Variant Rule: Persuade and Intimidate your PCs (Feedback Wanted)

[schm0]

I posted this in a few places online but didn't get any feedback. I'd love to hear from you.

Influencing the PCs

When it comes to social skills, many DMs avoid utilizing Persuasion or Intimidation against the PCs. Player agency is paramount to running the game, as the decisions of the players change the course and direction of the campaign in an infinite number of ways. We all know that it doesn't feel good to lose control of your character. These optional rules seek to utilize these mechanics in a way that is fair for players but also recognizes the ability of NPCs.

Social Interaction

A creature's ability to influence another creature can be limited by skill checks, the flow of social interaction or even the practical nature of what is being asked. Ability checks should only be called for when there is a meaningful chance of influencing the other creature.

If the player becomes the target of a social interaction that seeks to influence their course of action, the player decides their starting attitude: friendly, indifferent, or hostile, as defined in the "Resolving Interactions" section of the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Continue to use these rules as written for resolving those interactions, but with the following exception for players:


Conversation Reactions
Players may choose to oppose a suggested course of action, regardless of the DC or outcome of the roll. A player who disregards the request, demand or suggestion has disadvantage on the next ability check, saving throw or attack roll made in opposition to the suggested course of action. At your DM's discretion, inspiration may be awarded to players who follow the suggested course of action.

Combat

The following rule can be used by both PCs and NPCs in combat.

Intimidate
On your turn you can use your action to attempt to intimidate a creature. Choose a creature the same size or smaller that can see and hear you. Make a contested check against the targeted creature using each of your Charisma (Intimidation) scores. On a success, the targeted creature has disadvantage on the first attack roll and opportunity attacks made against you. The creature is intimidated in this way until the end of your next turn.

Notes

Social Interaction
These rules extend the social interaction rules found in the Dungeon Master's Guide (p. 244-5). If you are not familiar with these rules, please reference them as needed.

Variant Rule: Skills with Different Abilities
As an option, the DM may permit the use of the variant rules for "Skills with Different Abilities", as outlined in the Player's Handbook (p. 175). For instance, a raging barbarian may wish to utilize her physical prowess to intimidate another creature, which may call for a Strength (Intimidation) check in place of Charisma.

[ecarden]

I don't really see a lot of value here? I struggle to imagine any circumstances where I would use an action to give someone disadvantage on one attack? That seems strictly worse than dodging.

ETA: Also, if you're doing this, I don't know why it wouldn't be Intimidation vs. either a Cha or Wis save? Rather than Intimidation vs Intimidation? Maybe turning it into a bonus action? But if you do this, anyone without a good use for their bonus action will do it every turn, which may slow combat significantly.

My recommendation for NPC->PC persuasion/intimidation is the same as my recommendation for PC->PC persuasion/intimidation, let the target set the DC (how hard would it be to persuade/intimidate you into doing this) and let the other party role. DC Infinity is a perfectly reasonable DC under some circumstances.

[schm0]

I don't really see a lot of value here? I struggle to imagine any circumstances where I would use an action to give someone disadvantage on one attack? That seems strictly worse than dodging.

ETA: Also, if you're doing this, I don't know why it wouldn't be Intimidation vs. either a Cha or Wis save? Rather than Intimidation vs Intimidation? Maybe turning it into a bonus action? But if you do this, anyone without a good use for their bonus action will do it every turn, which may slow combat significantly.

My recommendation for NPC->PC persuasion/intimidation is the same as my recommendation for PC->PC persuasion/intimidation, let the target set the DC (how hard would it be to persuade/intimidate you into doing this) and let the other party role. DC Infinity is a perfectly reasonable DC under some circumstances.

Thank you for the feedback. The combat effect is intended to cower the creature into performing poorly, so I tried to split the difference between dodging and disengaging. I think it would be far too powerful to implement as a bonus action (it would be automatic go-to for a great many builds.) I'd appreciate any input on how to buff it in a way so it performs better. One solution I had thought about was making it like a grapple, something like a "menacing attack" where it can replace a single attack.

As for the save, I could not think of any existing mechanics for saving throws vs. ability checks. All checks in the game are either saving throws OR ability checks vs. DC (determined arbitrarily or by a formula) or skill contests. If you could find an example of a saving throw vs. an ability check I'd gladly steal the language and drop it in.

Ultimately, the rules for contests fit best:


Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed... (PHB 174)

In simple terms, if two intimidating creatures face off against one another, it is a duel of menacing wills. A character who lacks proficiency in this skill is going to perform more poorly, and thus be more likely to fail. Who best to oppose a bully than another bully? That was my thinking, at least.

The biggest problem with these two skills in particular is that there is no precedent on how to run them vs. PCs. Unlike Deception, which has a clear opposing skill in Insight, what skills does the DM use to oppose Persuasion or Intimidation? I turned to the social interaction mechanics since that is the formal way to resolve them for NPCs vs. PCs. It allowed me to sidestep the questions surrounding. I still wanted to address using Intimidation in combat, something that has likely occurred to many players but with no formal way for DMs to resolve them.

I think letting the players set the DC will simply end up with "my character is never persuaded/intimidated" which is no better off than where we are now. Persuasion and intimidation just sit on NPC blocks with no practical way to use them. My solution aims to use incentives to shape behavior while still leaving the choice in the player's hands.

[ecarden]

Thank you for the feedback. The combat effect is intended to cower the creature into performing poorly, so I tried to split the difference between dodging and disengaging. I think it would be far too powerful to implement as a bonus action (it would be automatic go-to for a great many builds.) I'd appreciate any input on how to buff it in a way so it performs better. One solution I had thought about was making it like a grapple, something like a "menacing attack" where it can replace a single attack.

Maybe the frightened condition? That's a fairly good effect, though you may want to decide how far it extends. Is it only one on one? Or does the barbarian yelling out a warcry at the goblin warband potentially frighten all of them?


As for the save, I could not think of any existing mechanics for saving throws vs. ability checks. All checks in the game are either saving throws OR ability checks vs. DC (determined arbitrarily or by a formula) or skill contests. If you could find an example of a saving throw vs. an ability check I'd gladly steal the language and drop it in.

I mean, we're already making something new up, I don't think there's a problem with 'intimidation sets the DC, roll a wisdom or charisma save against it.' But if you prefer opposed skill checks, very few enemies have charisma skills (because there aren't rules for using them on PCs). Some do for flavor, but generally, I might treat it as an opposed contest, but like a grapple it's not just Athletics vs. Athletics, you can choose which to use. Might be Intimidation vs. Wisdom, or Intimidation vs. Charisma or Intimidation vs. Intimidation if you like? I'd increase the options, because otherwise you create weird incentives for everyone to be proficient in intimidation.


The biggest problem with these two skills in particular is that there is no precedent on how to run them vs. PCs. Unlike Deception, which has a clear opposing skill in Insight, what skills does the DM use to oppose Persuasion or Intimidation? I turned to the social interaction mechanics since that is the formal way to resolve them for NPCs vs. PCs. It allowed me to sidestep the questions surrounding. I still wanted to address using Intimidation in combat, something that has likely occurred to many players but with no formal way for DMs to resolve them.

So I'm inclined to think that the split is intentional as players already don't really love losing control (and lots of folks find disadvantage losing control) even due to magic, it being because someone else talked at you is probably not going to be beloved. I might try the morale system from the DM? But that does give any seriously proficient intiimidator ridiculous power.


I think letting the players set the DC will simply end up with "my character is never persuaded/intimidated" which is no better off than where we are now. Persuasion and intimidation just sit on NPC blocks with no practical way to use them. My solution aims to use incentives to shape behavior while still leaving the choice in the player's hands.

This will depend on your players, but in my experience not so much. I mean, if they're trying to convince you to do something your character would never do ('kill your parents, I command it!'). The answer ought to be DC: Nope. But at least when I was in a game with it, it was helpful in keeping things from descending into constant discussion. We each make our point and based on how strongly we feel, we set the DC. It does give persuasive PCs an advantage at shaping the party actions, but that felt fair, given...well, persuasion. But you know your players.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't really see a lot of value here? Agreed, added detail for little benefit.

[JonBeowulf]

I certainly understand what you're going for and what you're proposing isn't broken. It needs some tweaks to avoid the pitfalls ID'd above and I don't see a reason for a combat mechanic, but it's not a bad foundation.

For me, though, I'll stick with DM Persuasion/Intimidation. It lets me adjust as necessary and still allows the players to decide what to do. I had a 12-year old prince respond to a Bard with, "The words I just heard are not the words you meant to use, correct? There is no way someone would stand in my house and utter such disrespect." The tone of the table changed and the group was quite intimidated.

The players chose how the characters responded, we didn't need to use dice and then explain how it happened.

[schm0]

Maybe the frightened condition? That's a fairly good effect, though you may want to decide how far it extends. Is it only one on one? Or does the barbarian yelling out a warcry at the goblin warband potentially frighten all of them?

I am very hesitant to add a resourceless replacement for a first level casting of cause fear.


I mean, we're already making something new up, I don't think there's a problem with 'intimidation sets the DC, roll a wisdom or charisma save against it.' But if you prefer opposed skill checks, very few enemies have charisma skills (because there aren't rules for using them on PCs). Some do for flavor, but generally, I might treat it as an opposed contest, but like a grapple it's not just Athletics vs. Athletics, you can choose which to use. Might be Intimidation vs. Wisdom, or Intimidation vs. Charisma or Intimidation vs. Intimidation if you like? I'd increase the options, because otherwise you create weird incentives for everyone to be proficient in intimidation

I don't see a problem, either, necessarily. I'm was just saying there is no precedent. I am slightly hesitant to invent an entirely new way to use skills just for these mechanics. I'm also not keen on weighting the ability in the favor of the intimidator. If we are allowing skill proficiency to come into play, the contested check should also rely on a skill. Otherwise the intimidator will just have a higher modifier that is practically guaranteed.


So I'm inclined to think that the split is intentional as players already don't really love losing control (and lots of folks find disadvantage losing control) even due to magic, it being because someone else talked at you is probably not going to be beloved. I might try the morale system from the DM? But that does give any seriously proficient intiimidator ridiculous power.

The idea here is that the ability goes both ways. Does it suck for a player to be banished? Yes. Does the player feel powerful when banishing an NPC? Also yes. That's also why I am trying to limit the effects. The feedback I'm getting is that the effect is too weak to use. Ok, my first attack is at disadvantage but I have multi-attack so it's not that bad, etc.

The morale system is designed specifically for NPCs and depends partially on DM fiat (the DM can impose disadvantage or say the check automatically fails on a whim.) I thought briefly about applying advantage until the end of the next turn but that's just true strike, which I would like to avoid. Perhaps an AC penalty of -2? Like the creature is rattled and can't dodge incoming attacks from you or something? I'd still like to address the action economy, too. So maybe


This will depend on your players, but in my experience not so much. I mean, if they're trying to convince you to do something your character would never do ('kill your parents, I command it!'). The answer ought to be DC: Nope. But at least when I was in a game with it, it was helpful in keeping things from descending into constant discussion. We each make our point and based on how strongly we feel, we set the DC. It does give persuasive PCs an advantage at shaping the party actions, but that felt fair, given...well, persuasion. But you know your players.

Yeah, the idea here is that the social interaction rules are clear: "


Agreed, added detail for little benefit.

Did you have any ideas on how to improve it?


I certainly understand what you're going for and what you're proposing isn't broken. It needs some tweaks to avoid the pitfalls ID'd above and I don't see a reason for a combat mechanic, but it's not a bad foundation.

For me, though, I'll stick with DM Persuasion/Intimidation. It lets me adjust as necessary and still allows the players to decide what to do. I had a 12-year old prince respond to a Bard with, "The words I just heard are not the words you meant to use, correct? There is no way someone would stand in my house and utter such disrespect." The tone of the table changed and the group was quite intimidated.

The players chose how the characters responded, we didn't need to use dice and then explain how it happened.

Yeah, the idea here is to use dice to resolve it. Otherwise, what is the point of having the skills on the NPC blocks to begin with?

[KorvinStarmast]

Did you have any ideas on how to improve it? Not only do I not, thre is no way I'd spend any time on it because I don't think it's worth doing at all. I don't think, based on my experiences at the table, that delving into this is a best use of your time. (Nor mine).
I have tried a few home brew things (most recently a confetti cantrip) and it's really easy to trip over design traps when so doing.

One of the things 5e did that was (to me) very valuable was to not over clutter the game with too many fiddly bits. (And sadly, the spell list is way too long, but I can't undo that. It needs liposuction). As each splat book has come out, they have yielded to the temptation to add more fiddly bits. *sigh* I wish they wouldn't.

So I'll repeat my initial observation: too much detail for too little pay off.

Homebrew that fits into the game well is difficult to do well, so please don't let this discourage you.

While I'll also suggest that you post mechanics like this at the homebrew forum, not everyone seems to appreciate that sub forum's value. I do, as each homebrew idea I've come up with has gotten excellent feedback and suggestions.

[JonBeowulf]

Yeah, the idea here is to use dice to resolve it. Otherwise, what is the point of having the skills on the NPC blocks to begin with?

Use them for an idea of how to play the NPC and for NPC -> NPC interactions.

I like where you're going with this and it could probably be very useful, but I've been doing this for a long time and have no problem letting players talk themselves into a nightmare because they chose to ignore social cues. My intimidating NPCs will try to be intimidating and my persuasive NPCs will try to be persuasive, but the players decide what happens next... and I decide what happens after that. :smallbiggrin:


While I'll also suggest that you post mechanics like this at the homebrew forum, not everyone seems to appreciate that sub forum's value. I do, as each homebrew idea I've come up with has gotten excellent feedback and suggestions.
What?! There are other forums on this board with value? :smallwink: I honestly haven't looked at any of the others.

[schm0]

Use them for an idea of how to play the NPC and for NPC -> NPC interactions.

Right, I meant the mechanical bonuses they get. I don't need the skills on an NPC block to roleplay them as intimidating or persuasive. I'm asking (rhetorically) what is that little +6 for if they'll never roll to use it? That's what I'm trying to do here. The players get the benefits of the skill, so should NPCs.