The Problem with Charisma in D&D (Ep.  

I am a super introveted person but i like to play charisma characters since that is what i would like to be in the real word . Since i started playing them i started super bad fumbleing lines sttutering ect ... But after a few months i improved a lot i helped me to be more charismatic IRL so thanks D&D you helped me a lot :) Sry for bad English :(

In older editions NPCs had a status of friendly, neutral or hostile. Hostile creatures are immune to "sweet talk" although they might be persuaded to neutral. Enemies also had a morale stat.

in my mind nat 20 is just the best possible outcome, not a supernatural miracle.

There is a difference between role playing and speaking in character. (I've sen a couple channels cover that topic.) Although many players will be very uncomfortable or unable to speak convincingly in character, it is usually reasonable to expect someone to roleplay their character describing what they are attempting to do in the third person. "Ragnar is going to attempt to convince the prisoner that if he doesn't tell us where the hideout is, we'll hurt him very badly."

"I rolled 57 for stealth." "You are in the Matrix training ground. There is no terrain, you are alone, and people are watching you on a computer. They know where you are." "BUT MAH STEALTH CHECK! D:"

imagine having to do bench presses when doing an athletics check

The way I use charisma, the player act and share what he wants to say. Depending on the NPC disposition, I increase or reduce the charisma DC if the player touch some sensitives subjects. This way, it is more of an informative way the player share the dialogue, then the roll represent how well it has been shared. For exemple: If the character knows the mother of the NPC is sick, and he stack dialogue sharing empathy for sick relative, and the NPC is sharing deep concerned about it, I will reduce the charisma DC based of the following subject, since there is an openness to the conversation. If the NPC prefer speaking to men or woman, or to elves or dwarves,, this goes all in the relevency of the DC that is then decided by the roll. Finally, my rule of thumb is to never accept a complete 180 degree of one's predisposition. A guard may never let someone pass through the gate, but he may, if he shares a good bond with a PC, share a moment and information where the character will be able to access more easily.

Sometimes I try to bridge the gap of the observed 'backwards' check and the role-play check. I have the player RP the conversation and then I'll stop and ask, "Was it your intention to deceive the NPC or are you trying to persuade them?" If I felt the conversation felt like a deception but the player responds with persuasion, I'll raise the DC because they were getting different results than indented. But, if both the player and I are on the same page of what it sounds like I'll leave the DC as is or lower it if I felt convinced of the intended effect.

Very well done, Professor. Thank you for the insight. Also, the plug at the end about you having published your own hack of D&D was a pleasant surprise. About time. 😉 Lastly, I ran a 2 hour session with your UDT and DMing principles last weekend for a 30th Birthday celebration culmination with resulted in a standing ovation. Cheers. 🍻 PS: Deathbringer is a gem. LOL

What's funny about the mention of imagining a "sliding scale" when it comes to social encounters is that rule set is actually in the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide. It even has the rule that you can't move your relationship more than 1 tick per social encounter. Unfortunately, it is a bit bare-bones seeing how it only has 3 levels for relationships with NPC's (friendly, neutral, and hostile). Personally, I just added a couple more levels to the scale and have been enjoying using it since

Here's how I handle charisma and similar stats (in other systems) at my table: if the player is playing in character and saying something that the NPC would find convincing, believable, etc. then I don't ask for a roll - the player's character succeeds if success is possible (like with your guard at Buckingham Palace example - some things just aren't possible). If the player is not comfortable playing in character or is playing a much more charismatic and intelligent character than themselves, I will ask them for what they are generally trying to achieve and let them roll.

Great video, and very important topic because, you said it best, some players can and others can't roleplay for their own reasons. Our normal DM, Jarrett mixes it up depending on the scene, story, and stakes. His real world charisma is through the roof and can make almost any scene work. Our up and coming DM (Cmike) is diagnosed with ADHD and shows a lot of the social limitations of being autistic, thus he struggles with Charisma, Wisdom, and sometimes Intelligence RP. He's talked about the pros and cons of both camps that you mentioned here. He problebly puts far more hours into the subject than anyone else would. He's also talked about it should be like landing it a hit, so a Charisma DC or a investigation DC for a mystery works more like an AC & HP, he calls it, "Cumulative DC" The reward of victory comes from doing multiple "hits" and the rolls add up over time until they over come the high DC. He also said he tided "Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws" to "charisma, intelligence and wisdom" - to help him have mechanical options to "unlock" information but more importantly, guide him with clear social goals.

For an example of the Sliding Scale of relationships look at Exalted 3rd Edition's Intimacy system/mechanics. Characters in this version of Exalted all possess a number of Ties (the character's attachments to people, organizations, objects, places, and other concrete entities) and Principles (a character's beliefs and ideals) collectively referred to as their Intimacies which are then spread across three levels as Minor, Major, and Defining. Social maneuvering under this system means you can't just walk up and demand a king give up his crown as his position as king is likely a Defining Intimacy for the character. This means that in order for a character to get said king to give up his crown/position the character will either have to work to elevate some other conflicting Intimacy to a Defining level (whether an existing one or a new one that is created at a Minor level through social actions) or else work to degrade the existing Defining Intimacy of "I am the King" (for lack of better wording). This isn't a process that's a simple as 'roll a natural 20' or even 'get maximum possible bonus on check then roll 20'. It's a longer process of social actions and possibly manipulations which must be undertaken over a prolonged period as there's a requirement of time between being given an Intimacy, elevating an Intimacy, or degrading an Intimacy (basically a cooldown period).

You can integrate both camps. What you do with combat rolls is to have the player declare how to go about it and then determine difficulty. The issue is, the with regards to combat rolls, most players choose the default option: 'I attack'. They do not target anything specifically and their goal is simply to inflict one regular blow. It is the role-playing equivalent of 'I talk'. You can do that with role-playing as well, if they talk you can have them roll and say 'it was a good conversation' or 'you didn't have a good conversation', depending on the pre-existing attitude (the social AC) of the one they talk to. But like with combat, they players often try to reach a certain goal. To do so, they maneuver, clear out minions first etc, before they (can) assault the Big Bad. You can do the same for social encounters, and their role-play determines how tactically they do so. If they immediately attack (socially speaking) without regards to terrain, minions etc and expect the Big Bad to fold after one blow (apparently hoping for a lucky crit), then that is viable, but very rare. But if they build up their social attack plan, then you could have them progress step by step towards their goal. You can have the players RP their social combat steps, or you can do it (for players less socially skilled) the same you would do for players who have difficulty describing their combat encounters.

I also toyed with an idea of when you enter a social encounter, you actually start another kind of combat where the opponents HP now becomes their ego. If you have a whole squad of people roll up into a master swordsmith's shop and convince the sword maker that his swords are not of the quality he once thought, you may be able to, as a group, bully him into giving you a discount. Unless his ego is huge. Dealing large amounts of emotional damage is difficult.

I use charisma a lot in as creative ways as I can think of. When a new player joins my game I usually have them roll a charisma saving roll and if it is high then they get an impressive description for their first impression but if they roll low then they get an awkward description of their first impression. For example a high strength fighter rolls high: you step out in front of this adventuring group, the sweat gleams off your bulging biceps and the wind gracefully blows through your hair making you look an impressive sight to the new group of hardy adventurers before you OR a low roll: the wind blows your long flowing hair in your face making it hard to see and as you spit your own hair out of your mouth half blinded you trip over a branch - make a dexterity saving throw to see if you fall on your face in the mud. I use charisma for other situations like during combat or during an acrobatic feat and I sometimes have players asking me if what they did looked cool because they know they can roll for it and even something great like killing a monster can have a comical unusual result which is nice to change up the narrative of combat a little bit. It definitely does add flavour to the game and my players are familiar with social awkwardness so it gives them something extra to work with during roleplay. When players encounter NPCs I usually have an idea of what the NPCs motivations are so based on what the players say could result in an automatic pass or fail but in situations where it is not absolutely certain then I have them roll for it. My players know that if they roleplay well through a situation then dice rolls may not be needed or that they get advantage for their rolls but I do have situations where players are not really convincing but I let them roll and on a high roll I take what they told me and present their character saying it in a more persuasive way or describe the visual aspects that the charisma would affect the mannerisms. For some players this is useful because they might want to do something like this but are not sure how to present it so demonstrating it like this sometimes gets such a player more active in roleplay because it helps to separate the personality of the player from the personality of the character.

Fair points. My impression is that a lot depends on context. Specifically, what is the main focus of your story. It often is combat, and if that is the case simplify the representation of social interactions is advisable. If the essential ingredient is social interaction, then the combat may ask for some simplification. Prioritize everything is usually a bad strategy, but only take one thing in consideration and ignore all the rest does not seem to work well either; something in between has more chance to be fun for everybody.

I agree that multiple checks are necessary to change someone's opinion of you or to make them more friendly towards you. I also agree that some things are impossible regardless of the roll I let players roleplay but the dice determine the result. Just like how I allow a puzzle to be solved by an Intelligence roll. I try not to treat mental stats differently to physical stats. You describe your actions and I determine if what you are trying to do requires a roll, automatically succeeds or automatically fails.

one of the most frustrating things, and this is why a fair number of groups I been in, separated that old faithful social stat into: Charisma Charisma is used to measure the character's air of confidence, persuasion and leadership in order to get others to see their point of view and want to help them. They use this to win friends and allies and to inspire people when things look bleak or come into question when a character tries to win another character’s sympathies or encourage others to trust her. If a character’s charisma hits zero they become completely unable to talk, and are essentially catatonic - unable to form their own opinions or assert their will, even to the point of survival-essential behavior. Influence Influence is used to measure the character's manipulation, fast-talk, railroad and bully to bend to his/her whim and to hide his/her true motivations. Where Charisma brings trust and allegiance Influence brings obedience in the present moment, with or without lasting affiliation. Hate can be a powerful motivator, and a skillful character can get even his/her enemies to do what they want by using subtle or deceptive methods. Whether or not the character in question actually like the other character is irrelevant (this is why Influence differs from Charisma). Why? Simple really, one is used for the selfless part of the duality and the other is for the selfish part of the duality that is essentially the character in social combat. After that, there is relationship tiers, think more or less Dragon Age. Not all that hard to come up with fixes that can work, but hell. Why do that when you can just sit a bitch about the problem each session right?

The sliding scale idea works for the royal guard example. A natural 20 may not get them past the guard immediately, but maybe it opens the door to further off duty conversations. With enough successes, the players perhaps can bribe the guard to let them in. This is situation dependent, but I am thinking assassination attempts where there is at least some insider assistance. Even if the players just want to talk to the king, perhaps they find a guard who is planning on leaving anyway or is desparate for money so that is the day they quit and flee the kingdom.

Preroll insight for npc ideals/bonds/flaws/lawful/chaotic hints the player can exploit, then have them state their conversation goal, shift npc disposition if hints are used well/horribly, roll skill, help player act out the dialogue so npc acts as the outcome table in dmg shows. If roll was bad the npc will not act with high risk, but may still perform a lesser act with less risk.

One thing I love about vampire the masquerade 5th edition is that there is an elaborate system for "social combat" which covers everything in this video. Its one of VTM's charms, its always been quite focused on political intrigue.

In Gran Canaria (holiday island, Spain) I worked as a "social bouncer" for 2 years, I was the first to respond when a conflict escalated in order to calm things down, convince both parties that we were better off just partying and having fun rather than ruining the rest of the vacation. If I didn´t succeed the big guys would step in, I must have rolled 20s every single time because I didn´t fail once in those two years, people do respond to rationality even when drunk if they are presented with far worse consequences. Fortunately I never rolled a 1 and faced a psychopath. I just played BG3 in it´s alpha state, it´s a mess of unrealistic rolls which outright lead the character to slaughter people he would never actually start a fight with just because he rolled low, it´s true what the video states, we are predisposed to a certain answer in most cases, in Solasta guards simply block your path in some cases, no rolls can be made which is realistic. My current DM is a superb guy who understands social intricacies and tries his best to keep things realistic.

I never dm'd or really played dnd this just showed up on my recommended because I enjoy the lore. but, I would use charisma checks for things such as, increasing material gains, conflict avoidance and speeding quest completion. something like this: Scenario1: A group of thugs hold you up for all your money. 1.Give money, 2. Fight them 3. CHA talk them into letting you go. Scenario2:You must speak with a priority figure (eg. King,) but you must get the approval of from the maid. (say this is a task needed in order to complete the main story). CHA check to get approval. though this will be what I call a "soft CHA check" which can be decreased through giving a gift each day. (CHA drop Varies from type of gift). Scenario3: You are trying to sell an item to a merchant CHA check to increase their offer by 20%. (also vice versa for buying) Scenario4: You and an npc found found treasure and wants to split it with you CHA check to get the whole thing, or a higher value.

Interesting... I think this is pretty spot on for role playing. However, I love to let players tell the story through their actions. I like to reward failure or punish success. Players approach guard at the city gates. They have three options: - talk their way in - lie/bribe - intimidate First option success: Guard let's them in under the condition they check in with the captain first and pay a gold fee for a city permit. Possible quest as the captain mumbles about a murder or local crime gang. First option failure: Guard refuses entrance, but tells them if they can join a guild to get a permit. He suggests an adventure guild rep in a nearby town. Complete a local quest (Owlbear!) and gain rep with the local noble for success. Second option success: The guard accepts a small gold bribe to enter the city. This would setup that the guards are crooked and the city lord is corrupt. Guards now harass the players for gold from time to time. Players are encouraged to approach the theives guild or underground resistance to get around the city. Second failure: Guard kicks the players out and reports their identities to the captain. Nearby smugglers see the players and offer a way into the city for a favour. Guards are not corrupt but players now work for the Thieves guild. Third option success: Guard backs down and cowers. Players are able to enter the city but guards do not come to the aid of the players during important quest points. City captain is recently murdered and the local noble is incompetent. The city is very poor. Third option failure: Guard threatens the players and refuses entry. Spies/agents from a nearby Provence approach the players with offers of gold and information if they agree to help with a mission to rob a stage coach. This splits into two possible quest lines. Betray the agent and save the coach for access to the city and the ire of the neighbouring Provence or rob the coach and the agent kills the occupants revealing a plot to kill the local noble.

Great advice! Definitely pairs well with the video you mentioned.

I've always felt that persuasion and deception checks benefit really well from the Variant: Skills with different Abilities rule. If the wizard makes a really strong, soundly worded argument, I make it an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. If a player doesn't quite understand how to word their argument, I let them make an Intelligence or Wisdom check with the skill, and if they succeed, I give them some examples of some more persuasive things they could say. I guess the important thing to remember is that Charisma checks aren't about *what* you say, but rather *how* you say it. It makes perfect sense that a better worded argument has a lower DC.

The flip side of Charisma is when you have a very Charismatic player that chooses to dump their Charisma stat, but still uses their social gifts to dictate the game. They may waltz through social encounters without you (or the GM) for a roll and win NPC graces because outside the game - well, they’re Charismatic and that’s what happens. And check your bias at the door you’ve probably let this happen without even noticing it because, again, that’s what real Charisma is. It’s an exceptionally difficult stat to simulate because of how much influence it can have on the people playing the game. The fact that it is most often a stat with the least general benefit to the mechanics of the simulation make it exploitable.

Solid advice from the Professor! I learned this one the hard way. Now I ask the players to give me the gist of what they want to accomplish then have them roll. If they want to roll play it, great. But I do not base the DC on their role play (unless its great, then I might lower the DC). This way, it's always working based on the CHARACTERS abilities, not the players.

I switched the way my group does Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom check after watching that Taking20 video. Been playing since 1984, it took that long for us to figure out a better way.

As a dungeon master, I have one rule for any checks... If you can roleplay or describe it well enough, you might get a small bonus to your rolls. What it means is, I often DM for new players who are shy or not ready to really talk their way through something or really describe what they want to do since they don't feel they would be able to voice correctly how the envision their actions. Pushing them to do it could ruin the experience for them and push them out of the game. My role as the DM is to help them be as confortable as possible, so I invite them and give them insentives to speak more and roleplay more, but I would never force them to do so. They'll do it on their own when they'll feel ready. Since I started using that rule, I lost almost no new players and a lot of them came out of their shells faster than ever. When they are confortable enough, many even tell me they do not need the insentive anymore and just want to play by the rules, really experience it.

I believe it's "Cody" at Taking20, not "Cory", but I'm sure Cory is nice too.

The idea of default position is really great!

My players know that a natural 20 is only good for critical damage. I use a similar approach where the NPC already has a default setting and act in a way that is believable for their station/function. I like your idea for handling the social encounters it make a lot more sense than just relying on a single roll.

The way I choose to go about this, and the one I find most satisfying and realistic, is a two step process similar to "option A" with one key difference: First the player roleplays. However, this will not always call for a roll. Much like instead of calling for a roll you might say "I attempt to push steal their purse" and then I as GM can tell the player to make a sleight of hand check if it is at all possible they could steal the purse (and not call it if it is inevitable or impossible) then when a player makes an attempt to deceive an NPC I will look at their attempt and decide how it makes sense that the NPC would respond. Yes in 90% of circumstances a town guard would not allow anyone into the palace for an audience with the king- but a good GM knows never to underestimate a dedicated player's ingenuity. Sometimes it's not about roleplaying in a charismatic way, sometimes just the wit to pull on someone's strings can be enough and I think even introverted people can have a reasonable shot at that. I think factors like luck, interpretation, and small details that could shift how the circumstances are perceived are tools which can color realistically the point of a roll.

My problem is usually with min-maxers who reduce their charisma to minimum because they know the gm won't do anything if they just roleplay their way out the situation. So, roll first, then let them have their say. If their words and actions don't reasonably match the roll, as the gm, feel free to then explain to the character what actually happened. It would go something like this: "OK, you try to sweet talk the princess in to going to the ball with you. You even bring her chocolates and flowers. What you thought was a gasp of admiration when she opened the chocolates was really suppressed horror at discovering someone had pressed a finger into each one to see what flavor they were. As you present the flowers, a bug flies out, lodging in between your teeth, where you start unconsciously working your tongue back and forth to dislodge it, all the while making the most ghastly sucking sounds." At this point the player hopefully will realize one of two things. Either act more in character to prevent the gm from doing it or learn that playing negative traits can be fun too.

Yeah, this is basically how I've always done it. High Charisma is not mind control, though it can be very influential, it usually takes more than just a single conversation to move people. And the growth of relationships is pretty much how I've done it, though I usually play that by ear rather than formalize it (though I'm running some pretty heavy roleplay stuff currently and so I'm more inclined to kind of plot out relationship development. It's been three long sessions, no combat, they keep talking around things, pretty interesting.) so far that's worked. Sometimes player balk at it, but I usually come back with, "Okay, think of it like this, If I had the very charismatic NPC over here walk up to you and start telling you to go home, and give up on the quest you're on, in fact give up adventuring, would you want all that to hinge on one good Charisma roll? And do you think one conversation would do that, if he was successful?"

Your video was recommended to me by the RU-vid algorithm, I have never seen any of your stuff before, so I nearly did a spit take when you mentioned Warhammer. I just Dudgeon Master'ed for the first time ever a few months ago, and it was with Warhammer RP 2nd edition.

Much of what was said here should be also kept in mind when deterrminating limitations of charm person spell.

Good vid, professor. I am new to DnD, and my aproach to Charisma based encounters is more depends of behavior of players and what they say to NPC`s.

As said above, Nat 20 is optimal possible outcome. Too many players think success means whatever they want to happen, happens. "I'm going to attempt to jump to the moon..." Now, unless the DM is a goofball, the PC can't do this, but not allowing a roll is denying player agency. So... Nat 20 means the PC jumps higher than he or she has ever jumped, before. Clearly, not to the moon... ...but, a personal best. It's perhaps time DMs start explaining this to players from the get-go

I officially hate Charisma checks. I had an epiphany that Charisma discourages player participation when I realized my character had a +1 to Charisma checks, and another player had a +13 to Charisma checks, and so because of this, we all sat back and let him handle all the social interaction. We were essentially not playing the game anymore; we were having this one player play for us. I want players to use their own creativity and wits to handle social interaction, and I want them to succeed or fail based on their own choice of words. I don't want a DM / GM using a die to decide the outcome when a player clearly made a good speech or a bad speech. Maybe for the in between speeches.

Role play, it's where players expect to use THEIR bright ideas their PC could never come up with. Roll play, when the player expect to get exactly the result their characters would get. Great DMing, when the players are expected to actually player as their characters.

I definitely think this, along with improvising NPC motivations as a whole, is something i as a GM need to work on

Players convincing a King to give up his crown. The players begin by explaining that a terrible plague will take the city if he remains King. First natural 20: players say this, and aren’t ejected from the room immediately because the King finds them amusing. Second natural 20: the King continues to listen. Third natural 20: the King asks a question about the situation and if he hears a satisfactory answer, he will continue to listen. Fourth natural 20 in a row: the King is looking concerned now. Fifth natural 20 in a row: the King tells the party he must consult with his advisors about this.

Very cool. Seems like this basic model could be applied to a variety of situations

Funny, my players did not use Charisma as a dump stat. My Mages used Wisdom as a dump stat. My Clerics and Fighters used Intelligence as a dump stat. My Rogues used primarily Wisdom and some Intelligence as dump stats.

This is some excellent insight! I can definitely use this, thanks Professor.

As a 1st time *DM* for *5E,* I start with the chart on *pg 245* of the *DMG* ... If the *pc* is trying to explain a complex plan and/or advanced concept to an *npc,* (somthing one of my players likes to do alot,) an npc a high *intelignece (relitive knoledge)* will have a lower *DC* for the *pcs* *charisma (perswation) check* to explain the plan in a way the *n.p.c.* understands. (Conversely, a dumb *NPC* will have a harder time understanding, making the *charisma D.C.* higher.) ... For *deception,* the *DC* is based on the *npc's* *wisdom (insight.)*

I usually try to avoid the charisma roll. I try to allow most conversation stuff to be dealt with without mechanics, I do keep the Charisma score in mind, a lot like how you talked about karma in a previous video. I keep rolls only for instances where responses could realistically go one way or another.

I like the idea where the roll goes like this: 1. player states intent or method with little to no detail roleplay 2. DM prompts the roll 3. In reaction to how well or badly the roll did, the player now roleplays the situation

I think charisma checks need as much explanation as strength checks. “I’m going to move the tree” “how do you do that?” “I put my back into it, and try to get some leverage” “I’m going to convince the noble to hire me” “How do you do that?” “I give him my resume and show off my moves” Charisma generally has more description because it is more involved, and depending on the argument different outcomes are possible.

For some situations, My old DM would have the player tell him a joke. If the player made the dm laugh, then he passes a charisma check. Worked.

as a DM i will have my players narrate first, while they may not be as Charismatic, or maybe a introvert, I like them to attempt RP. the only way to get better is to do it. an 18 CHA score would be out of most people's reach anyways. The perception of you have to be as good as your character is silly. we do not ask the player to go lift 300 pounds when making a strength check in game, so why would we base if they roll or not based on how well there speech is. Just RP and convey the story, roll and as a DM i will either spice up what you said, or just use phrases like "Tormin gives an enthralling sermon on..." . this will give my players more confidence to try. As with any skill they eventually get good.

I like to have my party roll cha before they talk as a first impression and then several more as they try to communicate with NPCs.

Personally I've always said the limiting factor with Charisma is how convincing can you be. The rolling of the dice will always be limited, but if you come up with a good reason, a well crafted argument, or simply a highly persuasive, and dare I say charismatic argument. Then chances are you can get more done then with a roll. For me the roll is more because the player themselves is not a master orator, and said roll is often more for how well there character can place the argument. Rather then sum total of the argument itself. So if the player makes a really great argument but the roll isn't on there side. I might just have them succeed, or better yet I go "you stumble over your words and despite the well crafted argument in your mind you fail to put it eloquently. The crowd falls silent.... then suddenly a voice picks up 'he's right! He may not have out it the best, but its clear that what he's saying is true! It was XXX all along!' The crowd then roars and follows the PCs lead, or plan" Plus if enjoy challenging myself with any of the mental stats. I am currently trying to improve my physical ones aswell so I can multiclass into paladin.

For me, I basically give them a chance to RP it out and if their words would resonate with the character they are talking to I would give them a bonus to their roll.

This is such a good point! Thank you for that video

I actually run social encounters much like you do.. Depending on how the conversation is going; I will occasionally call for a roll to see how a NPC is responding. It does force me to be creative extemporaneously though. So, if you steer the course of a conversation based on a couple of die rolls; be prepared to have the NPC offended, confused, curious, helpful, etc, etc.. My group aren't shoppers (don't roleplay shopping), but I do give them a charisma check if they request a discount.. Make the check, get 10% off.. Lastly, I had a thief go up to a shopkeeper he thought that he might be able to sell stolen goods to. He approached the shopkeep, said something in Thieves' Cant .. Then failed the roll miserably.. "Get out of my shop before I call the guard and have you thrown out." It was a great moment. :-)

Good video, pretty much universally relevant to every D&D table or role playing game.

I like Charisma being a stat, but I think that Wisdom could be done away with. A lot of the analytical and awarenss aspects could easily go to Intelligence, and Charisma would IMO just seems like a better stat to associate with clerics and the sort personality traits, roles and activities you'd associate with them (proselytizing, providing guidance, leadership and advisory positions etc). Will saves make a lot more sense with Charisma considering Sorcerers are already described as using their 'force of personality' to cast spells (which sounds a lot like willpower).

I definitely prefer camp A, because even if the player is introverted and all of that... This is the part of DND that Therapists have been falling in love with this past decade. Its an environment that can help bring people out of their shells and help learn now to navigate situations that would/could otherwise normally generate a lot of anxiety and social awkwardness. It can become a training ground/therapy session for even those who may not even realize they need it.

many players (and DMs) don't know or care that a nat 20 (or 1) isn't ment to be anything special on a skillcheck or savingthrow. they are just the best/worst outcome.

I think you are right about not being able to get past guards, unless of course you're William Horace de Vere Cole. Horace and a group of his friends including Virginia Woolf dressed up as a delegation a African dignatores and proceeded to bluff their way on aboard HMS Dreadnought, at the time the mightiest warship afloat. Horace was the "translater" and the rest of the party made up gobbledygook as they went along. And, when it began raining they were forced to dart inside for fear of their makeup running. And, HMS Dreadnought the mightest Battleship the world had ever seen was from then on known as Bunga Bunga, after one of the gobbledygook words. And, when Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi was caught in a "night club" wink wink nudge nudge it was reported in the newspapers as a bunba bunga party.

to encourage roleplaying, i handle it by giving advantage to players who put an effort into what they say before the roll check. And don't forget that there is no crits in checks, only attacks

I think the problem with Charisma is that the game never knew what it wanted to be. Not surprisingly, 3E had the most complicated and nuanced version, and it's interesting that 2E had the only version where physical attractiveness is specifically excluded. 5th Edition: confidence, eloquence, & leadership 4th Edition: force of personality, persuasiveness, and leadership 3.x Edition: force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness; not merely how one is perceived in a social setting 3.x SRD: any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma 2E: persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead. NOT a reflection of physical attractiveness although it plays a role AD&D: physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism; physical attractiveness later Comeliness (Unearthed Arcana) Basic (Moldvay): appearance, personal charm, and leadership ability OD&D: appearance, personality, and so forth Clearly it was meant to influence social interactions, even before there were skills, per se. But it's also curious to see what the 3.5-era SRD has as the baseline for whether or not something even HAS a Charisma. This ties curiously - but I think correctly - into the 3E/4E definition being "force of personality". The confusion runs through many aspects of D&D from 3E to 5E. Wisdom is "Awareness, intuition, and insight" in 5E (and pretty consistently through earlier versions). So why a Wisdom save in 5E for charm or dominate spells? Clearly, "force of personality" would be to these effects as Constitution is to poison or disease. But you do use a Charisma saving through for conflicts with sentient magic items, and various sorts of Charisma based checks in earlier versions (i.e. before Charisma saves). I think this confusion about what's in and what's out makes people dislike the stat unless their spellcasting is based on it - then it's their favorite stat, but they also get to be the face of the party. To sum up this rambling post, the next edition needs to more clearly define what it is, that definition needs to be more consistent with the other ability scores in measuring intrinsic characteristics, and it needs to be implemented more consistently through the fabric of the game. IMO, the "force of personality" definition has the most promise in this regard. Roleplaying might give advantage or disadvantage to a roll, but not affect whether something is even possible (as PDM says).

Your continued use of Warhammer makes me happy. All campaigns should be set in the World That Still Is. Don't @ me

Check out Sargon's D&D Crusaders campaign, the playlist is available here on RU-vid. Vee played a Charisma based cleric, and Vee was the sort of player that viewed Charisma as the ultimate power in the universe (hyperbole but the point is made) 5E rules setting - in one particular instance Vee rolled a successful persuasion check against a sailor while they were all on a sailing ship. Sargon, paraphrased - "Okay, he's still not going to do X." Vee, paraphrased - "But I persuaded him." Sargon, "Vee, he has to obey the captain's orders, and this goes against said orders." Vee - "But I persuaded him." The argument went on for a while.

I really enjoyed this video! Excellent synapsis of how to handle an often poorly done part of the game. Nice work!

I think the problem with Charisma is in its name. A charismatic person always seems to be someone who is very extroverted, very glib. But a lot of times that's just not the case. People gravitate towards even mild-mannered leaders who have strong principles (the lone gun slinger type in Westerns). And another aspect of charisma is intimidation (and not just persuasion). I think it was T. Roosevelt who said "walk softly but carry a big stick".

From "Dork Tower" -Alright! I rolled an 18 wisdom on my cleric! He's going to reach EPIC level...!" DM - "You see 1000 Orcs" -My cleric attacks!!! ---- I see CHA as a stat that doesn't help survive a dungeon but does help spend/sell the treasure and work with non-combat interactions. It's appearance which is a nebulous sub-score used/not used. Piffany from the Nodwick fiction is this. She'd be an 8 on appearance at best. Not ugly but plain, dumpy, even Nodwick might be as/better than her. BUT - she's 18 Charisma - she's not ugly so no negative there and combined with her incredible personality she can (believably) even win over monster interactions. I loathe "Social Justice" and "Political Correct" garbage, but it's a neat way of thinking on it. Likewise, anyone could believe a super-pretty lady is either dumb and/or mean and abrasive. Life is as (NOT) fair as the die, easy to get either extreme in people also.

I like the description of Charisma in LoTFP

My only argument is that, in game terms, a natural 20 would be convincing the guard that you are actually someone who should be let in - a higher ranking officer in civilian clothing on a covert mission or give a legitimate sounding reason why your forged documents are legitimate to be let through. I definitely get your point, but as the very next thing you say, you could put arbitrary impossible limits on every single stat so it is up the the dm to set that. 20 shouldn't mean auto success but that doesn't mean in my game a 20 can't let you move a mountain or talk the king into renouncing his crown

For D&D and its myriad clones I handle it mostly as camp A, but if the player can convince me, the DM, of something I don't require a roll. Even if they don't make a rousing speech if they say they point this or that out, and I'm convinced the roll is waived. Typically I don't even ask for charisma rolls honestly, unless I'm very much on the fence. Often the answer is going to be yes or no as a matter of course, rather than anything else. Like you bring up, will the merchant haggle? Sure, but only so far, even the best roll in the world won't get him to sell his goods for less than they're worth. Many games have toyed with the idea of social combat systems (perhaps most famously Burning Wheel), where you make "attacks" with your diplomacy, or intimation, or bluff, or whatever else, and damage a social HP pool of some sort. I really like the one in Honor + Intrigue, you have hangers-on to assist you (the classic noble's toadies hanging around mocking you), and the rules work just like the regular combat, the only major difference being that no one dies at the end. Reducing an enemy to 0 resolve will see you get your way, though maybe not immediately. I like some games ideas too of using compromise as a mechanic. You succeed, but they still won't do what you're asking, but they're willing to do something for you. The guard won't let you in the castle, but he will tell you that if you talk to certain court officials they might be able to get you in.

I treat Charisma based encounters as a series of checks based on the "flow" of conversation. It doesn't have to be real conversation, it can be simulated, and we can discuss results rather than details, but as people bring up different topics, or come up with different arguments, or new ways to ingratiate themselves to someone, or decide to bluff, or call someone else's bluff, or any other number of other things that can happen in a conversation, we roll to change the attitudes of those who we're dealing with. What I personally find important is to infuse NPCs with actual personality, rather than thinking of them as obstacles to overcome, like a pit trap in a dungeon you need to get past.

I'm usually very skeptical about "The problem with..." kinds of videos, but this frames a fairly complex and compelling situation to overcome for many a game, player, and DM. Bonestock 1st and 2nd Edition PHB/ DMG rules present the notion of a 'sliding scale' exactly as it is described here, but the players are able to maneuver someone one or two 'steps' down the spectrum with a particularly great success...though it also presents 'no win' kinds of encounters where even a natural 20 will not save players bacon one way or the other. "The Problem" is 3rd Edition and beyond, where every aspect of social interactions was boiled down into a skill. In a skill system where a 'success' was generally definitive (and exhaustive), 'pass the check get the goods' is how everything else worked with only very rare exceptions. That coupled with a -very- noticeable move away from roleplay to embrace 'war-gaming/tactical simulation' (an encounter system built from the ground up for balancing combat and nothing else)...its no wonder why people either over-use Charisma, or cut it out of their games entirely. "You convince him by using Fast Talk." "I figure out its a lie by Perception." "You intimidate him with Intimidate and he leaves." Yeah...this is where your 'roleplaying game' has gone. Some people resist it - most don't.

you missed a key function of the charisma value. I use it as a demeanor - meaning, what people think of the character. it is also how influential the character is with minions, followers and co-horts. while most of these items don't require any dice rolling, it is very important for the role-playing aspect. on a separate note. charisma has multiple functions. just because a person has attractive features, doesn't mean they have a good personality. or an ugly appearance may have an awesome ability to communicate and inspire. again, these are not items that need a die roll, but they absolutely influence the scenario.

Having participated in improv acting for many years. I can tell you right now that game role playing isn't like acting role playing. The theatrics of Dungeons & Dragons are really just an option.

Anima beyond fantasy works around this with limits to how well a human or other natural creature can roll. Then there are ways to break those limits which allow you to reach inhuman skill rolls and even beyond that is the god like tier of rolls which requires even more powerful beings to reach. So lifting a mountain is possible, if you are a god like being and roll 100 multiple times in row and so is bending others to your will with your speech alone.

When a player just declares that he would run a charisma check like a deception, I ask him to give me the jist of the story he wants to make up. I then decide the number he has to roll or ifhis story is too unbeleivable that it is impossible for him to succeed. Then he rolls the check and many times the roll results in him either rollplaying out his huge success or laughingly rollplaying out how his tongue slips and he is making a fool out of himself by telling an obvious lie. Also if a charisma check is impossible I like to find an alternatives that would still be a partial success if they roll pretty high (usually 15 or higher). Like in case of the guards who won't be letting them through to the king, a successfull roll could lead to the guards bringing them to the guards captain or to some other person higher up on the kings court so they could talk to him and depending on the situation maybe that person could help them with their situation or if they really need to see the king that person could maybe get them an audience with the king at a later point (maybe as a reward for a sidequest or a small adventure)

Sounds like you handle Charisma related rolls as a Skill Challenge or a Complex On-Going Skill Check... that does make more sense than a simple one and done Check, honestly.

Typical Prof. DM: "Here's why this stat is bad and can't be made to work"...then tells us exactly how to make it work in under eight minutes.

That is one of the big keys about charisma. It can add so much to the game but it requires nuance and understanding from dm and players. It has become a meme to be lol i'm charisma bard ima sleep with everyone and seduce seduce. The stat just can't be treated that way to be really engaging I feel.

I don't know if I agree with your example of the guard of Buckingham Palace. Of course you and your friends will not be able to talk your way inside the palace. But none of your friends are able to to break down an oaken door with brute force. A raging barbarian with a belt of giant strength on the other hand might be. Regarding bluffing or persuading the guard: a very confident person with years of training and experience in manipulation and subterfuge might be able to talk and trick their way in. Especially with the correct amount of preparation. If you don't use the optional rule, that a natural 20 is an automatic success on skill checks, this poses no problem. You could make the DC as high as 25, and the problem is already solved. Anyone with a charisma of 18 or less can't make the roll. Anyone with training in the skill might have a shot at it. And anyone with the right combination of training, magic items, buffs and preparation (a forged letter from a higher up of the guard e.g.) might even have a good chance. This would match what's possible in real life. Social engineering is still a thing and not only the most prevalent, but the most effective way of hacking. Someone with military training is not immune to this, as you can use the rigid military structure of orders and obedience to your advantage. And you would be surprised what you get away with, if you carry a ladder and pretend to be allowed where you are. Also, as someone who loves to play rogues not only to be able to stab things in the back, but to manipulate and solve problems in a clever way, it baffles me, that your players would ditch Charisma as a first choice. I'd rather get rid of strength or combine it with constitution at least.

As a DM of 43 years, I truly enjoy your content!

It's super simple. What is it you want to do? "I want to inspire the crowd!". Cool, roll. *They Roll* Okay, I have the result... give your speech. But HERE is the thing... the Speech they give, doesn't matter. I already have the result... now we're Role-Playing it out for the fun. We aren't skipping it... but ALSO the Players ability/inability doesn't matter. No matter what the Player does, their action will be translated INTO the game through their Roll. It's WHY they rolled. So we still have the fun of Role-Playing, but they aren't going to be punished/awarded for having an IRL Skill or lacking it. I don't have my Rogues go pick an ACTUAL lock after they roll. I don't have my Warriors go and ACTUALLY kill some one with an Axe. I look at their Roll, I look at the Modifiers, and I let them know if it's a Success or a Failure. It's LITERALLY the exact same thing with Intelligent, Creative and Wise Characters. You Roll an 18 Strength Character, I don't tell you to go over there and Dead Lift. You Roll and 18 Intelligence Character, I don't tell you to take the SAT. I don't care if YOU can do it, I care that you know what your Character is about and understand what they are capable of. If anyone is out there treating Players of "Creative, Intelligent or Wise" types DIFFERENT than they treat the people playing "Strong, Agile or Hardy"... then you're being an ass for no reason. If you're asking more of your C/I/W Players than your S/A/H Players... I ask you, why are you doing that? Why are you ruining things and making them more difficult for everyone involved? The ROLL is what matters. Now, sometimes WHAT you are Rolling for isn't going to matter. You want to inspire that group of people. Good, how? With a song! Okay... roll for your song. 19!!!! Nice! They're deaf, and don't even notice you. You had an idea, and you performed the idea really well... you performed the wrong idea in the situation. That's fair. But what isn't fair is "Okay, roll." 19! "Good, now sing your song for the Table." *Sings song* "You can't carry a tune in a bucket... you fail the check." What sense does that make? You tell your Warrior to go lift your car, and if he doesn't the 19 he rolled on his Strength Check fails to lift the gate? It's Role-Playing. The entire idea is our Characters do things we can't do. But you expect your Bard's Player to drop a real sonnet? GMAFB.

Granted I haven’t finished the video. But certainly it’s a bid odd, getting a Nat 20 after you ask the king to “relinquish his kingdom” to you means you won’t die, not that you get exactly what you want.

My personal view on roleplaying is that you want to reward people who are trying. So if someone comes up with a creative idea, even if it is a bit iffy I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt if their character has the stats and they can roll to back it up. I wouldn't punish someone just because they are not as smart or charismatic as their character is in real life.

I agree with the charisma checks. The game should be realistic. You can not charisma roll your way past the guards. But maybe if you roll to distract them and another player tries to sneak by. As far as selling things I normally do a under 15 DC is 5% less or more, 15-19DC normal price, 20-24 is +5%, and 25+ is +10%. So a player selling a golden ring that is 100gp will roll gets a 20 he or she has haggled for a price of 105gp. But if the same player had rolled a 12 it might be 95gp or maybe just 75gp as the shop keep doesn't care for it, so players can sell at a different town or get rid of it. On even lower rolls it can be lower. I think charisma is a great score but rolling once to see if you sleep with a woman is a joke. I agree with multiple checks and have had no problem with players complaining about that. Normally it is the charismatic player truing to hook up with the unmarried woman at the bar. I don't agree with making a player play it out. Reason being the player doesn't play out their attack every time. Both can be cool and interesting, but you shouldn't force a player to do something they feel uncomfortable doing.

Man, I remember during my Curse of Strahd game, my dragonborn cleric was trying to console a young boy who had just watched his parents be killed by dire wolves. Our DM made me have a 45 minute talk with the boy, demanding I specifically say what my character was saying to the kid, with a Persuasion roll every 15 minutes or so. Fortunately, I'm a decent improve actor, because my CHA was shit, and my rolls weren't so hot. But that was really the perfect way to play it: I had to actually comfort this boy, and because I was doing an actual good job of it, the DM was rather forgiving of a bad roll. That was legit one of the high points of the game, which lasted almost two years.

I've always allowed people to say what their character is saying but i dont expect them to be great at it. As I always say "just tell me what you're saying or how our trying to convince the NPC, your character says it much more flowery" On a side note. I just found your channel. Instant sub :3

I have people act out before rolling. If they sell me, I lower the DC for their roll. So good role playing charisma can get you extra credit. But it won't penalize you if you are an introvert. Nat 20's are a critical hit with the given skill, they're not a wish spell. If people want to do jedi mind tricks, there's abilities for that, they cost spell slots, and come with some risks.

Most of the time i use setted up ideals or plans of NPC and if player says something good way or into the already existent interest of said NPC i lower the bar for roll.

Good primer for anyone who wants to/or plays a Bard

I feel level and reputation matter in this. If you are a low level 1-3 character trying to get past that guard yup 100% right no question. If you are a level group of level 15-20 characters not so much...... this group of people were PERSONALY credited and recognized for saving the world (likely with applications of combat). Also keep in mind that higher level players are closer to demigods then they are to mortals .A group of motivated level 15 adventures can very likely have the power to destroy the kings nation. Basically everyone at a certain level is a walking wmd. Such people are quite rare but when they show up you take notice.

my biggest problem with cha is the same i have with dex int 5E dex and cha are basicly the most OP stats bcs they do exacly wath the other cowterparts do but batter you don't need str if you have dex bcs dex is more than half of the saving trh dex inpacts you CA damage and gives the power to dual wield cha is literaly all social stats maxed in a single atribute, with a plus of being a spellcasting skill, this is literaly or you have your you don't have

A social encounter is no different from a combat encounter. You pick your weapon (words) and roll the dice to see how effective it was with an attack roll modifier (persuasion, etc). The success for the verbal assault is based on the skill of the character sheet, and player aptitude is irrelevant.

This would be why a nat 20 on a skill roll is not a 'crit' or auto success

What i would usually do is, Let the players roll first. Then you see how well they do. And then i let the player decided how he does it or how he fucks it up. If he rolls low the player has to then RP an fuck up. And ofcourse if he rolls high the player has to ofcourse RP someting convincing. That doesnt change the outcome ofcourse but it does Add tot he RP scenario. Also in DnD 20's on skill checks dont work... A Nat 20 doesnt do ANYTHING to skill checks/Saving throws If you dont make the save your doomed. So if the save/check for example is a 20, he rolls a 20 but has a -1 on that particular skill/stat that means he fails even tho he rolled a 20. So while alot of dungeon masters play like a nat 20 is an auto success. I do not cause i feel like this is wrong. You can do something very well but then depending on the situation you can still fail. Like convicing a guard or moving a mountain. But if a player rolls high and RP's something smart for example he wants to pursuade the guard with money. Then yes, i feel like if its a corrupt guard or one that doesnt get payed so well that might be a way to pursuade/deceive one So even if they roll high depending what they say I can decided to change the outcome. And ofcourse when its low its genuinely a fail and players always think its funny to RP a fuckup. At least the once i had so far XD

Deathbringer, that was hilarious!