, the fact that the cleric saved will leave my character confused, and then re-evaluate whether or not its acceptable to friends them to get her way.


The only thing crazier than this information coming out after thee pages is the utter irrelevance of it.

As I said, its in the opening post.

The second part of that post was new. I alluded to it previously (the guard got advantage on intimidate for threatening to do something horrible to my character) but didn't specify it because its a fairly dark scene that I didn't feel you needed to know. After 3 pages though, I couldn't help thinking posters were over reacting to what I had done and figured, maybe its because I ommitted details like that. Maybe that detail speaks to the kind of game we were playing that makes casting friends on a party member not such a big deal. Or maybe people still think I'm underestimating it.

[Sinon]

I don't know how to take you.

Towards the front, not at the front. Dang.

I want you to know how much I appreciate your tolerance, but could you explain the relevance of that for those of us who haven't been blessed with a dizzying intellect?



So I'm playing a bratty 14 year old half-elf warlock, proficient with diplomacy, hgih charisma a given. We were in a cave and were trying to decide marching order as we headed for the exit having gotten into a few fights already. The cleric didn't want to take their usual position towards the front since they were almost dead and said I should go instead, since I was at full HP. My character didn't like that one bit and so dabbed some rouge on her cheek and argued that he was much better armoured than her and beside it was his duty to protect the weak and children. My DM had us roll opposed charisma checks, so it was my +6 with advantage vs. the cleric's regular roll with a +0 modier, so ofcourse I won. The GM then told the cleric that this meant he agreed with my character. Ofcourse a minute later friends wore off and the cleric realized my character had tricked him, but by then he didn't want to make a deal out of it then as we were already moving towards the exit.

Later, my character was trading snarky comments with an NPC guard, until he had enough and threatened my character. We rolled opposed intimidation, I wasn't proficient this time but still had a high charisma modifier. I don't know what the guard's modier was but my character won. I got the feeling that if the guard had run my character would have been forced to run away.

Now, I honestly don't mind this house rule, but then it is hugely beneficial to my character so maybe I'm not the best judge. The cleric didn't complain but both he and the DM are newer to the game. Do I raise this issue? With the player first, the DM first, in front of the whole group at the start of next session, or should I just see how it works out?

[Boci]

I have to be honest: I don't know how to take you.

Towards the front, not at the front. Dang.

I want you to know how much I appreciate your tolerance, but could you explain the relevance of that for those of us who haven't been blissed with a dizzying intellect?

A "position towards the front" means a position in a group that is close to the front, whilst a "position at the front" would typically imply the front modst position. In a group large enough it might still not mean that, but it would still be closer than the former towards the front position.

"Moving towards the exit" by contrast simply specifies the destination behind the movement.

Do you speak English as a second language? Your posts are very good but I wouldn't expect a native speaker to be confused on the difference between towards and at in positioning, as subtle as they may be. Or maybe its a regional thing. I speak largely British English, though with enough US TV to pick up a few phrases and pronounciations.

[Sinon]

A "position towards the front" means a position in a group that is close to the front, whilst a "position at the front" would typically imply the front modst position. In a group large enough it might still not mean that, but it would still be closer than the former towards the front position.

"Moving towards the exit" by contrast simply specifies the destination behind the movement.

Do you speak English as a second language? Your posts are very good but I wouldn't expect a native speaker to be confused on the difference between towards and at in positioning, as subtle as they may be. Or maybe its a regional thing. I speak largely British English, though with enough US TV to pick up a few phrases and pronounciations.
I do speak English, thanks. First language, but I've studied Latin like a tiny bit, and to even a to a lesser extent Old English, and I know a smattering of Greek words.

I can count to five in Bengali and to over 20 in French. I'm trying to learn Spanish on my phone.

So, yeah, I know the difference between "towards" and "at," which is not to say I'm not really super impressed by your lesson. I may use it if I ever need to teach tautology.

The thing is, why do you think this information is important? And, preemptively, I know marching order is important to the marchers; it just isn't important to this conversation.

That information doesn't have any bearing the important facts here.

It has no bearing on whether or not your DM needs to figure out the rules for skill and ability checks.
It has no bearing on whether or not your decision to take your game PVP was cool the rest of the players.

[Boci]

The thing is, why do you think this information is important? And, preemptively, I know marching order is important to the marchers; it just isn't important to this conversation.

Important or not, I'm going to correct when someone gets it wrong. Guy Lombard-O said I made the cleric take point, which wasn't true, so I corrected them, especially since they made a point of how dangerous the front position was, it seemed to inform their opinion. Not sure why that is confusing you.

It was maybe less important to correct you, but you still made a mistake claiming it came out after 3 pages when it was in fact there from the start. Sorry correcting you caused such overcompensation. It's really not that big a deal.

[Sinon]

It isn't that important for me to correct people when the issues don't relate to the larger argument, but since it is important to you, the information that the cleric was typically towards the front but not necessarily at the front was there in your original post, but the presence of the barbarian helps contextualize the initial dispute by making the entire disagreement appear even more trivial.

That detail only came later.

For the record - this has no impact on my perspective, which is that your DM and the rest of your party need to review skill and ability checks;

And that you took your party PVP without getting a consensus on this sort of play from the rest of the players.

[furby076]

1. no social skill opposed checks between players. Hash it out.
2. You don't do opposed checks, you do a check against a dc. So if the dm wants to ignore #1, the DM should set a dC for the "defending" player. Same thing goes for the intimidate. Mitigating circumstance: 14 year old kid vs older guard. Unless kid is flashing warlock powers, guard will spank him and say "run along before i tell your parents"

[Boci]

It isn't that important for me to correct people when the issues don't relate to the larger argument, but since it is important to you, the information that the cleric was typically towards the front but not necessarily at the front was there in your original post, but the presence of the barbarian helps contextualize the initial dispute by making the entire disagreement appear even more trivial.

That detail only came later.

The detail that they were a barbarian didn't come until later, but you aknowledged that the OP post said there was someone there and they were probably going to be the party tank.


2. You don't do opposed checks, you do a check against a dc. So if the dm wants to ignore #1, the DM should set a dC for the "defending" player. Same thing goes for the intimidate. Mitigating circumstance: 14 year old kid vs older guard. Unless kid is flashing warlock powers, guard will spank him and say "run along before i tell your parents"

She, not he. And she wasn't close enough for him to hit me. But as I said, I think the DM gave the guard advantage on the check for what he said to her.

[Maelynn]

Also technically, I never asked for opinions about my character, but rather about the houserule and how to discuss it with the others.

Looking at how everybody focuses on the casting of Friends on a party member and not the house rule, I think it's quite clear just how strongly most people feel about it and how many consider it to be very bad form. How they feel it's worse than a DM ruling about opposing skill checks and want to voice their concerns regarding it.

Now, I might be wrong (seeing as how apparently, others keep misreading what you write), but from your description of your character it sounds as though you're trying to defend appalling behaviour with her young age. That's plain wrong. Age should not be an excuse for committing acts that impact someone negatively. At the age of 14, she is old enough to have learnt that. Especially if she has a class level, she's been through enough to gain enough maturity to realise that actions have consequences. There's no way you can justify immature actions and then state "that's just what she would do, that's who she is" - it's exactly like someone stabbing another PC or stealing from the party and then going "well, he is CN, that's just how he rolls" or "well, he is a Rogue, he just does those things" and expect the party to just accept it.

Also, judging people's responses because she is a child is just poor - she's an equal in a party of adults, so expect her to be treated like one. And like I said, at 14 you know damn well that you can't just do things to people without repercussions. Asking us "would you kill a 14-year-old" is irrelevant, and bringing it up an ad hominem fallacy.

Lastly, you seem to want to roleplay a child that needs to learn social interaction and behavioural do's and don'ts. While that could be an interesting concept to play, there's other people who are affected by your choice. Do the other players enjoy having a rogue character that they need to keep in check? Did they ask to be turned into her chaperonnes? Are they okay with you freely playing an arsecandle character while they suffer the bad effects? (these are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to literally answer them)

[Boci]

Now, I might be wrong (seeing as how apparently, others keep misreading what you write), but from your description of your character it sounds as though you're trying to defend appalling behaviour with her young age. That's plain wrong. Age should not be an excuse for committing acts that impact someone negatively. At the age of 14, she is old enough to have learnt that. Especially if she has a class level, she's been through enough to gain enough maturity to realise that actions have consequences. There's no way you can justify immature actions and then state "that's just what she would do, that's who she is" - it's exactly like someone stabbing another PC or stealing from the party and then going "well, he is CN, that's just how he rolls" or "well, he is a Rogue, he just does those things" and expect the party to just accept it.

She was raised by an evil mage and therefor didn't have the best moral code. I clearted this with the DM beforehand. In the first session the DM then added another details to her backstory about her misfortune and being misused, which I took to mean would make her even more likely to misuse others. So yesway I can say "There's no way you can justify immature actions and then state "that's just what she would do, that's who she is"" because a 14 year old who has been repeatedly let down and preyed upon is could very easily be like that.

[RSP]

First off, there’s a difference between a house rule and incorrectly applying the rules. I’d talk to your DM (outside of the game), raise any concerns you have regarding ability checks, and how they intend to run the game moving forward. If their stance is they understand the RAI and want to play the game a certain way, you can then, at the next session, make sure other players are cool with how the rule impacts the table.

Not every player fits every table. If the DM runs a game where Ability checks effect Players as you’ve described, some Players may not want to play at that table.

I think a table should be involved in what’s allowed with “PvP.” I’ve played at RP-heavy tables where what Players would abide by checks like described in the OP, and combat-heavy low-RP games where Players didn’t care about how their character should act.

Me personally, I think if a PC can grapple another PC, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be able to Deceive or Persuade each other. Or in other words, don’t allow any ability checks between PCs if you don’t allow all ability checks between PCs.

Hope this answer helps.

[Boci]

First off, there’s a difference between a house rule and incorrectly applying the rules. I’d talk to your DM (outside of the game), raise any concerns you have regarding ability checks, and how they intend to run the game moving forward. If their stance is they understand the RAI and want to play the game a certain way, you can then, at the next session, make sure other players are cool with how the rule impacts the table.

Yeah, I think I'll talk to the DM alone first and encourage him to discuss it with the group. The point I will raise will basically be:

Whilst not against the rules, it is ultimatly up the DM, a lot of groups do not allow persuasion attempts against other PCs. In previous editions such as 3.5 the rules would even make it explicitly not work. Maybe you should ask the other players how they feel about it?

I am weary about backseat DMing. Its his game, so if he doesn't want to discuss it with the rest of the group I won't raise the issue then, but I will recommend he does.

[RSP]

I am weary about backseat DMing. Its his game, so if he doesn't want to discuss it with the rest of the group I won't raise the issue then, but I will recommend he does.

My personal take on it: you’re all there to have fun so a DM who dismisses (or worse discourages) concerns raised by players isn’t a good DM.

However, I don’t like challenging the DM during the game. There’s plenty of time to (respectfully) bring up issues/concerns outside of the reserved hours for everyone to play.

[Boci]

My personal take on it: you’re all there to have fun so a DM who dismisses (or worse discourages) concerns raised by players isn’t a good DM.

Context is important here. Remember, no one has complained about this house rule. Now the forum is all too eager to jump on the fact that others might still have had a problem but didn't want to cause a fuss, and that's true, but it just seems like everyone is ignoring the possibility that no one complained because no one had a problem. I wouldn't call the DM bad for not wanting to risk making a mountain out of a molehill when one player approaches them and says "Remember that rules call you made that no one seemed to mind? Its possible others didn't like it, though I'm fine with seeing how it works".

[Kane0]

I’d have a word with the DM about rolling social skills against PCs. And mind spells too while i’m at it.
I’ve had bad experiences with that sort of thing, there are literally as many NPCs as the DM can come up with to screw around with but each player generally only has one PC. Don’t screw over their fun by leveraging mechanics to get your way.

I stand by my initial response.

[RSP]

Context is important here. Remember, no one has complained about this house rule. Now the forum is all too eager to jump on the fact that others might still have had a problem but didn't want to cause a fuss, and that's true, but it just seems like everyone is ignoring the possibility that no one complained because no one had a problem. I wouldn't call the DM bad for not wanting to risk making a mountain out of a molehill when one player approaches them and says "Remember that rules call you made that no one seemed to mind? Its possible others didn't like it, though I'm fine with seeing how it works".

I didn’t recommend talking to the DM because others may not like the rule; I recommended talking to the DM because you have questions/concerns. That’s the context that matters.

[Boci]

I didn’t recommend talking to the DM because others may not like the rule; I recommended talking to the DM because you have questions/concerns. That’s the context that matters.

I have a concern yes, that concern being that the other players might not like the rule. As I said in the opening post, I'm willing to give this rule a try, see how it plays out.

[Lille]

I have a concern yes, that concern being that the other players might not like the rule. As I said in the opening post, I'm willing to give this rule a try, see how it plays out.

Maybe just... talk to the other players, see what they think? I mean, if you want to know how someone feels about something, often the simplest way to find out is to just ask them how they feel about it.

Unless I missed something, it didn't seem like you talked to the Cleric's player, instead just trying to judge how they felt from how they reacted. And you know what? Sometimes that works. Sometimes that's all you need. But sometimes, just sometimes, it's better to see if they'll actually tell you how they feel.

And hey, if they're fine with it, then it may not matter. But even then, it's still better to talk about these things. It's good for making sure everyone understands each other, and discussing it can help everyone involved feel better about it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Using skill checks to force a PC's actions has always struck me as a bad idea. Unless some magic has taken over a PC they should always get to decide their actions. Certainly using those spells on other PC's to take control is a big no no, aside from say. I've used suggestion to counter an enemy's suggestion. "I suggest you grab the wizard and run" followed by me saying "I suggest you put me down and fight that guy"

Now I can see some wiggle room in regards to deception checks but nothing that's going to make them do anything.


Lastly, you seem to want to roleplay a child that needs to learn social interaction and behavioural do's and don'ts. While that could be an interesting concept to play, there's other people who are affected by your choice. Do the other players enjoy having a rogue character that they need to keep in check? Did they ask to be turned into her chaperonnes? Are they okay with you freely playing an arsecandle character while they suffer the bad effects? (these are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to literally answer them)

Ironic story on this subject, back in a 3.5 campaign set in a Feudal Japan L5Rish country. I played a child psion character Yuriko Komodo who played chaperone to the party wizard Rodric Mason, a man from some equivalent to Victorian England like country. He would frequently say or commit... lets say some cultural foh pah that could land him in hot water. Yuriko's most common response was to kick him in the shins and chide him for whatever it was he did sufficiently shaming him in front of whomever he offended and defusing the situation.
It was basically a running gag.

Of course a key difference is for our group it became a running gag of the campaign. She may have had powers such as suggestion and dominate but she'd never us them on another party member. When she didn't get her way she pouted and when the party was on its last legs if she was still good to fight she would go in front and protect them.

[Boci]

Maybe just... talk to the other players, see what they think? I mean, if you want to know how someone feels about something, often the simplest way to find out is to just ask them how they feel about it.

I don't want the DM to feel like I'm going behind his back, so I think I'll talk to him first and encourage him to raise the issue during the game.