For playing a Bard, what is the typical limit of character influence limit that a Bard can attempt. Say a bard just walks into the enemy camp. She can influence them in round 1 to not kill her on the spot, then would she be able to continue influencing the enemy camp to just give up the information she's sent to get, to release the held prisoners, move on from a life of crime and work for the village as their police force? As a DM I wouldn't allow my Bard to just influence the enemies to go from rushing into attack to now we're best friends in one round, but is it normal to think that a Bard, given enough rounds and successful persuasion checks, that the bard could completely change the social dynamic or social political issues going on between the town and the roaming hoards? If so, then wouldn't that make the Bard the most powerful class since you're not enchanting someone to change their mind, you just genuinely got someone to change their mind.
Kill the Bard!! Bard persuasion check. Ahhh she's alright. Persuasion check. Okay lets give up this life of crime.
This is going to vary by DM and by individual character.
Let's say Brian the Bard is trying to get Corinne and David, some thieves, to stop their life of crime. So first Brain is trying to approach the thieves.
Corinne is an eager thief and a bit blade-happy and quick to be hostile. David is more 'happy go lucky' and rather indifferent to Brian and not in the mood for a fight.
The DM might call for a Persuasion check. For Corrine the DC may be 10 to hear the bard out, while David wouldn't even require a roll.
The bard succeeds and both thieves listen as Brian tries to convince the thieves to give up the life of crime. The DM may call for a persuasion check.
Corinne is has enjoyed being a thief. For her there is no roll - it's a straight up nope. No words alone would ever sway her. David is only a thief from circumstance, giving up previously on an honest living. He doesn't really like being a thief but it'll be a hard-sell to get him to give it up. DC 20.
The persuasions might go differently if the intent was to recruit into honest work that was more profitable. But as in the scenario above - Corinne is dead-set against it, so even magical persuasions like Charm Person or Suggestion would utterly fail on her, but would definitely work on David.
The DM is absolutely free to say "no roll" and that a task is impossible, regardless of how good you are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
For playing a Bard, what is the typical limit of character influence limit that a Bard can attempt.
I would imagine that's DM dependent. Unless I were to go by rules-as-written (RAW) I wouldn't give a bard any particular advantages over any other class that rolled the same or used the means to influence someone.
To give a more definitive answer I'd need to know the specifics, such as the bard's renown in this area, if they're clearly in possession of the upper hand (magical items, a mightier foes' head, a blade to the enemy boss' neck), as well as the enemy's position, why they're encamped, what advantages there are to this camp being here, their immediate and long-term goals for encamping here, for instance. Otherwise this may be a lv.1 bard walking into any number of experienced soldiers and expecting to parlay.
There's also the matter of roleplay versus roll-play. What's the approach? A cocky swagger, a bold stride, a deer-in-the-headlights feigned fear of this enemy? First impressions are the most important, especially when an enemy is unlikely to let you forget their camp exists and simply walk away.
She can influence them in round 1 to not kill her on the spot, then would she be able to continue influencing the enemy camp to just give up the information she's sent to get, to release the held prisoners, move on from a life of crime and work for the village as their police force?
Let's take this one at a time. If I were DM'ing this situation, and I wouldn't because I wouldn't know all you've told me before it happens unless you're Tiberius Stormwind trying to do six things in as many seconds, here's how it would go down:
If they walk into the camp undetected they won't suffer disadvantage with their persuasion rolls if they go in unarmed or with their hands away from their weapon. They might even have advantage if they appeal to the enemy's interests (the trophy of a foe they've stalked, money, some other item of interest. If they are detected walking to the camp, the enemies will draw their weapons and move in on the bard. They open fire on the first sign of hesitation, retreat, ambush or - and this is important - obvious spellcasting. Alternatively, the party could ambush as the bard walks in, threatening to slay the enemy before they can draw their weapons. With such timing and preparation, I'd give advantage to persuasion or intimidation.
Assuming enough of them are convinced not to kill the bard on the spot (perhaps only the leader needs be convinced), the bard then needs to sweeten the pot. Their cockiness/offering has amused the enemy enough to let them live for the time being, but not yet enough to walk away with the risk of informing others of the enemy presence here. Further persuasion is needed. The longer this goes on, the more wary the enemy becomes of the bard's party lurking in the shadows.
Releasing the prisoners would be another seperate issue. How important the prisoners are depends on that DM, and the promise they won't tell all about the enemy camp is a hard sell. The more this bard takes the piss, the higher the difficulty class (DC) goes. Even if the enemies are charmed absolutely, what's to say the prisoners will not want revenge by taking the enemy weapons and slaying them in their weakened state?
Joining the townguard would take some serious work, either magic that is so great that the party could probably stomp this lot without needing to negotiate in the first place, or a very, very good argument to risk the noose. See above with the ambush: what's better? The possibility of the noose, or the certainty of dying right here, right now? And even if the bard honours their end of the bargain, will the town's constabulary? Can the bard live with guilt of delivering the death sentence to those who surrendered on their terms?
For such an approach, the later the failure, the more ready the enemy is to attack. Arrows are nocked, targets (if visible) are picked, shields are ready to be raised and footwork is ready to be fancy. If the party isn't in position by this point, the soothsayer's going to look like bardmite spread all over the floor.
As a DM I wouldn't allow my Bard to just influence the enemies to go from rushing into attack to now we're best friends in one round, but is it normal to think that a Bard, given enough rounds and successful persuasion checks, that the bard could completely change the social dynamic or social political issues going on between the town and the roaming hoards?
It's perfectly normal to think that because of the myths and memes surrounding bards. The final sentence you go on to say is quite apt for the fantasy of the bard (it's second to seducing dragons) but mechanically it doesn't work that way. Influential spells are very specific with their wording, as many will have caveats such as "a creature prone to violence might attack you" in the Friends spell description, or "the creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance" with the Charm Person spell description, so as to avoid situations where people can be mass charmed and everything be alright.
If so, then wouldn't that make the Bard the most powerful class since you're not enchanting someone to change their mind, you just genuinely got someone to change their mind.
It would if this were the case. Again though, most spells and rolls aren't going to have this effect, especially if the DM knows the capabilities of the bard in their own campaign. Even a critical success of a skill or spell can be partial if the DM chooses. It could be the difference between Count Strahd von Zarovich torturing said bard for eternity with a flick of his wrist, and finding it so amusing that they tried to command him walk into the sun that he's going to take a disadvantage on initiative as an act of mercy.
So it's as I said before, and as others have pointed out with custom statblocks, difficulty checks, and scenarios, it's still DM dependent. They ultimately decide if even the most explicitely worded spell effect or skill description goes, like it or not.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Even a critical success of a skill or spell can be partial if the DM chooses.
Just have to point out that by the rules as written there's no such thing as a critical success when it comes to ability checks involving a skill proficiency or straight ability checks, nor with non-attack spells. Rolling a 20 + modifiers on a Persuasion check is just a high roll, nothing more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Even a critical success of a skill or spell can be partial if the DM chooses.
Just have to point out that by the rules as written there's no such thing as a critical success when it comes to ability checks involving a skill proficiency or straight ability checks, nor with non-attack spells. Rolling a 20 + modifiers on a Persuasion check is just a high roll, nothing more.
I thought as much, still, I thought better of it to question my at-the-time about this ruling when they'd used it. Thanks for the clarification!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Even a critical success of a skill or spell can be partial if the DM chooses.
Just have to point out that by the rules as written there's no such thing as a critical success when it comes to ability checks involving a skill proficiency or straight ability checks, nor with non-attack spells. Rolling a 20 + modifiers on a Persuasion check is just a high roll, nothing more.
I thought as much, still, I thought better of it to question my at-the-time about this ruling when they'd used it. Thanks for the clarification!
No worries, but it's a source of much confusion (and has been for several editions) and bad rulings so I couldn't not stress this. Critical successes only apply to attack rolls. Not to saves, not to ability checks.
Kill the Bard!! Bard persuasion check. Ahhh she's alright. Persuasion check. Okay lets give up this life of crime.
The Bard can certainly try to convince the murderous mob not to kill the party, and likely that would be resolved with a Charisma/Persuasion ability check if the DM doesn't simply rule that it's impossible to succeed (checks that are guaranteed to fail or succeed shouldn't be rolled, unless there's a weird reason why the DM doesn't want the players to know). Any character can try that though, regardless of class levels, and as a matter of fact a Bard in the party could provide Bardic Inspiration to another character but not to themselves so depending on Cha modifiers and proficiency (and possibly circumstantial modifiers) another character, with help from the Bard, might stand a better chance of success than the Bard would.
While it's often ok to let the result of a check stand for roleplay, if I'm DMing this situation I'll require some kind of argumentation that might sway the targets of the Persuasion attempt before I'll allow the party to try this. For one, because if no argument is presented I'm not going to presume the character somehow has one anyway; for another, because the strength of that argument will determine the DC. It's certainly not impossible by default: the party might be holding the warchief's heir hostage or they have information that is worth their lives or maybe some sort of truce can be bargained if there's a mutual interest to leverage. It can work, in theory. As DM, I'll just need something more to work with than "I want to try a Charisma/Persuasion check". Tell me what you want to attempt, and I'll tell you what check to make, if any.
While it is true that there are no critical ability checks, RAW, the caveat 'if the DM chooses' always applies. And how the DM interprets any roll, especially social check rolls, which are always a bit fuzzy, is clearly in the purview of the DM.
It may be 'just a high roll' but it is the role of the DM to determine how meaningful that 'mere' high roll is.
Note this does not obligate to the DM to make it successful or immensely meaningful either. However if a DM is routinely requiring insanely high check results or routinely denying even the possibility of skill use to have meaningful effect, then that also makes for problematic campaigns.
Absolutely, but that problem arguably won't be solved by allowing critical successes on ability checks. That's a more fundamental issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anyone can attempt to persuade a group of hostiles to treat them nicely. A Bard isn't inherently more likely to succeed than anyone else with the same modifiers and the same approach.
It's going to be up to the DM (presumably you in this scenario), so here's my guidance: Be on the players' side, but don't give them anything for free. In other words, it should be possible, but risky. I would probably have it require more than one "scene," with each one increasing the danger while also moving the Bard closer to his goal. Generally the magic number is 3. However, I don't like to do long solo scenes, so I'd look for ways to integrate the party.
Example: First he has to convince them not to attack, and if he fails he's up against the vanguard. Then, he has to convince the leader to hear him out, which means everybody in the camp now knows he's there. Finally, he has to convince the leader to help, but now he's deep in the middle of the camp, in the leader's hut surrounded by his personal guards.
Meanwhile you can introduce secondary goals that, if achieved, will assist the Bard in the final scene. Maybe while he's addressing the vanguard, the other adventurers can attempt to recall proper cultural etiquette among these people and inform him, which will lower the DC when he talks to the leader. Maybe while he's convincing them to bring out the leader, the others can spot a betrayer looking to backstab the leader, and then if they mention this to the leader, it lowers the DC again. Done!
I like your ideas, actually. I do not like, "I seduce the dragon." Once the enemy knows you're the enemy, Persuasion checks probably aren't going to work. Maybe at a DC of 30 for a party of all minions, so a nat 20 with +10 will succeed. Intimidation checks have a bit more likelihood of success. Like, it makes sense if minions can see they're going to get murdered by a high-level party, that they would give up, even though they know it probably means death at the hands of their master. So let's say 25 DC. But this is only for minions, not for final bosses or NPCs with names. And obviously only for intelligent minions.
You should also have to make this check against each enemy individually. Maybe if you can persuade or intimidate the leader, you get advantage against the rest. But ultimately each makes their own choice whether to fight or not. So with a good bonus, you have a good chance to take one or two enemies out of the fight. Only against a party of all minions.
This level of effectiveness will make the Bard feel like a hero, without rendering your combat meaningless.
But what about Deception checks? I think in your scenario of walking into an enemy camp, then definitely the Bard can pretend to be someone they're not. (Actually, I would make that a Performance check, just because that skill rarely gets used and needs some love.) Once they're in, convincing them to give up some information might be fairly trivial. Persuasion 10, if the Bard has convinced them she's an ally. Persuasion 20 if they just think she's a neutral party. Still very doable for a Bard.
Release the prisoners? Probably harder. If they think you're an ally, it's probably time to push your luck with a Deception. You need to give a reason why the prisoners are to be released, and this will necessarily be a fictitious reason. Not a very hard DC, though, I think, since they think you're on their side. DC 10. But if you fail, obviously you're in trouble. Better have an exit strategy. OTOH, if they think you're neutral, maybe you can try a challenging Persuasion check. This is where some clever role-playing comes in. The DC could range from 20 to 30, depending on how much they like the Bard's offer. It will pay if you've learned something about these minions and what they might want out of life.
I would say the last suggestion, that you can just convince them to turn over a new leaf, is just beyond possibility. Here's where the DM needs to be a good role-player. You need to know your NPCs' motivations. They wouldn't be risking their lives to fight adventurers unless they have a good reason. The most obvious reason is that they are beholden to their boss, and there are swift and certain consequences for desertion. Another possibility is that they are true believers in the cause. In either case, no silver-tongued Bard is going to convince them to abandon their post, except maybe with the above-mentioned DC 30. But in this case, a false identity isn't helping you any. And you still aren't going to convince them to change their alignment permanently and join the cause of good. That would be a DC like 50. At best you might convince them that there is a possibility you can reward them with their fondest desire, with some nonzero possibility that they will escape the boss's wrath. I think you need role-playing and a good dice roll and a good bonus here. You can have a DC 30 if you role-play it just right.
I ran an eloquence bard who with silver tongue, had a minimum deception and persuasion roll of 18 and maximum of 28 at level 3. At level 10, where the campaign has been suspended due to life, my bard had a deception and persuasion range of 23 - 33. For small things, my DM did not even bother asking for rolls that I could not possibly fail (DC 15). For big things, how my bard went about trying to deceive or persuade set the DC.
For example, two of my party members murdered two officers who were rightfully trying to arrest the party for some minor shenanigans. We were on the run and clearly too much for any standard law enforcement. Eventually, the town hired two titan-like bounty hunters to apprehend us. They tracked us down and went to work on the party. They were pulling us apart. I fled on horseback (I didn't want to tip my hand, so the party thought I was ditching and felt betrayed). One of the impossibly powerful bounty hunters was chasing me down on foot during a chase sequence (high level monks, man). Once I had gotten 500ft away and just before he grabbed me, I used dimension door to zip back to the battlefield, where the other bounty hunter had my party contained. I told the other bounty hunter that his partner was left bleeding out in a ditch down the road. I tossed him a torch and told him that he could save his life by cauterizing the wound.
Roll time. High DC because I was a known 'witch'.
I succeeded and the bounty hunter grabbed the torch and bolted down the road. We made off and covered our trail with some various ability checks and spells.
It was one of the best moments for me in the entire campaign. A truly epic moment that I still think of often. In my opinion, this was a fantastic showing of my DM's understanding on how my social rolls can work.
I ran an eloquence bard who with silver tongue, had a minimum deception and persuasion roll of 18 and maximum of 28 at level 3. At level 10, where the campaign has been suspended due to life, my bard had a deception and persuasion range of 23 - 33. For small things, my DM did not even bother asking for rolls that I could not possibly fail (DC 15). For big things, how my bard went about trying to deceive or persuade set the DC.
For example, two of my party members murdered two officers who were rightfully trying to arrest the party for some minor shenanigans. We were on the run and clearly too much for any standard law enforcement. Eventually, the town hired two titan-like bounty hunters to apprehend us. They tracked us down and went to work on the party. They were pulling us apart. I fled on horseback (I didn't want to tip my hand, so the party thought I was ditching and felt betrayed). One of the impossibly powerful bounty hunters was chasing me down on foot during a chase sequence (high level monks, man). Once I had gotten 500ft away and just before he grabbed me, I used dimension door to zip back to the battlefield, where the other bounty hunter had my party contained. I told the other bounty hunter that his partner was left bleeding out in a ditch down the road. I tossed him a torch and told him that he could save his life by cauterizing the wound.
Roll time. High DC because I was a known 'witch'.
I succeeded and the bounty hunter grabbed the torch and bolted down the road. We made off and covered our trail with some various ability checks and spells.
It was one of the best moments for me in the entire campaign. A truly epic moment that I still think of often. In my opinion, this was a fantastic showing of my DM's understanding on how my social rolls can work.
I think this is also a good example of the player having an good understanding of what their social skills can accomplish. Having believable and logical expectations on the player's part is also very important to making Social Skills work.
I think a lot can be improved by how the application of Persuasion is defined, as the PHB leaves it pretty vague: it's not - in my opinion anyway - coming up with an argument or rationale or idea; it's mostly only how well the charactercan convey that argument. Going before the king and asking the DM to interpret a high result as the character knowing exactly what to say without being able to formulate even in broad terms what "that" would be doesn't work. A high roll should be knowing exactly how to say what needs to be said. It's easier to look at from the perspective of Deception: a believable lie will have a lower DC, an unbelievable one a higher DC, and an undefined lie doesn't really work. "I can't think of a good lie, but I rolled 29 for Deception" is not something a DM can really adjudicate properly; even if the assumption is that the character came up with a convincing lie, the nature of that lie could be anything and thus the reaction could be anything too. Now, in practice I rarely see players fail to come up with a lie while coming up with a strong argument is not a given, but the principle is the same: if some sort of falsehood is needed to properly use Deception, some sort of truthful argument should be needed to properly use Persuasion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If an incredibly persuasive character can only persuade people in situations that the DM is themselves already convinced, how is that any sort of heroic ability? It is like requiring the player to do the heavy lifting in persuading in real life then the character having to make a very high DC additionally, with it failing if either fails.
You're inserting things into my statements that aren't there. It has nothing to do with whether the DM is personally convinced.
Players should be ready to accept that any given attempt at anything might fail but high results should usually mean at least something.
Sometimes the results just mean you chose an ineffective approach.
If it has nothing to do with whether the DM is personally convinced or not, how does the DM decide whether the target creature is 'persuadable' or not? Completely arbitrarily?
Ruling it an ineffective approach means the DM is convinced it is an ineffective approach.
I look at it this way.
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have a bag of gum drops. If you spare my life you can have them."
or
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have information about a secret stash of gold hidden in the town. Let me speak with your boss so we can all get rich."
Which of these are more likely to be believable or successful?
I ran an eloquence bard who with silver tongue, had a minimum deception and persuasion roll of 18 and maximum of 28 at level 3. At level 10, where the campaign has been suspended due to life, my bard had a deception and persuasion range of 23 - 33. For small things, my DM did not even bother asking for rolls that I could not possibly fail (DC 15). For big things, how my bard went about trying to deceive or persuade set the DC.
For example, two of my party members murdered two officers who were rightfully trying to arrest the party for some minor shenanigans. We were on the run and clearly too much for any standard law enforcement. Eventually, the town hired two titan-like bounty hunters to apprehend us. They tracked us down and went to work on the party. They were pulling us apart. I fled on horseback (I didn't want to tip my hand, so the party thought I was ditching and felt betrayed). One of the impossibly powerful bounty hunters was chasing me down on foot during a chase sequence (high level monks, man). Once I had gotten 500ft away and just before he grabbed me, I used dimension door to zip back to the battlefield, where the other bounty hunter had my party contained. I told the other bounty hunter that his partner was left bleeding out in a ditch down the road. I tossed him a torch and told him that he could save his life by cauterizing the wound.
Roll time. High DC because I was a known 'witch'.
I succeeded and the bounty hunter grabbed the torch and bolted down the road. We made off and covered our trail with some various ability checks and spells.
It was one of the best moments for me in the entire campaign. A truly epic moment that I still think of often. In my opinion, this was a fantastic showing of my DM's understanding on how my social rolls can work.
I think this is also a good example of the player having an good understanding of what their social skills can accomplish. Having believable and logical expectations on the player's part is also very important to making Social Skills work.
I definitely agree. Ability checks are not magical. We have spells to magically deceive, persuade, or otherwise compel someone. A bard with my persuasion cannot burst into a king's hall and demand the crown even if I rolled a 33 on persuasion. But I would hope, at least with that roll, that the king would not order me chained and perhaps instead have me titled his fool. :P
I would say as the Bard, there are many spells that you can use to lay in the ground work before just walking into the enemy camp to parley.
Dream spell: you can interact with the camp leader's mind to see what his subconscious is struggling with.
Scrying: you can watch and listen to the camp members
Detect Thoughts: during an interrogation of a captured camp member
Mislead: Just walk into the camp as a yourself, a guard, an enemy camp member, an animal, etc. and learn about the camp.
And my personal favorite: Modify Memory
Do all the social leg work before parleying to make the interaction believable.
But all this leg work might have to be a separate one off session with just the DM and the Bard so that the rest of the group doesn't just sit around and wait for the bard to do all this leg work. But this is why I believe the Bard is the most power character in the game. They can affect the story narritive and motivations for why people do what they do and just change that narrative. Changing the story and motivations for why you are doing what you are doing will get you to change. The bard can overthrow a king without having to fire a single arrow. Maybe it was a bard that introduced Edward VIII to the American divorcée Wallis Warfield Simpson and he abdicated the throne. How does batman get superman to stand down? Just get Louis Lane to show up. The bard knows everyone's secret social and psychological pressure points.
A James Spader character "Red" from Blacklist as he goes after Baldermero in the prison. He gets the prisoners to all turn on Baldermero and then gets Baldermero killed by another mob member while James' character "Red" never has to lift finger.
I understand. But they will all be high if players persistently try to make skills do more than they do. Persuasion is not [customarily] a Jedi mind trick. It's not punishing players to expect them to respect some degree of internal consistency in the game universe. What I am getting at is there is a player side and a DM side of this equation. DMs should be applying DC considerations in good faith. Players shouldn't expect to hand wave the nature of the game realm just because they rolled well on a D20.
If an incredibly persuasive character can only persuade people in situations that the DM is themselves already convinced, how is that any sort of heroic ability? It is like requiring the player to do the heavy lifting in persuading in real life then the character having to make a very high DC additionally, with it failing if either fails.
Players should be ready to accept that any given attempt at anything might fail but high results should usually mean at least something.
The way I do it is that if I, the DM, am considering their proposal, that's my cue to ask for a Persuasion check.
I think Persuasion checks are very different from most checks. Most athletic activities have a lot of variance in outcome. Even a professional can break their leg in a fall, and even an amateur can make a lucky cornhole toss.
But the outcome of Persuasion is most often guaranteed or impossible. What you suggest is either compatible with their goals or it isn't. It's only in the borderline cases where skill in Persuasion comes into play.
Take a real-world example. The job that requires the most Persuasion is sales. But no salesperson is going to be able to sell you a toupee if you have a full head of hair. And you don't need any skill in Persuasion to sell Girl Scout cookies. It's only in the borderline, where a bald man can't afford Girl Scout cookies because he's saving up for a toupee, that Persuasion comes into play.
If an incredibly persuasive character can only persuade people in situations that the DM is themselves already convinced, how is that any sort of heroic ability? It is like requiring the player to do the heavy lifting in persuading in real life then the character having to make a very high DC additionally, with it failing if either fails.
You're inserting things into my statements that aren't there. It has nothing to do with whether the DM is personally convinced.
Players should be ready to accept that any given attempt at anything might fail but high results should usually mean at least something.
Sometimes the results just mean you chose an ineffective approach.
If it has nothing to do with whether the DM is personally convinced or not, how does the DM decide whether the target creature is 'persuadable' or not? Completely arbitrarily?
Ruling it an ineffective approach means the DM is convinced it is an ineffective approach.
I look at it this way.
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have a bag of gum drops. If you spare my life you can have them."
or
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have information about a secret stash of gold hidden in the town. Let me speak with your boss so we can all get rich."
Which of these are more likely to be believable or successful?
Well, the Deception check that you have gumdrops is likely easier, because that is not at all implausible.
But the following Persuasion check is probably impossibly high DC.
Although I often run "contested" Persuasion checks, where I subtract the target's Insight bonus if it's an objectively terribly idea, or add it if it's actually advantageous to the target. If you have a really unwise target, you would subtract a negative, and have a better chance to pass. So with a gullible goblin and a good roll, you might convince them to trade something of value for gumdrops.
If an incredibly persuasive character can only persuade people in situations that the DM is themselves already convinced, how is that any sort of heroic ability? It is like requiring the player to do the heavy lifting in persuading in real life then the character having to make a very high DC additionally, with it failing if either fails.
You're inserting things into my statements that aren't there. It has nothing to do with whether the DM is personally convinced.
Players should be ready to accept that any given attempt at anything might fail but high results should usually mean at least something.
Sometimes the results just mean you chose an ineffective approach.
If it has nothing to do with whether the DM is personally convinced or not, how does the DM decide whether the target creature is 'persuadable' or not? Completely arbitrarily?
Ruling it an ineffective approach means the DM is convinced it is an ineffective approach.
I look at it this way.
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have a bag of gum drops. If you spare my life you can have them."
or
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have information about a secret stash of gold hidden in the town. Let me speak with your boss so we can all get rich."
Which of these are more likely to be believable or successful?
Right, but since we are talking about upper end results, we are talking more in that second range than the 1st. Usually (as DM and when DM allows, as player), I roll 1st and RP to the roll rather than RP to the best of my ability then try to explain why completely rational or 'on their face' persuasive arguments fall flat.
That's easy enough with Deception usually, but we're talking about Persuasion. What do you do when you roll extremely well but have no idea what to say? Or do you not let it get to a roll in that case?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I ran an eloquence bard who with silver tongue, had a minimum deception and persuasion roll of 18 and maximum of 28 at level 3. At level 10, where the campaign has been suspended due to life, my bard had a deception and persuasion range of 23 - 33. For small things, my DM did not even bother asking for rolls that I could not possibly fail (DC 15). For big things, how my bard went about trying to deceive or persuade set the DC.
For example, two of my party members murdered two officers who were rightfully trying to arrest the party for some minor shenanigans. We were on the run and clearly too much for any standard law enforcement. Eventually, the town hired two titan-like bounty hunters to apprehend us. They tracked us down and went to work on the party. They were pulling us apart. I fled on horseback (I didn't want to tip my hand, so the party thought I was ditching and felt betrayed). One of the impossibly powerful bounty hunters was chasing me down on foot during a chase sequence (high level monks, man). Once I had gotten 500ft away and just before he grabbed me, I used dimension door to zip back to the battlefield, where the other bounty hunter had my party contained. I told the other bounty hunter that his partner was left bleeding out in a ditch down the road. I tossed him a torch and told him that he could save his life by cauterizing the wound.
Roll time. High DC because I was a known 'witch'.
I succeeded and the bounty hunter grabbed the torch and bolted down the road. We made off and covered our trail with some various ability checks and spells.
It was one of the best moments for me in the entire campaign. A truly epic moment that I still think of often. In my opinion, this was a fantastic showing of my DM's understanding on how my social rolls can work.
I think this is also a good example of the player having an good understanding of what their social skills can accomplish. Having believable and logical expectations on the player's part is also very important to making Social Skills work.
I definitely agree. Ability checks are not magical. We have spells to magically deceive, persuade, or otherwise compel someone. A bard with my persuasion cannot burst into a king's hall and demand the crown even if I rolled a 33 on persuasion. But I would hope, at least with that roll, that the king would not order me chained and perhaps instead have me titled his fool. :P
Even some of those have limits. Suggestion isn't even supposed to do what some people think a nat 20 Persuasion does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For playing a Bard, what is the typical limit of character influence limit that a Bard can attempt. Say a bard just walks into the enemy camp. She can influence them in round 1 to not kill her on the spot, then would she be able to continue influencing the enemy camp to just give up the information she's sent to get, to release the held prisoners, move on from a life of crime and work for the village as their police force? As a DM I wouldn't allow my Bard to just influence the enemies to go from rushing into attack to now we're best friends in one round, but is it normal to think that a Bard, given enough rounds and successful persuasion checks, that the bard could completely change the social dynamic or social political issues going on between the town and the roaming hoards? If so, then wouldn't that make the Bard the most powerful class since you're not enchanting someone to change their mind, you just genuinely got someone to change their mind.
Kill the Bard!! Bard persuasion check. Ahhh she's alright. Persuasion check. Okay lets give up this life of crime.
This is not even a power bards have?
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
This is going to vary by DM and by individual character.
Let's say Brian the Bard is trying to get Corinne and David, some thieves, to stop their life of crime. So first Brain is trying to approach the thieves.
Corinne is an eager thief and a bit blade-happy and quick to be hostile. David is more 'happy go lucky' and rather indifferent to Brian and not in the mood for a fight.
The DM might call for a Persuasion check. For Corrine the DC may be 10 to hear the bard out, while David wouldn't even require a roll.
The bard succeeds and both thieves listen as Brian tries to convince the thieves to give up the life of crime. The DM may call for a persuasion check.
Corinne is has enjoyed being a thief. For her there is no roll - it's a straight up nope. No words alone would ever sway her. David is only a thief from circumstance, giving up previously on an honest living. He doesn't really like being a thief but it'll be a hard-sell to get him to give it up. DC 20.
The persuasions might go differently if the intent was to recruit into honest work that was more profitable. But as in the scenario above - Corinne is dead-set against it, so even magical persuasions like Charm Person or Suggestion would utterly fail on her, but would definitely work on David.
The DM is absolutely free to say "no roll" and that a task is impossible, regardless of how good you are.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I would imagine that's DM dependent. Unless I were to go by rules-as-written (RAW) I wouldn't give a bard any particular advantages over any other class that rolled the same or used the means to influence someone.
To give a more definitive answer I'd need to know the specifics, such as the bard's renown in this area, if they're clearly in possession of the upper hand (magical items, a mightier foes' head, a blade to the enemy boss' neck), as well as the enemy's position, why they're encamped, what advantages there are to this camp being here, their immediate and long-term goals for encamping here, for instance. Otherwise this may be a lv.1 bard walking into any number of experienced soldiers and expecting to parlay.
There's also the matter of roleplay versus roll-play. What's the approach? A cocky swagger, a bold stride, a deer-in-the-headlights feigned fear of this enemy? First impressions are the most important, especially when an enemy is unlikely to let you forget their camp exists and simply walk away.
Let's take this one at a time. If I were DM'ing this situation, and I wouldn't because I wouldn't know all you've told me before it happens unless you're Tiberius Stormwind trying to do six things in as many seconds, here's how it would go down:
For such an approach, the later the failure, the more ready the enemy is to attack. Arrows are nocked, targets (if visible) are picked, shields are ready to be raised and footwork is ready to be fancy. If the party isn't in position by this point, the soothsayer's going to look like bardmite spread all over the floor.
It's perfectly normal to think that because of the myths and memes surrounding bards. The final sentence you go on to say is quite apt for the fantasy of the bard (it's second to seducing dragons) but mechanically it doesn't work that way. Influential spells are very specific with their wording, as many will have caveats such as "a creature prone to violence might attack you" in the Friends spell description, or "the creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance" with the Charm Person spell description, so as to avoid situations where people can be mass charmed and everything be alright.
See The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for such silliness as to why.
It would if this were the case. Again though, most spells and rolls aren't going to have this effect, especially if the DM knows the capabilities of the bard in their own campaign. Even a critical success of a skill or spell can be partial if the DM chooses. It could be the difference between Count Strahd von Zarovich torturing said bard for eternity with a flick of his wrist, and finding it so amusing that they tried to command him walk into the sun that he's going to take a disadvantage on initiative as an act of mercy.
So it's as I said before, and as others have pointed out with custom statblocks, difficulty checks, and scenarios, it's still DM dependent. They ultimately decide if even the most explicitely worded spell effect or skill description goes, like it or not.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Just have to point out that by the rules as written there's no such thing as a critical success when it comes to ability checks involving a skill proficiency or straight ability checks, nor with non-attack spells. Rolling a 20 + modifiers on a Persuasion check is just a high roll, nothing more.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I thought as much, still, I thought better of it to question my at-the-time about this ruling when they'd used it. Thanks for the clarification!
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
No worries, but it's a source of much confusion (and has been for several editions) and bad rulings so I couldn't not stress this. Critical successes only apply to attack rolls. Not to saves, not to ability checks.
On topic:
The Bard can certainly try to convince the murderous mob not to kill the party, and likely that would be resolved with a Charisma/Persuasion ability check if the DM doesn't simply rule that it's impossible to succeed (checks that are guaranteed to fail or succeed shouldn't be rolled, unless there's a weird reason why the DM doesn't want the players to know). Any character can try that though, regardless of class levels, and as a matter of fact a Bard in the party could provide Bardic Inspiration to another character but not to themselves so depending on Cha modifiers and proficiency (and possibly circumstantial modifiers) another character, with help from the Bard, might stand a better chance of success than the Bard would.
While it's often ok to let the result of a check stand for roleplay, if I'm DMing this situation I'll require some kind of argumentation that might sway the targets of the Persuasion attempt before I'll allow the party to try this. For one, because if no argument is presented I'm not going to presume the character somehow has one anyway; for another, because the strength of that argument will determine the DC. It's certainly not impossible by default: the party might be holding the warchief's heir hostage or they have information that is worth their lives or maybe some sort of truce can be bargained if there's a mutual interest to leverage. It can work, in theory. As DM, I'll just need something more to work with than "I want to try a Charisma/Persuasion check". Tell me what you want to attempt, and I'll tell you what check to make, if any.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Absolutely, but that problem arguably won't be solved by allowing critical successes on ability checks. That's a more fundamental issue.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anyone can attempt to persuade a group of hostiles to treat them nicely. A Bard isn't inherently more likely to succeed than anyone else with the same modifiers and the same approach.
It's going to be up to the DM (presumably you in this scenario), so here's my guidance: Be on the players' side, but don't give them anything for free. In other words, it should be possible, but risky. I would probably have it require more than one "scene," with each one increasing the danger while also moving the Bard closer to his goal. Generally the magic number is 3. However, I don't like to do long solo scenes, so I'd look for ways to integrate the party.
Example: First he has to convince them not to attack, and if he fails he's up against the vanguard. Then, he has to convince the leader to hear him out, which means everybody in the camp now knows he's there. Finally, he has to convince the leader to help, but now he's deep in the middle of the camp, in the leader's hut surrounded by his personal guards.
Meanwhile you can introduce secondary goals that, if achieved, will assist the Bard in the final scene. Maybe while he's addressing the vanguard, the other adventurers can attempt to recall proper cultural etiquette among these people and inform him, which will lower the DC when he talks to the leader. Maybe while he's convincing them to bring out the leader, the others can spot a betrayer looking to backstab the leader, and then if they mention this to the leader, it lowers the DC again. Done!
I like your ideas, actually. I do not like, "I seduce the dragon." Once the enemy knows you're the enemy, Persuasion checks probably aren't going to work. Maybe at a DC of 30 for a party of all minions, so a nat 20 with +10 will succeed. Intimidation checks have a bit more likelihood of success. Like, it makes sense if minions can see they're going to get murdered by a high-level party, that they would give up, even though they know it probably means death at the hands of their master. So let's say 25 DC. But this is only for minions, not for final bosses or NPCs with names. And obviously only for intelligent minions.
You should also have to make this check against each enemy individually. Maybe if you can persuade or intimidate the leader, you get advantage against the rest. But ultimately each makes their own choice whether to fight or not. So with a good bonus, you have a good chance to take one or two enemies out of the fight. Only against a party of all minions.
This level of effectiveness will make the Bard feel like a hero, without rendering your combat meaningless.
But what about Deception checks? I think in your scenario of walking into an enemy camp, then definitely the Bard can pretend to be someone they're not. (Actually, I would make that a Performance check, just because that skill rarely gets used and needs some love.) Once they're in, convincing them to give up some information might be fairly trivial. Persuasion 10, if the Bard has convinced them she's an ally. Persuasion 20 if they just think she's a neutral party. Still very doable for a Bard.
Release the prisoners? Probably harder. If they think you're an ally, it's probably time to push your luck with a Deception. You need to give a reason why the prisoners are to be released, and this will necessarily be a fictitious reason. Not a very hard DC, though, I think, since they think you're on their side. DC 10. But if you fail, obviously you're in trouble. Better have an exit strategy. OTOH, if they think you're neutral, maybe you can try a challenging Persuasion check. This is where some clever role-playing comes in. The DC could range from 20 to 30, depending on how much they like the Bard's offer. It will pay if you've learned something about these minions and what they might want out of life.
I would say the last suggestion, that you can just convince them to turn over a new leaf, is just beyond possibility. Here's where the DM needs to be a good role-player. You need to know your NPCs' motivations. They wouldn't be risking their lives to fight adventurers unless they have a good reason. The most obvious reason is that they are beholden to their boss, and there are swift and certain consequences for desertion. Another possibility is that they are true believers in the cause. In either case, no silver-tongued Bard is going to convince them to abandon their post, except maybe with the above-mentioned DC 30. But in this case, a false identity isn't helping you any. And you still aren't going to convince them to change their alignment permanently and join the cause of good. That would be a DC like 50. At best you might convince them that there is a possibility you can reward them with their fondest desire, with some nonzero possibility that they will escape the boss's wrath. I think you need role-playing and a good dice roll and a good bonus here. You can have a DC 30 if you role-play it just right.
I ran an eloquence bard who with silver tongue, had a minimum deception and persuasion roll of 18 and maximum of 28 at level 3. At level 10, where the campaign has been suspended due to life, my bard had a deception and persuasion range of 23 - 33. For small things, my DM did not even bother asking for rolls that I could not possibly fail (DC 15). For big things, how my bard went about trying to deceive or persuade set the DC.
For example, two of my party members murdered two officers who were rightfully trying to arrest the party for some minor shenanigans. We were on the run and clearly too much for any standard law enforcement. Eventually, the town hired two titan-like bounty hunters to apprehend us. They tracked us down and went to work on the party. They were pulling us apart. I fled on horseback (I didn't want to tip my hand, so the party thought I was ditching and felt betrayed). One of the impossibly powerful bounty hunters was chasing me down on foot during a chase sequence (high level monks, man). Once I had gotten 500ft away and just before he grabbed me, I used dimension door to zip back to the battlefield, where the other bounty hunter had my party contained. I told the other bounty hunter that his partner was left bleeding out in a ditch down the road. I tossed him a torch and told him that he could save his life by cauterizing the wound.
Roll time. High DC because I was a known 'witch'.
I succeeded and the bounty hunter grabbed the torch and bolted down the road. We made off and covered our trail with some various ability checks and spells.
It was one of the best moments for me in the entire campaign. A truly epic moment that I still think of often. In my opinion, this was a fantastic showing of my DM's understanding on how my social rolls can work.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I think this is also a good example of the player having an good understanding of what their social skills can accomplish. Having believable and logical expectations on the player's part is also very important to making Social Skills work.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think a lot can be improved by how the application of Persuasion is defined, as the PHB leaves it pretty vague: it's not - in my opinion anyway - coming up with an argument or rationale or idea; it's mostly only how well the character can convey that argument. Going before the king and asking the DM to interpret a high result as the character knowing exactly what to say without being able to formulate even in broad terms what "that" would be doesn't work. A high roll should be knowing exactly how to say what needs to be said. It's easier to look at from the perspective of Deception: a believable lie will have a lower DC, an unbelievable one a higher DC, and an undefined lie doesn't really work. "I can't think of a good lie, but I rolled 29 for Deception" is not something a DM can really adjudicate properly; even if the assumption is that the character came up with a convincing lie, the nature of that lie could be anything and thus the reaction could be anything too. Now, in practice I rarely see players fail to come up with a lie while coming up with a strong argument is not a given, but the principle is the same: if some sort of falsehood is needed to properly use Deception, some sort of truthful argument should be needed to properly use Persuasion.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I look at it this way.
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have a bag of gum drops. If you spare my life you can have them."
or
Deception Attempt: "Don't attack me, I have information about a secret stash of gold hidden in the town. Let me speak with your boss so we can all get rich."
Which of these are more likely to be believable or successful?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I definitely agree. Ability checks are not magical. We have spells to magically deceive, persuade, or otherwise compel someone. A bard with my persuasion cannot burst into a king's hall and demand the crown even if I rolled a 33 on persuasion. But I would hope, at least with that roll, that the king would not order me chained and perhaps instead have me titled his fool. :P
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I would say as the Bard, there are many spells that you can use to lay in the ground work before just walking into the enemy camp to parley.
Dream spell: you can interact with the camp leader's mind to see what his subconscious is struggling with.
Scrying: you can watch and listen to the camp members
Detect Thoughts: during an interrogation of a captured camp member
Mislead: Just walk into the camp as a yourself, a guard, an enemy camp member, an animal, etc. and learn about the camp.
And my personal favorite: Modify Memory
Do all the social leg work before parleying to make the interaction believable.
But all this leg work might have to be a separate one off session with just the DM and the Bard so that the rest of the group doesn't just sit around and wait for the bard to do all this leg work. But this is why I believe the Bard is the most power character in the game. They can affect the story narritive and motivations for why people do what they do and just change that narrative. Changing the story and motivations for why you are doing what you are doing will get you to change. The bard can overthrow a king without having to fire a single arrow. Maybe it was a bard that introduced Edward VIII to the American divorcée Wallis Warfield Simpson and he abdicated the throne. How does batman get superman to stand down? Just get Louis Lane to show up. The bard knows everyone's secret social and psychological pressure points.
A James Spader character "Red" from Blacklist as he goes after Baldermero in the prison. He gets the prisoners to all turn on Baldermero and then gets Baldermero killed by another mob member while James' character "Red" never has to lift finger.
The way I do it is that if I, the DM, am considering their proposal, that's my cue to ask for a Persuasion check.
I think Persuasion checks are very different from most checks. Most athletic activities have a lot of variance in outcome. Even a professional can break their leg in a fall, and even an amateur can make a lucky cornhole toss.
But the outcome of Persuasion is most often guaranteed or impossible. What you suggest is either compatible with their goals or it isn't. It's only in the borderline cases where skill in Persuasion comes into play.
Take a real-world example. The job that requires the most Persuasion is sales. But no salesperson is going to be able to sell you a toupee if you have a full head of hair. And you don't need any skill in Persuasion to sell Girl Scout cookies. It's only in the borderline, where a bald man can't afford Girl Scout cookies because he's saving up for a toupee, that Persuasion comes into play.
Well, the Deception check that you have gumdrops is likely easier, because that is not at all implausible.
But the following Persuasion check is probably impossibly high DC.
Although I often run "contested" Persuasion checks, where I subtract the target's Insight bonus if it's an objectively terribly idea, or add it if it's actually advantageous to the target. If you have a really unwise target, you would subtract a negative, and have a better chance to pass. So with a gullible goblin and a good roll, you might convince them to trade something of value for gumdrops.
That's easy enough with Deception usually, but we're talking about Persuasion. What do you do when you roll extremely well but have no idea what to say? Or do you not let it get to a roll in that case?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Even some of those have limits. Suggestion isn't even supposed to do what some people think a nat 20 Persuasion does.