I voted other because I think the only circumstance when it would be solely straight up charisma(performance) is when the character in question is familiar with exactly the kind of social group they are in at that exact moment. If not, then allowing them to see if they can notice anything from the others in the room WIS(Perc) and then make a imitation(performance) to see how well they do would also be reasonable.
I think in most situations an intelligence based check is unreasonable. The character either knows from previous experience what the etiquette is in a certain social group or they don't. Having a 'noble courtier' background on your character and flubbing a check for this because you rolled low INT would make no sense and should just have been an auto success IMO. Same for a barbarian at a tribal feast gathering if they too are from a similar tribal background - the noble courtier would probably auto fail this check unless they could convince that somewhere in their back story they had experience of this kind of social situation (unlikely).
Edit: I remember a DM asking me once to roll an intelligence(history) check to see if I knew how to eat a very specific type of super fancy small bird. My character was a street urchin. I aced the check and stunned everyone at the table - Which was nice, but didn't really make any sense, they didn't even know what type of bird it was and had never seen one before in their life.
As such, your breakdown is just fine. One could even ask for Dexterity, Strength, or Constitution in the event of needing gracefulness, displays of strength, or having the stomach for... exotic... delicacies.
Etiquette is a challenge, which players may use various skills to overcome.
As a thought experiment it's Charisma (Performance)... but it isn't a thing that should really be a check. It's too flimsy to really make for good drama and it just sounds like a DM checking for etiquette is looking for their player's to fail... similar to asking for a Strength (Athletics) check to climb a ladder.
The point of etiquette is to prove that you're well bred and educated. It's literally a performance for high society, and a rather banal one at that. There aren't 101 rules, and even then the rules change from culture to culture, so not everybody can be expected to have them correct 100% of the time, especially with a good cover story. The etiquette in Britain was similar to France, but not the same. France was similar to Germany, but not the same. Britain and Germany were more different from each other than they were to France. Eventually you get to the Ottoman Empire where etiquette was very different, and you've only covered 1/3 of the Eurasian Super Continent.
Look up Horace De Vere Cole to see how easy it was to pass yourself off as someone of another culture during the height of etiquette complexity
In any setting where etiquette is a formalized thing, it should probably be its own separate skill check, although I could see subbing in History in a pinch to see if your character know the rules -- which tells me my vote should go to INT
If you're using etiquette in the colloquial sense though, to just mean manners and decorum, I'd say CHA
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you want the simple answer, Charisma (Performance) as others have already stated, in combination with Wisdom (Insight). However, I’m I big proponent of using the “Skills With Different Abilities” variant rule when appropriate, so as a DM I would accept any justifiable Ability (Skill) check.
If you want the simple answer, Charisma (Performance) as others have already stated, in combination with Wisdom (Insight). However, I’m I big proponent of using the “Skills With Different Abilities” variant rule when appropriate, so as a DM I would accept any justifiable Ability (Skill) check.
Are you suggesting Intelligence (Performance)? Sounds like fun to me!
Well, while the description of the History skill focuses specifically on past events, I also use it to represent knowledge about the customs and practices of various peoples in the present day, although there's nothing to really support that in RAW. And the description of Charisma specifically notes that it is used for navigating tricky social situations.
If you want the simple answer, Charisma (Performance) as others have already stated, in combination with Wisdom (Insight). However, I’m I big proponent of using the “Skills With Different Abilities” variant rule when appropriate, so as a DM I would accept any justifiable Ability (Skill) check.
Are you suggesting Intelligence (Performance)? Sounds like fun to me!
To learn the skill would take Intelligence. Knowing when to use it would require Wisdom.
But when you use the skill, you would apply your Charisma Bonus.
Note, this pattern is basically true of 99% of skills. To learn how to play sports (Athletics) it takes intelligence (Professional athletes start out as very smart and stay that way if they avoid concussions). To know when to use your athletic ability to barge through a crowd of people takes Wisdom. But your success with the skill would depend on Strength.
To learn how to play sports (Athletics) it takes intelligence (Professional athletes start out as very smart and stay that way if they avoid concussions). To know when to use your athletic ability to barge through a crowd of people takes Wisdom. But your success with the skill would depend on Strength.
D&D stats are a clumsy abstraction at the best of times, but what the game calls "Intelligence" isn't really a good analogue to what Howard Gardner called "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence", which would be better represented by STR or DEX depending on the situation
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To learn how to play sports (Athletics) it takes intelligence (Professional athletes start out as very smart and stay that way if they avoid concussions). To know when to use your athletic ability to barge through a crowd of people takes Wisdom. But your success with the skill would depend on Strength.
D&D stats are a clumsy abstraction at the best of times, but what the game calls "Intelligence" isn't really a good analogue to what Howard Gardner called "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence", which would be better represented by STR or DEX depending on the situation
I was talking about IQ, not Bodily Kinesthietic Intelligence.
I have tried to teach games to developmentally disabled youths and it takes a LOT longer to teach them.
To learn how to play sports (Athletics) it takes intelligence (Professional athletes start out as very smart and stay that way if they avoid concussions). To know when to use your athletic ability to barge through a crowd of people takes Wisdom. But your success with the skill would depend on Strength.
D&D stats are a clumsy abstraction at the best of times, but what the game calls "Intelligence" isn't really a good analogue to what Howard Gardner called "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence", which would be better represented by STR or DEX depending on the situation
I'm with Anton here.
The way I view Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma is that they're analogous to Dexterity, Constitution, and Strength, respectively.
Intelligence is how quick and adaptable your mind is, Wisdom is how resilient your mind is, and Charisma is how well you're able to use your mind/personality to influence the outside world.
Your mileage will DEFINITELY vary, but this feels easy for me.
I think a more common correlation is as follows:
Charisma/Constitution: Integrity. (I.e. How immutable your personality and physical manifestation are.)
Wisdom/Dexterity: Adaptability. (Ability to respond to the unexpected.)
Intelligence/Strength: Power. (Ability to manifest intentional change in the world.)
E.g.
Sorcerers get their power from the foundation of their being. (Bloodline)
Monks get their power from maximizing their intuitions and reflexes.
Eldritch Knights get their power from a combination of physical and mental mastery.
I think this is approaching a skill check from the wrong direction. What's the scene? What is the challenge? Do you really need to dictate to the PCs how they should overcome that challenge?
If the party is at the Lord's banquet and they need to impress him (or at least not offend him) proper etiquette would just be one way to do that. I'd probably have it be INT-based since etiquette is about knowing rules and sticking to them. But I'd also let a WIS-based character observe others and act as they do. Or a CHA-based character play off their lack of etiquette in a charming way.
I'm not really a fan of "okay, everyone make a CHA check for etiquette." You describe the situation and the challenge and you let the characters meet that challenge in the manner their characters would. They will think of things you never would have.
It's not an ability score - it's a personality/social skill. If you want to do a roll for how well you perform etiquette at a party then I guess it comes down to the situation. It could be either of those stats, even a con check if it's some lengthy procedure/ritual which can be taxing. So basically I can think of several checks of d20 Etiquette(stat)
Etiquette is a challenge, which players may use various skills to overcome.
This is why I picked "other" like many others on this thread.
Also I would submit that there are various situations to even rolling to pass the challenge or not if you're in your homeland then maybe you just automatically succeed because you know the rules. You can actively choose to buck them and then fail and see what the consequences are or if you're a commoner then maybe you roll Persuasion to show how well you perform the tasks and people let you slide but if you're an aristocratic PC then you just past in your homeland unless you have a memory issue or customs have changed and then roll a History or Persuasion check against some set DC.
If you're in a foreign area of course it makes sense to do checks as different cultures will have different rules more ban likely, but you can get advantage on a roll if you're of the noble background or maybe add proficiency if you're amongst a group of nobles and you are noble or you're a solider in the barracks. You might not know the specific rules of your current situation but you know the idea of what could be expected in the situation. Maybe you do proficiency for homeland and advantage for when you're in a familiar group but not your homeland.
All in all though there's is no set Skill for etiquette unless they suddenly create one. Ha
Probably a int history check. It's about knowing the rules of how to behave. If it is ettiquette of a different realm, like the Fey, maybe arcana. If it is a dinner with some devils? Religion.
I think it should be a variable. If your character is a prim and proper noble, they should get an automatic success. If they are a noble but didn't really care fore their ettiquette lessons? Easy check, it was probably drilled into them as a child, even if they wanted to ignore it. If you are trying to know about ettiquette for a foreign land, maybe then make a roll.
I don't think it's performance because you aren't really trying to move people by ettiquette. More likely, you are attempting not to move people by bad behaviour.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can argue for any of the mental 3:
What do you think?
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
I think the simple answer is charisma. That status, if someone wanted to roll a different stat and gave your arguments I'd be cool with any of them.
I voted other because I think the only circumstance when it would be solely straight up charisma(performance) is when the character in question is familiar with exactly the kind of social group they are in at that exact moment. If not, then allowing them to see if they can notice anything from the others in the room WIS(Perc) and then make a imitation(performance) to see how well they do would also be reasonable.
I think in most situations an intelligence based check is unreasonable.
The character either knows from previous experience what the etiquette is in a certain social group or they don't.
Having a 'noble courtier' background on your character and flubbing a check for this because you rolled low INT would make no sense and should just have been an auto success IMO.
Same for a barbarian at a tribal feast gathering if they too are from a similar tribal background - the noble courtier would probably auto fail this check unless they could convince that somewhere in their back story they had experience of this kind of social situation (unlikely).
Edit: I remember a DM asking me once to roll an intelligence(history) check to see if I knew how to eat a very specific type of super fancy small bird. My character was a street urchin. I aced the check and stunned everyone at the table - Which was nice, but didn't really make any sense, they didn't even know what type of bird it was and had never seen one before in their life.
"Etiquette" isn't a skill, it is a ruleset.
As such, your breakdown is just fine. One could even ask for Dexterity, Strength, or Constitution in the event of needing gracefulness, displays of strength, or having the stomach for... exotic... delicacies.
Etiquette is a challenge, which players may use various skills to overcome.
As a thought experiment it's Charisma (Performance)... but it isn't a thing that should really be a check. It's too flimsy to really make for good drama and it just sounds like a DM checking for etiquette is looking for their player's to fail... similar to asking for a Strength (Athletics) check to climb a ladder.
The point of etiquette is to prove that you're well bred and educated. It's literally a performance for high society, and a rather banal one at that. There aren't 101 rules, and even then the rules change from culture to culture, so not everybody can be expected to have them correct 100% of the time, especially with a good cover story. The etiquette in Britain was similar to France, but not the same. France was similar to Germany, but not the same. Britain and Germany were more different from each other than they were to France. Eventually you get to the Ottoman Empire where etiquette was very different, and you've only covered 1/3 of the Eurasian Super Continent.
Look up Horace De Vere Cole to see how easy it was to pass yourself off as someone of another culture during the height of etiquette complexity
In any setting where etiquette is a formalized thing, it should probably be its own separate skill check, although I could see subbing in History in a pinch to see if your character know the rules -- which tells me my vote should go to INT
If you're using etiquette in the colloquial sense though, to just mean manners and decorum, I'd say CHA
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you want the simple answer, Charisma (Performance) as others have already stated, in combination with Wisdom (Insight). However, I’m I big proponent of using the “Skills With Different Abilities” variant rule when appropriate, so as a DM I would accept any justifiable Ability (Skill) check.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Are you suggesting Intelligence (Performance)? Sounds like fun to me!
Well, while the description of the History skill focuses specifically on past events, I also use it to represent knowledge about the customs and practices of various peoples in the present day, although there's nothing to really support that in RAW. And the description of Charisma specifically notes that it is used for navigating tricky social situations.
So I'd make it a Charisma (History) check 😄
Sure, why not? I mean, it makes sense. Right?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What is the check to avoid doing this?
To learn the skill would take Intelligence. Knowing when to use it would require Wisdom.
But when you use the skill, you would apply your Charisma Bonus.
Note, this pattern is basically true of 99% of skills. To learn how to play sports (Athletics) it takes intelligence (Professional athletes start out as very smart and stay that way if they avoid concussions). To know when to use your athletic ability to barge through a crowd of people takes Wisdom. But your success with the skill would depend on Strength.
Nothing, that’s alignment based. 🤣😂🤣
But probably a straight Wisdom check.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
D&D stats are a clumsy abstraction at the best of times, but what the game calls "Intelligence" isn't really a good analogue to what Howard Gardner called "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence", which would be better represented by STR or DEX depending on the situation
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I was talking about IQ, not Bodily Kinesthietic Intelligence.
I have tried to teach games to developmentally disabled youths and it takes a LOT longer to teach them.
I think a more common correlation is as follows:
Charisma/Constitution: Integrity. (I.e. How immutable your personality and physical manifestation are.)
Wisdom/Dexterity: Adaptability. (Ability to respond to the unexpected.)
Intelligence/Strength: Power. (Ability to manifest intentional change in the world.)
E.g.
Sorcerers get their power from the foundation of their being. (Bloodline)
Monks get their power from maximizing their intuitions and reflexes.
Eldritch Knights get their power from a combination of physical and mental mastery.
I think this is approaching a skill check from the wrong direction. What's the scene? What is the challenge? Do you really need to dictate to the PCs how they should overcome that challenge?
If the party is at the Lord's banquet and they need to impress him (or at least not offend him) proper etiquette would just be one way to do that. I'd probably have it be INT-based since etiquette is about knowing rules and sticking to them. But I'd also let a WIS-based character observe others and act as they do. Or a CHA-based character play off their lack of etiquette in a charming way.
I'm not really a fan of "okay, everyone make a CHA check for etiquette." You describe the situation and the challenge and you let the characters meet that challenge in the manner their characters would. They will think of things you never would have.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's not an ability score - it's a personality/social skill. If you want to do a roll for how well you perform etiquette at a party then I guess it comes down to the situation. It could be either of those stats, even a con check if it's some lengthy procedure/ritual which can be taxing. So basically I can think of several checks of d20 Etiquette(stat)
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
This is why I picked "other" like many others on this thread.
Also I would submit that there are various situations to even rolling to pass the challenge or not if you're in your homeland then maybe you just automatically succeed because you know the rules. You can actively choose to buck them and then fail and see what the consequences are or if you're a commoner then maybe you roll Persuasion to show how well you perform the tasks and people let you slide but if you're an aristocratic PC then you just past in your homeland unless you have a memory issue or customs have changed and then roll a History or Persuasion check against some set DC.
If you're in a foreign area of course it makes sense to do checks as different cultures will have different rules more ban likely, but you can get advantage on a roll if you're of the noble background or maybe add proficiency if you're amongst a group of nobles and you are noble or you're a solider in the barracks. You might not know the specific rules of your current situation but you know the idea of what could be expected in the situation. Maybe you do proficiency for homeland and advantage for when you're in a familiar group but not your homeland.
All in all though there's is no set Skill for etiquette unless they suddenly create one. Ha
Probably a int history check. It's about knowing the rules of how to behave. If it is ettiquette of a different realm, like the Fey, maybe arcana. If it is a dinner with some devils? Religion.
I think it should be a variable. If your character is a prim and proper noble, they should get an automatic success. If they are a noble but didn't really care fore their ettiquette lessons? Easy check, it was probably drilled into them as a child, even if they wanted to ignore it. If you are trying to know about ettiquette for a foreign land, maybe then make a roll.
I don't think it's performance because you aren't really trying to move people by ettiquette. More likely, you are attempting not to move people by bad behaviour.