Abilities that martials (ONLY) should have out of combat? [suggestions wanted]

[Zigludo]

You can consider this a corollary to Man_Over_Game's thread.

I'm working on some ideas for adding a couple of new features to my own campaign, but, this thread isn't about those rules. This thread is just for me taking to the GitP forums to try and plunder inspiration.

So here's the question: According to your own understanding of the fantasy of each class, and your own desires, what are some things outside of combat that you think a martial should be able to do, that other classes (for instance, spellcasters) shouldn't be able to do, despite the fact that the abilities aren't clearly spelled out by the book?

By "martials" here, I'm referring to Barbarians, Fighters, Monks and Rogues, although you don't need to limit your comments to those classes. As an example, you could say "High level Barbarians should be able to rip down wooden gates with their own hands," or maybe "High level monks should be able to levitate at will", or what have you. These examples are not all-inclusive; your answer doesn't have to refer to high level play, or be very specific at all. As long as I hear some of your original ideas which I haven't heard before, I'll be very happy.



And remember - outside of combat!

[Unoriginal]

Sorry that I don't have anything to contribute in term of answering your request (other than to say a Barbarian is already capable of tearing down a wooden gate bare-handed), but I do have one question that might be useful for you to think about:

Where do you separate martials and casters, for this purpose?

Would an Arcane Trickster be barred from doing those things? Would a Paladin?

[GreyBlack]

You can consider this a corollary to Man_Over_Game's thread.

I'm working on some ideas for adding a couple of new features to my own campaign, but, this thread isn't about those rules. This thread is just for me taking to the GitP forums to try and plunder inspiration.

So here's the question: According to your own understanding of the fantasy of each class, and your own desires, what are some things outside of combat that you think a martial should be able to do, that other classes (for instance, spellcasters) shouldn't be able to do? Despite the fact that these abilities aren't clearly spelled out by the book? Just as an example, you could say "High level Barbarians should be able to rip down wooden gates with their own hands," or maybe "High level monks should be able to levitate at will", or what have you. These examples are not all-inclusive; your answer doesn't have to refer to high level play, or be very specific at all. As long as I hear some of your original ideas which I haven't heard before, I'll be very happy.



And remember - outside of combat!

This is going to be unpopular. I accept all of the criticism here.

Martial characters should be the only ones who can run keeps and armies. This relates back to the fact that fighters originally got a free army and keep when they hit higher levels. I might extend this to more marital clerics and such, but I would make it a class feature for them.

Related to and parallel to this, martials should have advantages in social encounters; this could be because they're more in touch with the physical world while spellcasting classes are too involved in the spiritual/ephemeral world.

For certain classes, such as the monk, they should straight up be able to fly. Monks are not "crouching tiger, hidden dragon" enough for my tastes and I think they should have more stuff like that.

I would make it so that martial characters could heal people through the Medicine skill, not locked behind a feat. Combat medics are a thing; they can patch you up well enough that you're going to live and get you up and moving, but maybe not necessarily to the point that you're not going to need a doctor ASAP. Maybe just during a short rest, they can get an ally up to 1 HP by expending a hit die.

This is just off the top of my head.

[Zigludo]

Where do you separate martials and casters, for this purpose?

Would an Arcane Trickster be barred from doing those things? Would a Paladin?

Now this I should have specified. By martials I mean Barbarians, Fighters, Monks and Rogues, and to a lesser (one might say half?) extent, Rangers and Paladins. Mostly those first four. Ignoring subclasses for the purposes of the discussion because I just want as many thoughts as possible. And note also that these don't need to be things that *all* martials can do; obviously it's perfectly acceptable to say something that you would want a Barbarian to be able to do to the exclusion of Fighters, and so on.

[Laserlight]

Walk down the street without people making warding signs, going well out of their way to avoid you, etc. Order pizza without the delivery guy saying "I'm not going there, that's the wizard's place, they probably want a sacrificial victim." Invite a date home without them saying "Oh...you're a magician. I know I said I was into some freaky stuff, but Being Turned Into A Living Statue is really freakier than I meant." Get invited to social events by people who don't have mental shields. Buy a house without the neighbors moving away as soon as they find out about you.

Sure, that warlock SAYS he's a Lawful Good Divine Soul, but are you going to let your teenager who's behind in school go over and get tutoring from a warlock?

[Mercurias]

As part of an old forum post RP, I once played the sole swordsman in a group full of increasingly powerful mages. While they learned how to tamper with the laws of space and time, he was usually doing one of the following:
-Building/Crafting: There’s a lot to be said, if you’re a person reliant on weapons, for being able to craft more arrows, repair your own armor, or adapt your armor on the fly by, for example, riveting a loop or hook to one’s armor in order to thread rope through it for climbing.
-Inspecting equipment: I always operate under the belief that a wielder of sufficient skill will be able to tell whether or not the tool or other item in their hands is of good quality or not. This could be as much as granting inspiration on Investigation checks.
-The physical stuff: Need someone to leap a five foot gap, climb a wall, dig a trench, swim across a river, or chop down a tree? Anything involving athleticism is going to be easier to a trained martial character.
-Tools, Tools, Tools: Wizard gesturing to use Minor Illusion as a distraction? Toss a ball bearing in the corner and let the tapping noise draw enemy eyes. Most martial characters get some kind of access to tools, either through their base class or their backgrounds. Leaning into those for versatility is a good thing. If I were playing a Dwarf character, for example, I could use Mason’s Tools to, say, etch arrows into the stone walls of dungeon so the group has an easy indicator on how to get out if they need to leave in a hurry. A lot of martial characters have high strength, so feel free to use it for things like a net, a ten foot pole, etc. to make yourself more versatile.

[Frozenstep]

A martial character, at least the strength-based ones, are a sign of immediate combat power. It can be a little difficult to judge how powerful a caster is or how much of their magic they have left, but a big burly dude who isn't injured and isn't exhausted is quickly and easily identifiable as a threat.

This works to dissuade those that would trouble the party (a suspicious figure breaks from the crowd to follow you, but you notice him glance at your barbarian and pause, seeming to think twice, before he leaves), and inspire confidence in those that can work with the party (the soldiers who are nervously holding their line listen to your fighters commands to flank the monster while he occupies its attention, able to believe this man could do it because the forces he wields are ones the soldiers understand).

While appearing weak despite being powerful can be useful in some situations, appearing strong in a way that anyone can understand is also very useful. A cantrip can be impressive, but it may not be enough, and needing to expend a spell slot to demonstrate something impressive is already a loss depending on the situation, and may inspire more fear then confidence. The thought of working alongside a spellcaster, especially a powerful one, can be nerve-wracking, since they don't know how much control the casters really have over their powers, or fear getting caught in an AoE. Working alongside a very skilled martial character though might be comforting, since a skilled warrior has control over themselves (well, maybe not the barbarian...but even then, if the barbarian goes in and turns into a whirlwind of anger and steel, the people supporting him will be glad he's on their side and be comforted that they're not in immediate risk).

Even among people with more knowledge of magic, a martial character might still be more inspiring. A wizard on your side is an advantage, sure, but they can always escape with invisibility/teleportation, so there's always a risk of being abandoned. A martial character though (at least, before magic items) is stuck there with them, so they might be more inclined to face danger knowing the martial won't vanish on them.

[Contrast]

The trick is finding things they can do that don't step on other classes toes - letting a fighter do wall running kinda causes problems for monks and so on.

One option might be to grant certain classes the ability to use the automatic success variant rule on p239 of the DMG for specified stats (or types of checks specifically depending how tight you wanna control it) once they hit a certain level. It encourages them to jump the chasm or swing from the chandelier etc.

[strangebloke]

The distinction isn't that martials can do things that casters can't. That's not currently true for anything. The distinction in this edition is that martials can do many things without expending resources. So the only thing that martials need to do is be more capable of non-resource-based out of combat utility.

Which they mostly do already.


Rogues have great skills. Their OoC utility should be self-evident.
Fighters can spec into skill use or other forms of OoC utility. They're SAD and unlike rogues they don't really need higher than a 16 even in their main stat to keep up. They're totally fine not spending an ASI on stats or combat ability until level 8. Ritual caster, inspiring leader, healer, observant, skulker, X Elf Magic, prodigy, etc.
Barbarians honestly need GWM to deal good damage, but beyond that they also don't need higher than a 16 in anything. Still, they've less utility. Perhaps a perk that helps them with intimidation would be interesting?
Monks by default don't have much. They need their ASIs for AC and damage, and beyond that they just have mobility. So perhaps you could give them some other kind of perk? Make them really really insightful? Its worth noting that Shadow Monks have tons of OoC utility.
Rangers have tons of OoC utility, and are also SAD, meaning that they're more able to spec into whatever.
Paladins are MAD, but they have healing and a few OoC spells. They're probably one of the lowest ones here.


Overall, I think barbs could use a buff in general and monks could use a buff to their OoC abilities.

The only OoC, resourceless thing that casters have and martials don't is ritual casting. And that's, like, a single feat. And most casters are not ritual casters anyway.

[Rukelnikov]

Walk down the street without people making warding signs, going well out of their way to avoid you, etc. Order pizza without the delivery guy saying "I'm not going there, that's the wizard's place, they probably want a sacrificial victim." Invite a date home without them saying "Oh...you're a magician. I know I said I was into some freaky stuff, but Being Turned Into A Living Statue is really freakier than I meant." Get invited to social events by people who don't have mental shields. Buy a house without the neighbors moving away as soon as they find out about you.

Sure, that warlock SAYS he's a Lawful Good Divine Soul, but are you going to let your teenager who's behind in school go over and get tutoring from a warlock?

Clerics and Bards would disagree, their spellcasting actually acts as a magnet for people.

[Man_Over_Game]

Barbarians can lift things, eat things, drink things. They can cause a show (duplicating the Enthrall spell). At higher levels, objects break when the object hits them. They share a kinship with beasts and savage creatures.

Fighters can read an enemy and determine their weaknesses. They know telltale signs of an ambush. They can protect their allies from a sudden explosion. They expect, and react, to danger of any kind, even if that includes subterfuge or treachery.

Rangers are super stealthy. They can gather any medicine they need from the wilds. They can tame (or even convert) animals to assist them, given time and resources.

Monks are highly resilient. They give off a calming presence while also appearing non-threatening (bonus to Persuasion?). They have a slight about of foresight, and can sense living (or unliving) beings when they concentrate.

[strangebloke]

Came up with a pair of abilities for Monks and Barbarians.

Monk: 7th level: spiritual awareness. You have blind sight out to ten feet. As an action you can extend this range to 20 feet until the start of your next turn.

People want to be playing blind monks anyway, might as well let 'em. Makes you a great scout and watchdog.

Barbarian: (added to feral instinct): You can advantage on Wisdom checks to determine if someone is lying.

Thought about something with intimidation, but I can easily see a lot of barbarians not really wanting to intimidate people. "Good instincts" about who to trust seems very barbarianesque.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Part of the problem with the question is that, by default, "martials" are defined by what they do in combat, and nothing more. (That is, after all, what "martial" means.) Barbarians and especially fighters are constrained by this fact; their archetypes are so centered around fighting that almost anything you can do outside of combat is, at best, adjacent to that archetype. That pretty much just leaves feats of strength/endurance and maybe displays of incredible skill (cutting a falling apple into neat wedges with a sword, for instance).
For anything beyond kicking down doors and party tricks...there's nothing out-of-combat that fighters can do, but there could be stuff that specifically Jac the fighter can do. Jac might know enough guys to find out what the party needs to know, or recognize the runic script on the magical trap and direct the sorcerer in disabling it, or cook some really tasty food, but none of that is fighter-ey.
I guess you could argue that any generic "tribal powers" you'd see fantasy First Nations types use could arguably fit barbarians, but that justification seems kinda...weak.

Rogues and monks have it a bit easier, since their archetypes extend beyond shanking and punching. Rogues already have a bunch of things they're designed to do out of combat—sneak, disable traps, pick locks, find hidden stuff, swindle the foolish, etc etc. No patch needed.
I haven't played the 5e monk, but I'm pretty sure it has some eastern-martial-arts-esque noncombat abilities. Just about anything in Naruto could arguably fit the monk, as could things in the original Dragon Ball (and probably Z/Super if you scaled them down). After all, those stories' authors were drawing on the same ultimate source of inspiration as the D&D monk.

One quick critique of noncombat abilities in general. Because of how D&D handles noncombat challenges (particularly its simplistic skill system), it's really, really hard to design a noncombat challenge that involves the whole party. Combat, that's easy; almost the entire game is built around giving every character a role to play in combat and finding ways to work together. But noncombat challenges are usually set up as "One character with X skill/ability does this while the other players watch, then they rotate roles".
If you want a fun noncombat challenge for the whole party, make sure everyone has something to do. This means designing a complex challenge composed of individual tasks that cater to each PC's unique noncombat talents.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One quick critique of noncombat abilities in general. Because of how D&D handles noncombat challenges (particularly its simplistic skill system), it's really, really hard to design a noncombat challenge that involves the whole party. Combat, that's easy; almost the entire game is built around giving every character a role to play in combat and finding ways to work together. But noncombat challenges are usually set up as "One character with X skill/ability does this while the other players watch, then they rotate roles".
If you want a fun noncombat challenge for the whole party, make sure everyone has something to do. This means designing a complex challenge composed of individual tasks that cater to each PC's unique noncombat talents.

This, I think, is the key. Anything that can be trivialized by a single check or spell isn't worth the time. Narrate and move on. Anything that requires the whole party (or a significant subset) to work together is worth making a big deal out of.

So picking a single lock with no one around to catch you is not worth spending any significant time on. Narrate and move on.

Picking a lock with patrols may be important. The rogue is busy picking the lock, while the others keep watch/scout, create diversions, etc. The wizard might keep silence up on the lock area while the fighter and the cleric watch the corridors and prepare to deal with guards. Etc. Note this works even if success is assured. What the rogue is rolling for is how fast they can pick the lock, and how quietly. The lookouts are rolling to see how far ahead they notice the patrols and how successfully they hide or distract. The wizard is spending resources.

[Laserlight]

Clerics and Bards would disagree, their spellcasting actually acts as a magnet for people.

It's pretty setting dependent. There are some settings where everyone does magic or knows someone who does and it's no big deal. There are some settings where any caster is suspect, at best.

CHA casters won't necessarily avoid this--I certainly know people in real life who are high CHA but who I don't trust at all, and if you thought they were not just con artists but actual mind-manipulators, wouldn't you avoid them?

Of course, it also depends on how hard it is to tell whether someone is a caster. I'm assuming that by the time you're moderately high level, most people can tell or you have a rep. But in some settings, "a powerful warlock" looks just like "that lady on the corner with the roses and the yappy little dog".

[Mjolnirbear]

It would almost be easier to just take out non-combat abilities from casters to even things out.

Then mix them up and make them rituals anyone with the skill can do. Like Pass Without Trace can be a ritual the ranger and rogue get automatically, and for them, it represents not magic but skill

[Rukelnikov]

It would almost be easier to just take out non-combat abilities from casters to even things out.

Then mix them up and make them rituals anyone with the skill can do. Like Pass Without Trace can be a ritual the ranger and rogue get automatically, and for them, it represents not magic but skill

I think I remember an edition trying to do something like that...

[Man_Over_Game]

It would almost be easier to just take out non-combat abilities from casters to even things out.

Then mix them up and make them rituals anyone with the skill can do. Like Pass Without Trace can be a ritual the ranger and rogue get automatically, and for them, it represents not magic but skill

I think I'd be fine with that, except that spells are mechanically different than "really complex skills".

Spells can be countered, require components, can be detected, and can straight up be unusable in an Anti-magic field.

This is also before trying to figure out the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" non-combat spells. Is Jump a non-combat spell? What about Compulsion?

Something like that would require a really big overhaul of the system. I think it might be better to just find specific spells and duplicate their effects, similarly to how the Monk can get a Jump effect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think I remember an edition trying to do something like that...


I think I'd be fine with that, except that spells are mechanically different than "really complex skills".

Spells can be countered, require components, can be detected, and can straight up be unusable in an Anti-magic field.

This is also before trying to figure out the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" non-combat spells. Is Jump a non-combat spell? What about Compulsion?

Something like that would require a really big overhaul of the system. I think it might be better to just find specific spells and duplicate their effects, similarly to how the Monk can get a Jump effect.

I'm actually (slowly) working on a homebrew for that purpose (except I call them incantations and they're explicitly magic, just magic that anyone of the right level can do if they learn how and pay the cost). And it's actually pretty darn easy.

1. Strip out the spells. Start with all the ritual spells, then add in a lot of the long-cast-time ones. Leave anything that has direct combat potential or short duration, including most summons.
2. Attach an expensive material component to each one, as well as an ability check (different ones need different ability/proficiency combinations). Casting one successfully requires a check against a scaling DC, as well as cost and time.
3. Change the Ritual Caster features (and feat) to give discounts or added effects to certain incantations (so wizards get better at doing arcane incantations, etc).
4. Profit.

[Kyutaru]

Barbarians
- Knock - The barbarian shoulder charges a wooden door, shattering it into a thousand pieces.
- Warcry - Shouting with all his lungs, the barbarian scares the ever living hell out of everyone.
- Spirit Walk - Entering the spirit realm, the barbarian may speak with his ancestors for guidance.

Fighters
- Zorro - The fighter is skilled enough to strike with precision cutting away solely what he wants.
- Flourish - Brandishing your weapon in an impressive way, nearby watchers are intimidated.
- Parkour - Fighters constantly think on their feet and find bizarre methods of getting around.

Monks
- Lightning Reflexes - The monk cannot drop anything. If you throw something at him, he's catching it.
- Sense Presence - Monks have honed their skills to supernatural levels, sensing living things nearby.
- Weightless - Through poise, balance, harmony, monks have a light step and can safely rest on anything.

Rogues
- Use Poison - The rogue is the only one who can safely use poisons, and he can make them too!
- Gambling - Proficient at all manner of shady dealings, the rogue is a master of all forms of carousing.
- Vanish - Rogues are just as swift at disappearing as they are at appearing from stealth, quickly leaving the room even by relatively impossible means whenever your head is turned for even a brief moment.

[TyGuy]

Training/sparring
Meditation for monks

[thereaper]

Off the top of my head...

Fighters/Barbarians:

- Hold their breath for hours
- Track scents
- Dispel magic effects by hitting them hard enough
- Cut/smash their way through dungeon walls and walls of force
- Jump dozens of feet
- Cut holes in space itself for a plane shift effect
- Make other people better simply by being there to provide leadership
- See invisible things based on the way the air flows around them
- Magical creatures inexplicably become wowed by their greatness

Rogues:

- Be able to weasel out of any contract or mental command
- Be able to read surface thoughts simply by watching them
- Have their words act as a Suggestion or Charm Person effect
- Sneak past Walls of Force
- Perform alchemy to produce pseudo-magical chemicals
- Senses magic based on the way their teeth chatter
- Always knows the answer, or knows someone who does
- Performs surgeries and sets breaks to heal injuries

[Mjolnirbear]

I think I'd be fine with that, except that spells are mechanically different than "really complex skills".

Spells can be countered, require components, can be detected, and can straight up be unusable in an Anti-magic field.

This is also before trying to figure out the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" non-combat spells. Is Jump a non-combat spell? What about Compulsion?

Something like that would require a really big overhaul of the system. I think it might be better to just find specific spells and duplicate their effects, similarly to how the Monk can get a Jump effect.

Does it do damage? Impose a status effect? Require a saving throw? Those would be combat spells.

I know it's not that easy. Bless does none of those things, but is definitely a combat spell. Invisibility has obvious combat and non-combat applications. But the concept isn't that much different than what 5e already did in largely eliminating "use a spell to make the rogue useless" abilities like previous iterations of Knock.

By removing them, then making them accessible even to pure martials, it makes the abilities more universal and helps combat the martial-caster divide. There is no law that says pure martiales must not have any magic or mystical ability. And if its optional, you can still play the completely magicless characters if you prefer. But D&D is high magic. Magic permeates everything. There's no reason a compétant adventurer can't learn à ritual to hide better or to jump further.

Monte Cook created a whole system around daily rituals and small magics. I think it would work quite well, if one was planning such a significant overhaul.

[cajbaj]

A user on /tg/ made a thing like Eldritch Invocations for martials that give out of combat abilities. Given at 3, 7, 11, and 15 for barbs, fighters, monks, and rogues, and 7th and 13th for rangers and paladins. Really just a proof of concept but some were good. Here's a couple good ones.

Paragon of Truth
Monk, Paladin
11th level
Your peace of mind and equanimity has reached lofty heights. When you speak to a creature who can understand you and are telling the truth to the best of your ability, you can cause that creature to know without any doubt that you are telling the truth.

Primal Shout
Barbarian, Ranger
7th level
You can bellow with the force of a lion's roar. As an action, you can make everything you say on your turn audible up to 1 mile away. Any creatures within 30 feet who can hear you are deafened until the start of your next turn.
You can also choose to whistle in this way. If you do so, your whistle is audible up to 1 mile away, but creatures within 30 feet of you are not deafened.

Scaler
Fighter, Ranger, Rogue
While wielding handaxes or daggers in each hand, you can climb difficult surfaces, including upside down on ceilings, without needing to make an ability check.

Trickshot
Fighter, Ranger
7th level
Your marksmanship is legendary. As an action, you can make a single ranged weapon attack against an object or a consenting creature within range of your weapon. This attack never misses.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think I'd be fine with that, except that spells are mechanically different than "really complex skills".

Spells can be countered, require components, can be detected, and can straight up be unusable in an Anti-magic field.

This is also before trying to figure out the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" non-combat spells. Is Jump a non-combat spell? What about Compulsion?

Something like that would require a really big overhaul of the system. I think it might be better to just find specific spells and duplicate their effects, similarly to how the Monk can get a Jump effect.
I'd have gone with "say everyone has a little magic and give every class a short list of spells they can cast," but that's obviously not going to gel with everyone's idea of fantasy. Maybe you could get away with calling them out as "things which should be impossible for a normal human to do, but by exteenth level they've broken past those limits".

[Zigludo]

Hey guys, poking my head in to say, thanks for all the ideas, it's a lot of help. I know this thread might seem a bit disjointed and aimless but it's turning out exactly the way I was hoping; please continue along these lines lol


I'd have gone with "say everyone has a little magic and give every class a short list of spells they can cast," but that's obviously not going to gel with everyone's idea of fantasy. Maybe you could get away with calling them out as "things which should be impossible for a normal human to do, but by exteenth level they've broken past those limits".

This is basically what I'm going for with this thread. The impetus for it was a discussion in Man_Over_Game's thread; it centered around the idea that the nonmagical classes have class features that very clearly specify abilities that they can perform in-combat which "should be impossible for a normal human to do" (for instance a Bear Totem barbarian can survive a dragon breathing fire on him ten times while in the nude), but have relatively few superhuman abilities similarly specified when it comes to the other two pillars of the game. On the other hand, magic spells do not lack for utility in the realms of exploration and social interaction.

Of course there are things that the rules provide "martials" to do outside of their class features; that is, freeform role-playing and the ability check and skill systems. But these lack the built-in niche protection from spell-casting classes that spellcasting provides against nonmagical classes, for various reasons that I don't intend to get into right now.

On the note of separating these abilities from spells, flavor-wise: ideally for me, these "martial" abilities would be at-will or always-on so as to differentiate them from spells.


Monte Cook created a whole system around daily rituals and small magics. I think it would work quite well, if one was planning such a significant overhaul.
For the project I'm working on, my goal is less of a 'significant overhaul' and more of a neat little add-on that any DM can plug right into their existing game of 5e without breaking anything.

[Man_Over_Game]

What's funny is that 4e actually did something akin to Mjolnirbear and PheonixPhyre's suggestions in the form of Utility Powers.

Basically, your standard powers were used to deal damage, heal, or control the battlefield, and your Utility powers were used for everything else. You wanted a super jump? Got it. You wanted to create solid platform that you could climb or use for cover? Got it.

It's kind of interesting to see how history repeats itself. I believe that 4e had a lot of amazing ideas, they just weren't implemented well (specifically: Roleplaying, skills, adapting).

[GreatWyrmGold]

The impetus for it was a discussion in Man_Over_Game's thread; it centered around the idea that the nonmagical classes have class features that very clearly specify abilities that they can perform in-combat which "should be impossible for a normal human to do" (for instance a Bear Totem barbarian can survive a dragon breathing fire on him ten times while in the nude), but have relatively few superhuman abilities similarly specified when it comes to the other two pillars of the game.
Which is part of why I personally think the "three pillars" idea is hogwash. The game is (and has always been) centered around combat, combat, combat, with exploration letting you get to combats you want and social encounters letting you avoid combats you don't want. The devs have been trying to pull away from that for ages, but they haven't been able to change the core systems built around the "combat first" style that continue to drag it into the forefront.
You can play a game which balances equally on all three "pillars," of course, but the DM needs to shoulder most of the weight for two and not much for the third. Is it any surprise that most DMs don't have the time, energy, and/or motivation for that?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What's funny is that 4e actually did something akin to Mjolnirbear and PheonixPhyre's suggestions in the form of Utility Powers.

Basically, your standard powers were used to deal damage, heal, or control the battlefield, and your Utility powers were used for everything else. You wanted a super jump? Got it. You wanted to create solid platform that you could climb or use for cover? Got it.

It's kind of interesting to see how history repeats itself. I believe that 4e had a lot of amazing ideas, they just weren't implemented well (specifically: Roleplaying, skills, adapting).

The problem with Utility powers is they were dominantly still combat things. They didn't do damage, but they were "shift 3 squares" and things like that. And they were much weaker than they should have been.

[Man_Over_Game]

Which is part of why I personally think the "three pillars" idea is hogwash. The game is (and has always been) centered around combat, combat, combat, with exploration letting you get to combats you want and social encounters letting you avoid combats you don't want. The devs have been trying to pull away from that for ages, but they haven't been able to change the core systems built around the "combat first" style that continue to drag it into the forefront.
You can play a game which balances equally on all three "pillars," of course, but the DM needs to shoulder most of the weight for two and not much for the third. Is it any surprise that most DMs don't have the time, energy, and/or motivation for that?

This is very true. Trying to create a social environment that's engaging, creative, fluid and evolving with 5e's skill system is extremely difficult.

Trying to occupy an hour of time for a fight? Let me spend 5 minutes in the Monster Manual, and another 5 on the battlemap.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is very true. Trying to create a social environment that's engaging, creative, fluid and evolving with 5e's skill system is extremely difficult.

Trying to occupy an hour of time for a fight? Let me spend 5 minutes in the Monster Manual, and another 5 on the battlemap.

Funny thing. I'm just the reverse. Sure, there's little politics going on, but interactions with NPCs occupy a majority of my sessions and can basically be ad-libbed. Heck, a lot of the time there aren't even dice being rolled.

Making a good combat is a whole other story, specifically because there are so many moving pieces.

But then again, I'm fiction-first, not mechanics-first. Mechanics don't really matter to me at the core. They're tools to be used or discarded when convenient. And combat is all about mechanics.

[Man_Over_Game]

Funny thing. I'm just the reverse. Sure, there's little politics going on, but interactions with NPCs occupy a majority of my sessions and can basically be ad-libbed. Heck, a lot of the time there aren't even dice being rolled.

Making a good combat is a whole other story, specifically because there are so many moving pieces.

But then again, I'm fiction-first, not mechanics-first. Mechanics don't really matter to me at the core. They're tools to be used or discarded when convenient. And combat is all about mechanics.

But if what you're saying is "Mechanics don't matter", then it doesn't matter what game you're playing. Little of what you're doing might be supported by the 5e system. That's a problem when 5e devs consider social environments to be 1/3 of the game.

It might as well be "1/3 of the game doesn't exist". Not because people aren't playing it (with your experience as evidence), but that what people are playing when they're doing so isn't 5e. It's "Whatever the DM makes up on the fly". You don't need a manual for that, and not much from the manual will help with that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But if what you're saying is "Mechanics don't matter", then it doesn't matter what game you're playing. Little of what you're doing might be supported by the 5e system. That's a problem when 5e devs consider social environments to be 1/3 of the game.

It might as well be "1/3 of the game doesn't exist". Not because people aren't playing it (with your experience as evidence), but that what people are playing when they're doing so isn't 5e. It's "Whatever the DM makes up on the fly". You don't need a manual for that, and not much from the manual will help with that.

The rules are not the game. The rules are there to help you play. The rules give mechanical support for the things I need mechanical support for, not the things I don't need mechanical support for. And that's exactly what I want them to do. Games that presume to speak for everything are stifling and obnoxious, because what they think isn't what I think.

[Rukelnikov]

But if what you're saying is "Mechanics don't matter", then it doesn't matter what game you're playing. Little of what you're doing might be supported by the 5e system. That's a problem when 5e devs consider social environments to be 1/3 of the game.

It might as well be "1/3 of the game doesn't exist". Not because people aren't playing it (with your experience as evidence), but that what people are playing when they're doing so isn't 5e. It's "Whatever the DM makes up on the fly". You don't need a manual for that, and not much from the manual will help with that.

If I'm gonna be honest, there's no system for exploration either, and that does deserve one.

Social systems don't work, I've lost count how many different editions of WoD I've played, all had social systems, and most of it just gets in the way of roleplaying, I don't wanna have to "open 5 doors to get the NPC to tell you the information you want", let me roleplay, its an NPC not a robot with code telling it what it has to do.

The part I do dig from that kind of social system is stuff like "contacts" where you dont need to flesh out each and every character you are gonna talk to, but you just have a lot of people you've done deals with, or know by reputation and can call, and the roll there represents basically a gather information.

I played other systems with social Interaction and all of them had more Cons that Pros.

[Kyutaru]

If I'm gonna be honest, there's no system for exploration either, and that does deserve one.

Heck, original D&D was described as taking place entirely in your head and not even using tabletop grids or maps. The game was dirt simple because it was all about IMAGINATION.

[Rukelnikov]

Heck, original D&D was described as taking place entirely in your head and not even using tabletop grids or maps. The game was dirt simple because it was all about IMAGINATION.

Yeah, and that imagination lead to my 2e archers always magically ending up in melee range of the enemies. For a combat heavy system like DnD grid is the way to go, for most other systems theater of the mind is perfect.

[Laserlight]

The rules are not the game. The rules are there to help you play. The rules give mechanical support for the things I need mechanical support for, not the things I don't need mechanical support for.

But if you have a player with no social skills who wants to play a face, how do you handle it? Just as the rules give you a way to determine whether "I'm really fast, you missed me!" or "You hit me but I'm such as stud I don't care" or "I killed you so dead!" applies, they ought to give you a way to determine whether "I saw through your BS" or "I'm baffled but stubborn, I'm not changing my mind" or "I totally talked you into it!" applies.

The fact that you don't use the social rules just means that those social rules aren't very useful. They're not even at a level of "Do you hit, how much damage do you do", much less "I use Logical Fallacy for -5 to hit, +10 damage" or "I'm a single target persuader, you need an area effect guy to sway that crowd" or "I'm the social equivalent of a barbarian, low armor, high HP--you can land jabs on me all day, but I may not even notice that you insulted me, much less care."

[PhoenixPhyre]

But if you have a player with no social skills who wants to play a face, how do you handle it? Just as the rules give you a way to determine whether "I'm really fast, you missed me!" or "You hit me but I'm such as stud I don't care" or "I killed you so dead!" applies, they ought to give you a way to determine whether "I saw through your BS" or "I'm baffled but stubborn, I'm not changing my mind" or "I totally talked you into it!" applies.

The fact that you don't use the social rules just means that those social rules aren't very useful. They're not even at a level of "Do you hit, how much damage do you do", much less "I use Logical Fallacy for -5 to hit, +10 damage" or "I'm a single target persuader, you need an area effect guy to sway that crowd" or "I'm the social equivalent of a barbarian, low armor, high HP--you can land jabs on me all day, but I may not even notice that you insulted me, much less care."

I have yet to see any set of social rules that does better than I can at any of
* speed of resolution
* accuracy of resolution
* flexibility of resolution

So I find social rules totally useless beyond the very basics. And I play mostly with teenagers, many of whom are socially maladapt. They tell me what they want to do (approach, desired outcome), I tell them what they roll (if anything). They don't have to give exact wording--in fact many times they shouldn't give exact wording. I need to know
* what do they want the NPC to do (everything else is just talking)
* are they trying to bribe, reason, bully, or lie to get their way?
* details if relevant--what facts are they lying about? How big of a bribe (relatively speaking here) are they offering? what kind of argument (pathos, logos, etc) are they using?

Most interactions don't need checks at all. Because if you ask someone to do something they're already willing (because you've done stuff for them) to do, you don't need to convince them of anything. The check only comes at the end of the conversation.

Rules exist to handle the things that are any of
* out of the DM's knowledge base
* finicky or high-consequence
* highly uncertain
* impossible on Earth (ie magic).

They're a support structure, when such support is needed. They are not the game. They are not even the most important part. And when a support structure intrudes where it's not needed, it's an active detriment. And that's the case with all the social supports I've ever seen, across a wide variety of games. They channel everything into a "press F to pay respects"/"play the character-sheet" mentality. And I hate that.

[Kyutaru]

But if you have a player with no social skills who wants to play a face, how do you handle it? Just as the rules give you a way to determine whether "I'm really fast, you missed me!" or "You hit me but I'm such as stud I don't care" or "I killed you so dead!" applies, they ought to give you a way to determine whether "I saw through your BS" or "I'm baffled but stubborn, I'm not changing my mind" or "I totally talked you into it!" applies.

The fact that you don't use the social rules just means that those social rules aren't very useful. They're not even at a level of "Do you hit, how much damage do you do", much less "I use Logical Fallacy for -5 to hit, +10 damage" or "I'm a single target persuader, you need an area effect guy to sway that crowd" or "I'm the social equivalent of a barbarian, low armor, high HP--you can land jabs on me all day, but I may not even notice that you insulted me, much less care."

Clearly we need diplomatic combat.

DM: You throw a painful harsh truth at the king but he makes his Obstinate saving throw. He responds with a logical fallacy for 3d10 reputation points of damage.

Player: Oh no! That means I've lost the support of the Council! I respond with +2 blackmail photos. They have the Scandalous and Infidel modifiers and I'm adding my Professional Photographer skill proficiency.

DM: *rolls* Critical Hit! The king's entire argument is dead. The people crown you their new ruler.

[Man_Over_Game]

Something I've started using are a sort of Challenge mechanic, which works well with social "combat".

Basically, you just tally people's totals when they attempt something at a social event, like a party. Unless it's the first roll you made, or you're making your roll with Advantage, the value of your check is halved.

-----------

So, for example, the Barbarian wants to intimidate an ambassador into believing that the war should end, by basically scaring the ambassador into believing the enemy forces are as scary as the Barbarian. The party Bard is also trying to convince the ambassador that peace is the right way to go.

The Barbarian bends a bar around his neck and wears it like a necklace. The Bard explains that the Barbarian was a refugee of the enemy forces' drafting policy, and there are many more of his kind on the front lines.

DM calls for a Strength (Intimidation) check, and adds the Barbarian's value to the challenge total. DM also calls for a Charisma (Persuasion) check from the Bard and adds it.

Next round, the Bard explains the benefits of peace and harmony. The Barbarian Rages after struggling to get the bar off of his neck, shouts suddenly, and rips it in half.

The DM calls for the same two rolls, but the Bard has his be made at half value (due to being the Bard's second roll of the Challenge, and not having Advantage). The Barbarian makes his roll with Advantage, and so gets the full value.

While discussing policies with the Bard, the ambassador is noticeably sweating, and seems very agreeable with the decision for peace.

-------------

There's a few things I do to ensure this works well:


Each "Round" is a segment of time, say 5-10 minute increments. This allows things to progress smoothly, while also allowing interruptions. After a certain number of rounds (potentially even after every round), the players might run into additional obstacles (such as a warhawk of the ambassador's country entering the scene), or the players fail the Challenge.
Checks are made at the end of each segment. This prevents the mechanics from getting in the way of roleplaying. The mechanics should ADD to the roleplay, and help define what happens next, but without limiting it.
Penalize repeated attempts to do the same things by the same people (by halving their value past their first check, in this instance). This incentivizes other players to participate in various ways, while also forcing players to not rely on one strategy.
Allow some sort of incentive for adapting. I did this by removing the penalty when using Advantage. Not only does this incentivize saving a trump card for when it's most opportune to do so, but it leads to dramatic events, and rewards players for providing evidence or plotting schemes. Lastly, this rewards players for using the Help action, rather than saying something useless as their attempt for a check.


The system assumes that nearly everything the players attempt succeeds (they have plenty of time to constantly keep rolling), but their check instead determines how well they succeed, and how that changes events in the immediate future.

An average player will hit about an 18 on an average check, and they make most checks at half value, meaning that you're looking at an average value of about 10 points times the number of players per round. So if you are playing with 5 players, they'll earn about 50 points each round. A good challenge goal, for a 1 hour social dinner party (6 rounds) and a 5 man party should be about 300 points.

An event might have multiple challenges going on at the same time. A Bard might be at a social party, buttering up the nobles, while the Rogue and the Fighter are off stealing clues from the nobles' rooms. In this kind of scenario, they both are working towards different goals and different scenes, so calculate them separately So the Rogue/Fighter might have to do well on hiding/breaking and entering to avoid getting caught during each segment of time, where the Bard has to both gather information while keeping people content enough to not go to their rooms (and threaten the Rogue/Fighter).

[Rukelnikov]

I have yet to see any set of social rules that does better than I can at any of
* speed of resolution
* accuracy of resolution
* flexibility of resolution

So I find social rules totally useless beyond the very basics. And I play mostly with teenagers, many of whom are socially maladapt. They tell me what they want to do (approach, desired outcome), I tell them what they roll (if anything). They don't have to give exact wording--in fact many times they shouldn't give exact wording. I need to know
* what do they want the NPC to do (everything else is just talking)
* are they trying to bribe, reason, bully, or lie to get their way?
* details if relevant--what facts are they lying about? How big of a bribe (relatively speaking here) are they offering? what kind of argument (pathos, logos, etc) are they using?

Most interactions don't need checks at all. Because if you ask someone to do something they're already willing (because you've done stuff for them) to do, you don't need to convince them of anything. The check only comes at the end of the conversation.

Rules exist to handle the things that are any of
* out of the DM's knowledge base
* finicky or high-consequence
* highly uncertain
* impossible on Earth (ie magic).

They're a support structure, when such support is needed. They are not the game. They are not even the most important part. And when a support structure intrudes where it's not needed, it's an active detriment. And that's the case with all the social supports I've ever seen, across a wide variety of games. They channel everything into a "press F to pay respects"/"play the character-sheet" mentality. And I hate that.

But then, if players are never acting in character, you are almost entirely skipping roleplay.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But then, if players are never acting in character, you are almost entirely skipping roleplay.

Huh? They're totally acting in character. They're just not (always) saying exact words. You're confusing roleplay with method acting. The two are not the same. They're making choices based on the character's established personality, history, and biases. That's the essence of roleplay, not funny voices or trying to compose impromptu grand speeches. Some of the best roleplay I've seen has come from people reacting viscerally to events because they put themselves in their character's shoes.

[Rukelnikov]

Huh? They're totally acting in character. They're just not (always) saying exact words. You're confusing roleplay with method acting. The two are not the same. They're making choices based on the character's established personality, history, and biases. That's the essence of roleplay, not funny voices or trying to compose impromptu grand speeches. Some of the best roleplay I've seen has come from people reacting viscerally to events because they put themselves in their character's shoes.

I don't mean "funny voices" or mannerisms, but actually talking to the guy you were supossed to meet at the bar, instead of just rolling and having the DM relay the information like a telegram.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't mean "funny voices" or mannerisms, but actually talking to the guy you were supossed to meet at the bar, instead of just rolling and having the DM relay the information like a telegram.

You're making serious assumptions that just aren't so. I listed what they need to tell me in order to do anything. What they want, how they're going to do it, and any particular details needed for that specific instance. Most of my sessions are dominated by people talking, asking questions (in or out of character), and exploring the world through their character. Heck, I've had many sessions where there might be a total of a single die roll, because people were information gathering and nothing was uncertain. They did lots of things that might have prompted checks, it's just most or all of them were automatic successes because of the groundwork they'd established.
----------
I'd say that mechanics-driven play is less role-play than roll-play. If all you're doing is mashing the optimal character sheet buttons, whether those are labeled "attack", "persuade" (in any variety), "cast spell"), you're playing the character sheet more than the character. And that's what social mechanics encourage. Anything that can be gamified will be gamified. Phrasing it exclusively in terms of mechanics encourages mechanical thinking and discourages treating the character as a real human (or not) being in a living world. It's why I reject the fluff/crunch distinction. They're all rules, whether they have direct mechanics attached or not. And the descriptive rules are as important or more important than the numerical ones.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd say that mechanics-driven play is less role-play than roll-play. If all you're doing is mashing the optimal character sheet buttons, whether those are labeled "attack", "persuade" (in any variety), "cast spell"), you're playing the character sheet more than the character. And that's what social mechanics encourage. Anything that can be gamified will be gamified. Phrasing it exclusively in terms of mechanics encourages mechanical thinking and discourages treating the character as a real human (or not) being in a living world. It's why I reject the fluff/crunch distinction. They're all rules, whether they have direct mechanics attached or not. And the descriptive rules are as important or more important than the numerical ones.

Exactly why you should just roleplay social encounters instead of declaring what you do like in an encounter :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Exactly why you should just roleplay social encounters instead of declaring what you do like in an encounter :smallwink:

False dichotomy. Saying what you do IS role-playing. TTRPGs are not LARP.

[Rukelnikov]

False dichotomy. Saying what you do IS role-playing. TTRPGs are not LARP.

False dichotomy, acting in character is not LARPing.

[Man_Over_Game]

Can't we just agree that we have different ways of having fun?

[Kyutaru]

Can't we just agree that we have different ways of having fun?

For the last time, NO!

[GreatWyrmGold]

But if what you're saying is "Mechanics don't matter", then it doesn't matter what game you're playing. Little of what you're doing might be supported by the 5e system. That's a problem when 5e devs consider social environments to be 1/3 of the game.

It might as well be "1/3 of the game doesn't exist". Not because people aren't playing it (with your experience as evidence), but that what people are playing when they're doing so isn't 5e. It's "Whatever the DM makes up on the fly". You don't need a manual for that, and not much from the manual will help with that.
I'm glad at least someone understand what I'm getting at.



Social systems don't work, I've lost count how many different editions of WoD I've played, all had social systems, and most of it just gets in the way of roleplaying, I don't wanna have to "open 5 doors to get the NPC to tell you the information you want", let me roleplay, its an NPC not a robot with code telling it what it has to do.
People are complex. This applies to their bodies as well as their minds, so why is combat just a race to 0 HP? Because abstraction is critical, so that DMs know when the monster loses and so players know how to win. It's 100% possible to run TRPG-like combat without any rules; I did that sort of thing a lot with my little brother, before we learned D&D. It was enjoyable, it worked, but it was basically impossible for me to know when by brother had cast enough spells or whatever to kill the monster, or for my brother to know what decisions would best resolve the combat.
Running social encounters in most TRPGs is pretty similar. The players have one clearly-defined goal (generally more abstract than "murder the monster," but no less clear), and one or more NPCs acting as obstacles to that goal. I the DM have some idea of what the NPC might want out of the deal, or how willing they are to deal, but I have to make up on the fly whether or not the players have done enough—offered enough or argued well enough—to resolve the encounter, and the players have no concrete way of knowing what might make things work better. The only difference, aside from maturity, is that, at various arbitrarily-defined points, I can use dice rolls as justification for my arbitrary decisions. "You rolled high, sure he does it" or "You rolled low, he doesn't." But at the end, the result isn't meaningfully different from the old improv combat I did with my brother; if they try hard enough and don't make any critical blunders, they're going to get what they asked for as soon as I decide they've done enough.

The solution isn't to make social systems that imitate combat rules (except in systems where all conflicts are resolved by the same highly-abstract mechanics), nor is it to add extra stuff to the basic "Roll to succeed" system. It's to design a new system, abstracted in a similar way as combat is abstracted but distinct enough to feel unique. I've long considered a number of options, with most inspired in part by Last Word (https://store.steampowered.com/app/355530/Last_Word/) (but less abstract).

Don't have time to finish reading the thread right now, but I want to post this so I don't wall-of-text the thread too bady.

[Kyutaru]

The solution isn't to make social systems that imitate combat rules (except in systems where all conflicts are resolved by the same highly-abstract mechanics), nor is it to add extra stuff to the basic "Roll to succeed" system. It's to design a new system, abstracted in a similar way as combat is abstracted but distinct enough to feel unique. I've long considered a number of options, with most inspired in part by Last Word (https://store.steampowered.com/app/355530/Last_Word/) (but less abstract).

As a long time D&D player who feels more at home with the older editions, the theater of the mind, and the roleplaying aspect of the game rather than getting too hung up on mechanical differences, my sense of the system is that it works best when rolls are only used to resolve opposition.

Climbing a wall has had a skill check for a long time, since the oldest thief ever put his percentages into it. But if you have a grappling hook and the entire night, I'm not going to make you roll that. If you talk to the king and present a valid argument, there is no Persuasion check. If you are trying to sneak past orcs that are arguing loudly while trying to remain silent, you win automatically.

The minutia does not matter. Roleplaying is the reason we're making characters and surrounding the table in the first place. There are better systems for straight combat simulators. This thread is all about the out of combat and that's where the game is the most interesting in the first place. Abstract systems are and should be the core of your DMing with mechanical systems only entering the picture when absolutely necessary or to resolve a conflict of interest fairly.

[Man_Over_Game]

As a long time D&D player who feels more at home with the older editions, the theater of the mind, and the roleplaying aspect of the game rather than getting too hung up on mechanical differences, my sense of the system is that it works best when rolls are only used to resolve opposition.

Climbing a wall has had a skill check for a long time, since the oldest thief ever put his percentages into it. But if you have a grappling hook and the entire night, I'm not going to make you roll that. If you talk to the king and present a valid argument, there is no Persuasion check. If you are trying to sneak past orcs that are arguing loudly while trying to remain silent, you win automatically.

The minutia does not matter. Roleplaying is the reason we're making characters and surrounding the table in the first place. There are better systems for straight combat simulators. This thread is all about the out of combat and that's where the game is the most interesting in the first place. Abstract systems are and should be the core of your DMing with mechanical systems only entering the picture when absolutely necessary or to resolve a conflict of interest fairly.

The catch there is that, by allowing things to ignore mechanics, you ignore investments and specialization.

Without organization, Barbarians are as good as Bards when it comes to Persuasion or Deception, even if that Bard has a maxed out stat and Expertise. If that's NOT the case, then we're either using a system to dictate what's appropriate, or we're making assumptions to create the same limitations.

The Bard should feel special. He should do it better, and he shouldn't have to guess what exactly "better" means. Ignoring part of a system, in order to make someone (in this case, the Barbarian) feel special will end up causing others to feel dull, despite the massive amount of investment that someone can pump into non-combat benefits.

Sure, making everyone succeed out of combat might be what makes the majority of the table happy, but what's the reward for someone who wants to stand out in that regard? The Inquisitive Rogues or the Illusion Wizards? Because the solutions for non-combat scenarios I see are:

Use mechanics to ground everyone, to create expectations and to create limitations.
Let everyone have the chance for success, and give a heartfelt *shrug* to those who want to specialize.

[Rukelnikov]

The solution isn't to make social systems that imitate combat rules (except in systems where all conflicts are resolved by the same highly-abstract mechanics), nor is it to add extra stuff to the basic "Roll to succeed" system. It's to design a new system, abstracted in a similar way as combat is abstracted but distinct enough to feel unique. I've long considered a number of options, with most inspired in part by Last Word (https://store.steampowered.com/app/355530/Last_Word/) (but less abstract).

I'll try to read it in the weekend, even when previous social systems have discouraged me from trying to use one, it would be awesome if I actually found one I like.

[Rukelnikov]

As a long time D&D player who feels more at home with the older editions, the theater of the mind, and the roleplaying aspect of the game rather than getting too hung up on mechanical differences, my sense of the system is that it works best when rolls are only used to resolve opposition.

Climbing a wall has had a skill check for a long time, since the oldest thief ever put his percentages into it. But if you have a grappling hook and the entire night, I'm not going to make you roll that. If you talk to the king and present a valid argument, there is no Persuasion check. If you are trying to sneak past orcs that are arguing loudly while trying to remain silent, you win automatically.

The minutia does not matter. Roleplaying is the reason we're making characters and surrounding the table in the first place. There are better systems for straight combat simulators. This thread is all about the out of combat and that's where the game is the most interesting in the first place. Abstract systems are and should be the core of your DMing with mechanical systems only entering the picture when absolutely necessary or to resolve a conflict of interest fairly.

Great post.

[Kyutaru]

The catch there is that, by allowing things to ignore mechanics, you ignore investments and specialization.
That I believe is where the DM's role is critical. You absolutely need DMs who are well versed in making appropriate challenges exist in the first place. The barbarian may be great at persuading when he has a valid point. But that's not always going to be the case and the DM has to make sure there are moments when Persuasion rolls are actually important and create a conflict that a specialist may shine in.

After all, I'm not ignoring specialization and investments in my campaign. I'm ignoring moments where they either aren't necessary or degrees of success are irrelevant. My job is to make sure I'm providing enough actual skill challenges that rolling off and using your uniqueness still matters.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Heck, original D&D was described as taking place entirely in your head and not even using tabletop grids or maps. The game was dirt simple because it was all about IMAGINATION.
Then what's the point of the rulebooks? My brother and I had many games which took place entirely in our heads, all about IMAGINATION.
You don't need books for imagination. You don't need rules for creativity. Rulebooks are for consistency, for ensuring everyone understands how things work. Without that, there's no way to know if what you do will work or what might work better, save by guessing what the storyteller will accept best. Rules enable agency by letting you predict outcomes.



Can't we just agree that we have different ways of having fun?
We could. Or we could discuss why we have fun and what we think could make it more fun.
I think that's what I'm doing.



Climbing a wall has had a skill check for a long time, since the oldest thief ever put his percentages into it. But if you have a grappling hook and the entire night, I'm not going to make you roll that. If you talk to the king and present a valid argument, there is no Persuasion check. If you are trying to sneak past orcs that are arguing loudly while trying to remain silent, you win automatically.
Well, duh. You don't need an RPG system to figure that out.


The minutia does not matter. Roleplaying is the reason we're making characters and surrounding the table in the first place. There are better systems for straight combat simulators. This thread is all about the out of combat and that's where the game is the most interesting in the first place. Abstract systems are and should be the core of your DMing with mechanical systems only entering the picture when absolutely necessary or to resolve a conflict of interest fairly.
I don't understand what you're getting at. What minutia are you saying don't matter, and why? Where did combat simulations come into this, beyond as analogies? What is the difference between an "abstract" system and a "mechanical" system? And for that matter, what did you mean when you said rolls should be used to "resolve opposition"? Opposition between what?



That I believe is where the DM's role is critical. You absolutely need DMs who are well versed in making appropriate challenges exist in the first place. The barbarian may be great at persuading when he has a valid point. But that's not always going to be the case and the DM has to make sure there are moments when Persuasion rolls are actually important and create a conflict that a specialist may shine in.

After all, I'm not ignoring specialization and investments in my campaign. I'm ignoring moments where they either aren't necessary or degrees of success are irrelevant. My job is to make sure I'm providing enough actual skill challenges that rolling off and using your uniqueness still matters.
I'm willing to bet that if I had two siblings, I could have done this kind of stuff before I had heard of D&D. You don't need to play D&D to have one storyteller consider how good someone's character is at talking and decide if they succeed. If social encounters are dependent on the same methods that I used playing barely-organized make-believe as a kid, it's not really part of D&D so much as something the DM adds to D&D.



I'll try to read it in the weekend, even when previous social systems have discouraged me from trying to use one, it would be awesome if I actually found one I like.
It's a video game. (If anyone finds a TRPG that tries some kind of detailed social resolution system, I'd love to hear of it; until then, I'm looking at indie video games that try that.) I guess you could read the Steam page?

[Kyutaru]

Then what's the point of the rulebooks?
You answered it yourself. Rulebooks for consistency. Or more specifically, for resolving conflict. Not always while being upfront about it either since older editions encouraged hiding the DM rolls due to how the system was organized.



I don't understand what you're getting at. What minutia are you saying don't matter, and why? Where did combat simulations come into this, beyond as analogies? What is the difference between an "abstract" system and a "mechanical" system? And for that matter, what did you mean when you said rolls should be used to "resolve opposition"? Opposition between what?
The minutia of stat tracking, rolling skill checks needlessly, or having out of combat abilities just for the sake of having buttons to push. The crunch, the mechanical numbers game that gets in the way of that imagination and storytelling, is what too often gets prioritized over keeping things simple and reserving the rules for when opposition strikes. Resolving opposition defines the case where what the players want to do carries with it diverging results dependent on success or failure that significantly impact the adventure. As for abstract versus mechanical systems, the mechanical ones favor the rules defining actions with little to no leeway and precise results brought forth through math or rolls or tables while abstract systems favor the rules as guidelines that create a spectrum of possibilities with plenty of variance depending on circumstance and even the DM's current mood. Older D&D editions favored the abstract style of roleplaying as do current White Wolf games like Vampire: the Masquerade. Rather than adhering to exact figures pertaining to what your character can accomplish, such as with D&D's carrying capacity tables, the system offers a range based on your point allocations.

For example, as with Lure of Flames, the more dots you have in the discipline the larger the fire you can create. A single dot creates a candle sized flame, two dots a palm-sized fireball, all the way up to five dots to create a raging inferno. The system describes the approximations of each power or attribute but keeps the mechanical value to a minimum (when it exists at all). So much of the game is solely Storyteller discretion. The rules exist to give shape and form to the imagination, not to control it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rules also take the burden off the group. You can delegate some tasks to the rules instead of having to figure them out by consensus in the moment. They're basically pre-approval for certain actions. That doesn't restrict the group, merely it gives shortcuts for certain things. Anything is still possible (unless the group has agreed to a rule forbidding it), it's just some things are easier.

Combat and fantastic behavior are the two places that I find I need tons of help from mechanical rules. Combat, because otherwise it's easy to devolve into childhood arguments of "I hit you! No you didn't!" Fantastic behavior because it's so open ended. Things that any normal person can do (most of social interactions, for example) need very little support because we are already doing that simply by playing.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You answered it yourself. Rulebooks for consistency. Or more specifically, for resolving conflict. Not always while being upfront about it either since older editions encouraged hiding the DM rolls due to how the system was organized.
...I know. That's why I'm suggesting D&D should have social systems, so social encounters can benefit from all of that.


The minutia of stat tracking, rolling skill checks needlessly, or having out of combat abilities just for the sake of having buttons to push. The crunch, the mechanical numbers game that gets in the way of that imagination and storytelling, is what too often gets prioritized over keeping things simple and reserving the rules for when opposition strikes.
Thing is, I can see that argument for combat, too. I've seen that play out for combat. One player wants their character to jump on another player's wild shaped druid to ride them into the sky, and half the session is wasted on arguing with the DM over how that could play out mechanically. (It was only an hour-and-a-half session, but still.)
That's the core of my frustration with so many arguments against social mechanics. The same arguments apply to combat mechanics, but nobody is opposed to those because they realize combat encounters need mechanics to not just be a slush of arbitrary DM calls. But having social encounters be a slush of arbitrary DM calls ia apparently ideal.


Resolving opposition defines the case where what the players want to do carries with it diverging results dependent on success or failure that significantly impact the adventure.
That definition is so vague as to be useless, especially from a "what mechanics do we design" point of view. Anything the players want to do can significantly impact an adventure by failure or success under the right circumstances. Sure, most of the time climbing is just something that needs to be done to get from point A to point B, but sometimes it's a crucial part of the climax. (Also, most fights are basically just obstacles between A and B.)
And that's not getting into what "significant impact" means.

Let's use a video game example here, because...well, tabletop RPGs suck at branching storylines. As far as I know, there's no middle ground between "single preplotted path" and "DM by the seat of your pants". Heck, even the best professional adventure paths don't get more nonlinearity than sidequests and the occasional beads-on-a-string segment.

So let's look at a game like Fallout. (Or most WRPGs, but Fallout is a well-known example known for this, so let's say Fallout.) Any choice that changes which ending you get obviously had a significant impact on the game. But each ending has plenty of potential changes, from replacing entire pages to rewriting individual sentences, all depending on player choices. Did any of these choices have a significant impact on the game? All of them? And what about choices made in individual plot arcs or side quests with minimal impact beyond that little region? Letting Cass be executed doesn't affect New Vegas politics, but it obviously has a significant impact on her own questline.
And, of course, things get all the murkier when there isn't an ending screen you can point to as an arbitrary cutoff point.



As for abstract versus mechanical systems, the mechanical ones favor the rules defining actions with little to no leeway and precise results brought forth through math or rolls or tables while abstract systems favor the rules as guidelines that create a spectrum of possibilities with plenty of variance depending on circumstance and even the DM's current mood.
That's more of a spectrum than two distinct categories, but I guess I see the difference.
Personally, I think that professional game designers should give more mechanical systems to systems that are a core part of their game, to enable even mediocre or mercurial DMs to provide a consistent gaming experience. You called out one of the problems with abstract systems for me, by pointing out that it's dependent on the DM's current mood. (I'd have said "whim," since that encompasses mood and intent, but still.)



Combat and fantastic behavior are the two places that I find I need tons of help from mechanical rules. Combat, because otherwise it's easy to devolve into childhood arguments of "I hit you! No you didn't!" Fantastic behavior because it's so open ended. Things that any normal person can do (most of social interactions, for example) need very little support because we are already doing that simply by playing.
I can see that argument, and I find it stronger than most, but I don't find it very compelling. First off, me talking with friends isn't the same as convincing a bunch of ogres to lay down their arms and surrender. Second, it doesn't address the gameplay issues I have with social encounters so much as it tries to sidestep them. "Eh, I guess those issues are there, but we're already talking so we don't need to support it."
I guess part of the problem is that I don't find "I hit you! No you didn't!" to be that much worse than "I make a convincing argument! No you didn't!"

[Vogie]

Anyway, back to the topic.
I think having some sort of ability to have companion stats to balance out the de-emphasized stats, sort of like Kyutaru's post on another thread


For example, there was an edition where this was the case:

Your Fortitude save is the better of your Strength and Constitution save bonuses.
Your Reflex save is the better of your Dexterity and Intelligence save bonuses.
Your Will save is the better of your Wisdom and Charisma save bonuses.


Have Intimidation be the better of Strength and Charisma bonuses. Now your super strong fighter can influence people with muscles or glares. It's also not something I'd use in social situations much. Intimidation is for using on the bad guys to get them to spill the beans.


Using something like this, having the Barbarian use Constitution rather than Wisdom to resist mind-control or being able to choose between multiple mental stats (for example a Str EK being able to use Investigation for their Perception check)


Other Ideas I had in a previous similar thread from back in the day (just substitute 'fighter' for any only-martial class):


Limitless learning- Fighters continue to train and thus can change their feats over time. You could rebuild the feat system, or a portion of the feat system so it more closely resembles a Spell list, then restrict the fighters to only use those over the course of the day. You could have them shift their feats around daily, after a long rest, so they have to spend an hour in training to keep their senses sharp, or only allow shifts each level.
The Bourne Legacy - the Fighter has a massive passive perception, far above what would be available for their stats. It could be gated by # of times/day or short rest, but the fighter will automatically glean large amounts of information in an area. Your survival skills increase when you are fatigue, are bloodied/low on health, or are low on rations.
Swords AND Plowshares - while normal PCs may tangentially be related to their backstories, professions and social traits, fighters are still that when not actively fighting. They get an additional background or Social trait for free, and that trait's bonus is increased by 50-100%. They also gain additional benefits while in environments populated by that profession, gaining information without use of diplomacy, bluff, or intimidation checks, and can find local work faster than Players of other classes.
The Man They Call Jayne - Fighters gain a passive leadership feat while staying in an area for a period of time, and they will be actively sought out by the community as a person of help, more than the other classes. They attract people who wish to learn from them, but can only pay in favors. The longer a fighter stays in an area, he or she will accrue more one-use benefits from the locals, such as use of horses, carts, locksmiths, crafters, and the like, and can use these network of favors to gain knowledge similar to a spell, such as divination, Suggestion, charm person, comprehend language or commune, or just add NPC allies to the group for a period of time.
With Maximum Effort - When studying a difficult problem, a fighter can gain a class skill for an encounter and using their intelligence or wisdom modifier as the value. This allows a fighter to suddenly gain skills such as Acrobatics, Swim, Animal Handling, Climb, Use Rope, et cetera, for a brief period. This could also manifest as self-only castings of Spiderclimb* (*like a heavily intoxicated spider), Feather fall* (*but only when against a wall), Rope Trick* (*without the extra-dimensional part), and so on.
Suck it up, you Big Baby - Being a fighter has fighting right on the tin, and because of that, a fighter gains the ability to bandage the wounds of him and others. While not channeling positive energy, the fighter gains the ability to cast Stabilize, detect poison, and Cure light wounds... although the somatic component is putting on a bandage, and the verbal component is muttering under your breath or cursing.
Utility Belt - The fighter gains a small pouch of trinkets that come in handy from time to time. These trinkets are mundane, but act in the same manner as the cantrips Ghost sound, flare, light/produce flame, know direction and open/close.
Portal Combat - It just so happens that fighting beings with the ability to blink and teleport is something that fighters have to do on occasion, and fighters are trained to battle these foes. This could be a device that allows them to Side-Along follow a teleportation spell, a strike that acts as a small dimensional lock on a target, a bonus to shooting ranged weapons through the "gate scar" behind the teleporter, or a Grappling weapon that teleports with the target (similar to the Paladin's weapons in the forgettable movie Jumper)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can see that argument, and I find it stronger than most, but I don't find it very compelling. First off, me talking with friends isn't the same as convincing a bunch of ogres to lay down their arms and surrender. Second, it doesn't address the gameplay issues I have with social encounters so much as it tries to sidestep them. "Eh, I guess those issues are there, but we're already talking so we don't need to support it."
I guess part of the problem is that I don't find "I hit you! No you didn't!" to be that much worse than "I make a convincing argument! No you didn't!"

Specifically, I don't need support in social things. Because social occasions are so open-ended that any structure just feels artificial and confining. Unlike combat, where hit/not-hit has a clear answer, persuasive vs non-persuasive is much more mushy in my mind. The amount of active DM intervention needed is huge, so making it almost entirely DM intervention (until the final check if there's uncertainty) isn't that much of a change.

But to each their own.

I treat rules as part of the social contract. Specifically, the players agree in advance to use <rule> to handle specific cases, starting from a baseline of freeform. This means that removing rules is harder than adding rules, because rules form expectations, and those expectations are not necessarily valid. And people have a lot more expectations about things they understand than about those they don't understand.

And anything that restricts people from playing characters unlike themselves is anathema to me. I play with teenagers in a school environment, and one of my core goals is to help people branch out. So that the socially-maladapt kid can play the face, or the "dumb kid" can play a super-brain, the weak kid can play a burly barbarian, etc. So the "just roleplay it and don't roll at all" side doesn't work. Since the time is limited and the kids are more interested (often) in doing things (as opposed to talking about them), complex social systems are also right out.

Add in the fact that I haven't seen a social system that had any kind of verisimilitude (they're often combat, just worse or with different names) and I'd rather do without one. Doing it myself is much better than working around a bad set of rules.

[Kyutaru]

That definition is so vague as to be useless, especially from a "what mechanics do we design" point of view. And that's not getting into what "significant impact" means.
Ah but that's the crux of the definition. It's entirely subjective.

As this very topic proves, people will perpetually disagree and compromise or debate are prone to happen. I don't know many DMs who use the rules as they are without any sort of modifications or house rules, even just to curb the broken use of certain overpowered effects. I also don't know any who use the exact same modifications because they all disagree with which are necessary. Even if they don't describe their changes in advance, they apply the DM fiat to all things according to their personal opinion.

So it's up to you to determine what significant impact means. Your own definition may even vary by circumstance and prove inconsistent purely for subjective reasons held only by you. We're playing a game that millions of people play in different ways. There is no box big enough to contain it so thinking outside of one is recommended.

[Man_Over_Game]

Specifically, I don't need support in social things. Because social occasions are so open-ended that any structure just feels artificial and confining. Unlike combat, where hit/not-hit has a clear answer, persuasive vs non-persuasive is much more mushy in my mind. The amount of active DM intervention needed is huge, so making it almost entirely DM intervention (until the final check if there's uncertainty) isn't that much of a change.

But to each their own.

I treat rules as part of the social contract. Specifically, the players agree in advance to use <rule> to handle specific cases, starting from a baseline of freeform. This means that removing rules is harder than adding rules, because rules form expectations, and those expectations are not necessarily valid. And people have a lot more expectations about things they understand than about those they don't understand.

And anything that restricts people from playing characters unlike themselves is anathema to me. I play with teenagers in a school environment, and one of my core goals is to help people branch out. So that the socially-maladapt kid can play the face, or the "dumb kid" can play a super-brain, the weak kid can play a burly barbarian, etc. So the "just roleplay it and don't roll at all" side doesn't work. Since the time is limited and the kids are more interested (often) in doing things (as opposed to talking about them), complex social systems are also right out.

Add in the fact that I haven't seen a social system that had any kind of verisimilitude (they're often combat, just worse or with different names) and I'd rather do without one. Doing it myself is much better than working around a bad set of rules.

Hmm...

You could do something like having any relevant checks be done at the time that a decision has to be made, or after all roleplaying is done.

So after many minutes of roleplaying and debate, the Lord they're talking with has to make a decision. This is the time that the DM tells each person how many dice they rolled, to reflect how much influence they had in the discussion or RP event. Even if someone rolled 4 dice, he still only keeps 1. This is to reward those who do most of the legwork, without completely overshadowing someone who doesn't participate much.

Tally them up, and the final result determines how the Lord makes his decision. It'd average based off of people's scores, but they might sway things above their normal average depending on how good of an argument they made. A combination of both worlds, that doesn't inhibit the roleplaying aspect of the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm...

You could do something like having any relevant checks be done at the time that a decision has to be made, or after all roleplaying is done.

So after many minutes of roleplaying and debate, the Lord they're talking with has to make a decision. This is the time that the DM tells each person how many dice they rolled, to reflect how much influence they had in the discussion or RP event. Even if someone rolled 4 dice, he still only keeps 1. This is to reward those who do most of the legwork, without completely overshadowing someone who doesn't participate much.

Tally them up, and the final result determines how the Lord makes his decision. It'd average based off of people's scores, but they might sway things above their normal average depending on how good of an argument they made. A combination of both worlds, that doesn't inhibit the roleplaying aspect of the game.

I do it much more simply. Nothing mechanical happens until you ask someone to do something they don't want to do (which is at the end of the conversation one way or another). Then they make an appropriate CHA check. If their arguments were persuasive, they get advantage. If their arguments/method were particularly ill-suited for the target, they get one or both of disadvantage or a harder DC. And the person to make the check is the one that fits the situation best, not necessarily the one with the best modifier. I do run languages as a thing, so often there's only one person who speaks the target language. Everyone else can contribute, but it's (in fiction) being filtered through the translator. Also, if you've got lots of people chiming in, I may call for a group CHA check. NPCs will target people to talk to (based on personality), and I make sure a bunch exist who will talk to each different person and ignore others.

Frequently, they use their knowledge of the setting and the people to make arguments that result in no uncertainty, so no check is needed. That, or they've built up enough favors through their actions as to be able to call them in and get what they want.

[Kyutaru]

Hmm...

You could do something like having any relevant checks be done at the time that a decision has to be made, or after all roleplaying is done.

So after many minutes of roleplaying and debate, the Lord they're talking with has to make a decision. This is the time that the DM tells each person how many dice they rolled, to reflect how much influence they had in the discussion or RP event. Even if someone rolled 4 dice, he still only keeps 1. This is to reward those who do most of the legwork, without completely overshadowing someone who doesn't participate much.

Tally them up, and the final result determines how the Lord makes his decision. It'd average based off of people's scores, but they might sway things above their normal average depending on how good of an argument they made. A combination of both worlds, that doesn't inhibit the roleplaying aspect of the game.

Pure genius. I can already see it similar to awarding players Inspiration dice for excellent roleplay. You made an excellent point in a conversation, have another d20! It rewards players for thinking and roleplaying rather than merely acting or showing no concern. It also allows the other players to potentially beat the lazy face character if they spam enough dice. It makes everyone a potential contributor to the dice pool and encourages the quiet ones to actually engage in the event. I cannot find a downside to this. Even if it makes social encounters easier to succeed I can just up the DC requirements.

Kudos. Stealing this.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Specifically, I don't need support in social things. Because social occasions are so open-ended that any structure just feels artificial and confining. Unlike combat, where hit/not-hit has a clear answer, persuasive vs non-persuasive is much more mushy in my mind.
A persuasive argument isn't parallel to an attack that hits, but a damaging attack. Some attacks are more or less damaging, some arguments are more or less persuasive. Deciding which argument is the one that finally convinces the NPC is like deciding which attack finally incapacitates the other NPC, in that it depends on the arguments, the target, and a ton of other factors.
They are different, don't get me wrong, but the differences between them don't seem related to factors which would make it better or worse to codify them in rules. The only difference is how the game treats them, which makes sense; if social encounters aren't important, don't devote a whole chapter and a rules subsystem to them. That would be like if Risk included a subsystem for resolving fights between individual officers. But at the same time, if your rulebook doesn't treat different kinds of encounters with the same level of care, it's disingenuous to claim that they're equally-important.


But to each their own.
I guess, but I like trying to understand other people's own (and make sure both I and they understand our respective owns, and ideally let the other people understand my own).
"Own" feels like a weird word to pluralize.


...Since the time is limited and the kids are more interested (often) in doing things (as opposed to talking about them), complex social systems are also right out.
Implicit assumption: Players are uninterested in social encounters for reasons unrelated to whether or not they have mechanics.
Okay, that might be true for "kids," but it won't be true for everyone, and I'd argue that the problems that crop up from not having rules make social encounters less appealing. As I've said, when success or failure boils down to little more than DM fiat, player agency is decreased; it doesn't matter if they have infinite choices if they have barely any idea what the effects of those choices will be, beyond the crudest (e.g, "insults aren't going to get us anywhere" or "maybe they're bribable"). The only thing more boring than that is a single pass/fail roll.


Add in the fact that I haven't seen a social system that had any kind of verisimilitude (they're often combat, just worse or with different names) and I'd rather do without one. Doing it myself is much better than working around a bad set of rules.
Implicit assumption: Social systems cannot be done well. I really, really hope I don't have to explain why this is a stupid assumption, especially when I've linked to a game with a social system distinct from combat in all but the most meaningless ways. (Of course it has numbers and discrete actions, that's what it means to be a system.)
Especially especially when someone else thought of a very simple social system which has decent potential, in a forum-post-worthy timeframe; I hope you wouldn't reject it out of hand without even explaining what you dislike about that particular system. Wait, you did, basically just saying "Nah, I like my way better". You're not helping your case by dismissing social systems out of hand.



Ah but that's the crux of the definition. It's entirely subjective. -snip-
Thank you for rephrasing my argument about why your original statement is all but meaningless. Guidelines which are entirely reliant on subjective interpretation are only helpful if they point out a factor most people wouldn't consider in the first place, and this isn't one of those cases. "Rolls should be used to resolve opposition," "opposition means when success or failure has a significant impact," and "significant is whatever you think is important" adds up to "Rolls should be used to resolve whatever you think is important," except without the clarity. How helpful.

[Zigludo]

I really didn't mean for this thread to turn into "Martials vs casters and DM philosophy debate: Act #682", lol.

I'm not trying to chide the participants in this thread; the conversation is articulate and everyone's being suitably polite, so if you want to keep pursuing the current line of discussion then, please, by all means go ahead.

But I am still working on that homebrew. So I do want to remind anyone checking out this thread that if you happen to have any ideas for cool unique abilities that "so-called 'martials'" could have, then, please post them in this thread because I'm still hungry for them :smalltongue:

[Damon_Tor]

You can consider this a corollary to Man_Over_Game's thread.

I'm working on some ideas for adding a couple of new features to my own campaign, but, this thread isn't about those rules. This thread is just for me taking to the GitP forums to try and plunder inspiration.

So here's the question: According to your own understanding of the fantasy of each class, and your own desires, what are some things outside of combat that you think a martial should be able to do, that other classes (for instance, spellcasters) shouldn't be able to do, despite the fact that the abilities aren't clearly spelled out by the book?

By "martials" here, I'm referring to Barbarians, Fighters, Monks and Rogues, although you don't need to limit your comments to those classes. As an example, you could say "High level Barbarians should be able to rip down wooden gates with their own hands," or maybe "High level monks should be able to levitate at will", or what have you. These examples are not all-inclusive; your answer doesn't have to refer to high level play, or be very specific at all. As long as I hear some of your original ideas which I haven't heard before, I'll be very happy.



And remember - outside of combat!

The system just isn't very robust outside of combat, and so "abilities" tied to certain martial classes would be entirely in the realm of roleplay as the system exists today. A system with a more interesting and tactical diplomacy system might give a barbarian the ability to flaunt certain norms of civilized behavior with reduced consequence because he's explicitly a barbarian and can get away with doing something like calling out a King for having a terrible plan. A system with a more complex warfare system might give fighters abilities related to leading armies and the logistics of warfare. But in D&D little outside of combat is more complex than a simple pass/fail skill check.

[pragma]

Pure genius. I can already see it similar to awarding players Inspiration dice for excellent roleplay. You made an excellent point in a conversation, have another d20! It rewards players for thinking and roleplaying rather than merely acting or showing no concern. It also allows the other players to potentially beat the lazy face character if they spam enough dice. It makes everyone a potential contributor to the dice pool and encourages the quiet ones to actually engage in the event. I cannot find a downside to this. Even if it makes social encounters easier to succeed I can just up the DC requirements.

Kudos. Stealing this.

Be very careful with this. The probability curve of rolling multiple dice and picking the maximum scale up way faster than you'd expect -- you have a ~50% chance of rolling a 17 or higher picking the max of 3d20 -- so this system is likely to overshadow any of the relatively small skill modifiers in 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Be very careful with this. The probability curve of rolling multiple dice and picking the maximum scale up way faster than you'd expect -- you have a ~50% chance of rolling a 17 or higher picking the max of 3d20 -- so this system is likely to overshadow any of the relatively small skill modifiers in 5e.

Right. It's advantage on steroids. It's basically auto success for anything above 2 dice.

[Zigludo]

The system just isn't very robust outside of combat, and so "abilities" tied to certain martial classes would be entirely in the realm of roleplay as the system exists today.

Poppycock. About a third of the Warlock's Eldritch Invocation options have got nothing or almost nothing to do with ability checks or combat. Why not so for martials?

In the Player's Handbook alone you've got hard rules for languages, living expenses, sight, movement, carrying and lifting/dragging, travel time, suffocation, food and water, resting, recuperating... The Dungeon Master's guide and Xanathar's Guide add rules for even more aspects of adventuring that are not, strictly speaking, limited to combat, and not always resolved with an ability check. You could add any kind of feature that interacts with these rules and satisfy the criteria of the thread question.

Or you could have a feature that just adds an entirely new rule. Perfect examples of what I'm talking about: the Keen Mind and Observant feats. If you take Keen Mind, you simply know which way is north and the number of hours until sunrise. If you have the Observant feat, you don't need to roll to read someone's lips - you just can. No magic involved. No ability check involved.

On top of that, there are also features that explicitly add new abilities that utilize the existing skill check system - for instance the feats Actor and Linguist, or illusion spells that require an Investigation check to see through.

Anything along any of those lines is valid fodder for this thread.

[Mjolnirbear]

I currently use DiBastet's Ribbons (I think it's DMGuild?). I've added some from one of Kryx's houserule iteration, when he split a bunch of stuff into half feats. And some things, like Keen Mind, also became ribbons. Like:

* It Cures What Ails Ya: a drink of booze to cure poisoning, disease and one other condition which I can't remember.
* Babble: allow you to roll persuasion at disadvantage when an ally fails
* Demon Hunter: advantage on knowledge checks on demons
* Initiate / Apprentice: get a cantrip that has no attack roll or saving throw
* One Eye Open: suffer only a - 5 penalty to perception for sleeping

I have players get a ribbon at level 1. At level 10 they may get another but that one will be related to how they've played their character thus far.

The difference of course is that this is all my players, not martiales only.

[Sindeloke]

On top of that, there are also features that explicitly add new abilities that utilize the existing skill check system - for instance the feats Actor and Linguist, or illusion spells that require an Investigation check to see through.

I would argue that Actor and Linguist are actually a perfect example of what this system does wrong in working against itself. By making a feat that allows you to create a cipher, you implicitly deny any character the ability to create a cipher without that feat. This is completely contradictory to what its proponents argue is the justification and strength of the vague and mushy skill system - that anyone can try anything and you don't have to have an explicit button on your sheet in order to attempt something interesting.

Instead, Linguist should say something like "when making Intelligence checks related to codes and ciphers, you add your proficiency bonus, including when attempting to decrypt another person's cipher or setting the DC for your own." Now it's clear that anyone can try to make a cipher, you're just especially good at it (and the concept of "roll a relevant ability check to try anything you can think of" is subtly reinforced).

I would tend to say that that's where we want to be looking for martial "invocations" as well - providing action economy augmentation or auto-success on things you can already try regardless (much the way backgrounds do). Rogues and maybe rangers can learn enough of a language to communicate basic ideas politely with just an hour of observation of fluent speakers, while anyone else can make a Wisdom check to make coherent gestures. Barbarians and fighters can just win drinking contests or run for days or hold their breath for hours while everyone else makes Constitution checks. Stuff like that.

[JackPhoenix]

I would argue that Actor and Linguist are actually a perfect example of what this system does wrong in working against itself. By making a feat that allows you to create a cipher, you implicitly deny any character the ability to create a cipher without that feat. This is completely contradictory to what its proponents argue is the justification and strength of the vague and mushy skill system - that anyone can try anything and you don't have to have an explicit button on your sheet in order to attempt something interesting.

Instead, Linguist should say something like "when making Intelligence checks related to codes and ciphers, you add your proficiency bonus, including when attempting to decrypt another person's cipher or setting the DC for your own." Now it's clear that anyone can try to make a cipher, you're just especially good at it (and the concept of "roll a relevant ability check to try anything you can think of" is subtly reinforced).

That's what it does, though: Linguist doesn't prevent someone from inventing their own cipher, but it makes someone who takes the feat so good they don't need to roll anything to do so.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would argue that Actor and Linguist are actually a perfect example of what this system does wrong in working against itself. By making a feat that allows you to create a cipher, you implicitly deny any character the ability to create a cipher without that feat. This is completely contradictory to what its proponents argue is the justification and strength of the vague and mushy skill system - that anyone can try anything and you don't have to have an explicit button on your sheet in order to attempt something interesting.

Instead, Linguist should say something like "when making Intelligence checks related to codes and ciphers, you add your proficiency bonus, including when attempting to decrypt another person's cipher or setting the DC for your own." Now it's clear that anyone can try to make a cipher, you're just especially good at it (and the concept of "roll a relevant ability check to try anything you can think of" is subtly reinforced).

I would tend to say that that's where we want to be looking for martial "invocations" as well - providing action economy augmentation or auto-success on things you can already try regardless (much the way backgrounds do). Rogues and maybe rangers can learn enough of a language to communicate basic ideas politely with just an hour of observation of fluent speakers, while anyone else can make a Wisdom check to make coherent gestures. Barbarians and fighters can just win drinking contests or run for days or hold their breath for hours while everyone else makes Constitution checks. Stuff like that.

But then you run into another problem. Investigation or History could already be used to decipher cyphers, theoretically, and there's already a way to add your proficiency bonus when using those skills. If you were to add your proficiency bonus again, then that still steps on the toes of Expertise, because you can only apply your Proficiency bonus to something from two sources: One from being "proficient", and one from any other source.

You run into a problem where the Rogue, with Investigation Expertise, is the worst person to grab a feat that fits with their character concept. Or they just don't use their Rogue Expertise to improve their most important skill.

I don't disagree with your premise - adding content shouldn't come at the cost of removing some - but I think that the solution has to come from something that's not Proficiency.

[Segev]

The reason people want rules for social interaction is the same as the reason people want rules for climbing a wall: their characters have different abilities than they do. The Navy Seal who plays the scrawny nerdling shouldn't be claiming his nerdling can climb that wall with no difficulty because the Navy Seal can demonstrate his prowess on the walls of the building in which the game's taking place. The silver-tongued prom queen playing the amazon barbarian shouldn't be able to claim her character elucidates the finer points of a sticky dipomatic issue as eloquently as she demonstrates she can jsut by saying "my barbarian says what I say on the subject."

Conversely, the 90-lb scrawny 13-year-old playing the burly special forces soldier shouldn't have to demonstrate how to climb that wall in order to say his soldier PC can do so, and the socially awkward bluntly-speaking frat boy shouldn't have to speak in eloquent and courtler terms to spell out precisely how his fop persuades the royal court to side with him over the amazonian ruffian.

[Man_Over_Game]

The reason people want rules for social interaction is the same as the reason people want rules for climbing a wall: their characters have different abilities than they do. The Navy Seal who plays the scrawny nerdling shouldn't be claiming his nerdling can climb that wall with no difficulty because the Navy Seal can demonstrate his prowess on the walls of the building in which the game's taking place. The silver-tongued prom queen playing the amazon barbarian shouldn't be able to claim her character elucidates the finer points of a sticky dipomatic issue as eloquently as she demonstrates she can jsut by saying "my barbarian says what I say on the subject."

Conversely, the 90-lb scrawny 13-year-old playing the burly special forces soldier shouldn't have to demonstrate how to climb that wall in order to say his soldier PC can do so, and the socially awkward bluntly-speaking frat boy shouldn't have to speak in eloquent and courtler terms to spell out precisely how his fop persuades the royal court to side with him over the amazonian ruffian.

I agree.

The problem I see most people mention (and I kinda agree) is that a climbing check has a set goal and a well-defined path to success.

However, a conversation isn't always that way. They're fluid and changing. Adding rules to determine your success and failures after, or in the middle of, making a social check can occasionally cause things to seem...broken and off.



I mentioned earlier about a social system where you rolled after all the roleplaying was done, but the problem comes in is determining when that is? It also doesn't accurately portray how successful your individual attempts are.

So...what if we did it in reverse?

You make your Social Check first, and THEN you roleplay? That way, you know exactly what your character should be sounding like during your roleplay moments. It also means you're allowed to make stupid mistakes (like antagonizing the noble, rather than appealing to him), when you know that your roll (role?) will end in a mishap anyway.