I'm playing a tiefling monk who likes to use thaumaturgy to nudge social interactions in his favor (e.g. persuasion, intimidation, deception). My DM is new and trying to figure out how to rule the effect. I could imagine a few different ways to play it out.
(1) Determine whether RP warrants advantage or disadvantage on a CHA-based skill roll. (2) Establish a DC save based on flat CHA (in light of the tiefling's Infernal Legacy's spellcasting ability)--DC= (8 + CHA modifier + prof. bonus). (3) Establish a DC save based on the most appropriate skill--DC=(8 + CHA-based skill modifier).
Can anyone check my math and share some pros and cons to the approach? If the scenarios are correct, I suspect (1) is easy for a that holds RP in high esteem (over strict dice determinant). I like the agency of (3) and could see the appeal to the min/max crowd. (2) is my least favorite, but I could see this being RAW.
Usually option 1. Good use of abilities or information to influence social interaction is usually just advantage.
The DC of the social skill check is still completely up to DM and usually completely independent of the target's skills (less believable lies require more convincing than just the target's ability to detect lies for example). You and your DM should also remember that not all NPCs will be as phased by glowing eyes or sound effects as others and may not get advantage.
How are you using thaumaturgy to help in social situations? Opening doors and flickering candles to set a mood, or display your power, I guess?
Like DxJxC says, the DC is going to depend on the target -- a peasant will be more easily impressed by your eyes changing color than a cleric who could do the same trick back at you. Maybe if someone was really impressed, a bonus to your roll, or advantage works. But its also going to depend a lot on the world, possibly even where specifically within the world you are. If its high magic, people will see this sort of thing all the time and be less impressed. If there's lots of tieflings running around, people will expect you do be able to do it and be less impressed. The more rare it is, the bigger the impact of it, I'd generally say.
My very first time playing D&D i used the minor ground quake effect as part of an intimidation check. The DM allowed advantage which caused a crit. I've used the same mechanic when DM'ing my own games ever since, when its appropriate to the situation of course.
(1) is definitely the most elegant solution. I like the adv/disadv mechanic but also wasn’t sure how much leeway other DMs would like for quantifying the effect. This is definitely not a high magic world. For instance, maybe an interrogation accompanied by ground tremor or whispers would be especially compelling, but the more complicated roll would give a sense of what the DM/NPC would need to resist it. Or maybe the player is trying to somehow disadvantage an attacker. In this regard it’s almost more like a challenge setup or head-to-head spell encounter. The other strength of the more complicated roll is that it preserves the drama of the adv/disadv mechanic for those weary of overuse. I’m just spitballing here. We are in-between arcs in the campaign I DM and are switching roles and adventures while I prepare. So I’m finally getting to play while also developing the next part of the campaign. I’m also trying to use the opportunity to gain some perspective in how we all see the game.
I'm playing a tiefling monk who likes to use thaumaturgy to nudge social interactions in his favor (e.g. persuasion, intimidation, deception). My DM is new and trying to figure out how to rule the effect. I could imagine a few different ways to play it out.
(1) Determine whether RP warrants advantage or disadvantage on a CHA-based skill roll.
(2) Establish a DC save based on flat CHA (in light of the tiefling's Infernal Legacy's spellcasting ability)--DC= (8 + CHA modifier + prof. bonus).
(3) Establish a DC save based on the most appropriate skill--DC=(8 + CHA-based skill modifier).
Can anyone check my math and share some pros and cons to the approach? If the scenarios are correct, I suspect (1) is easy for a that holds RP in high esteem (over strict dice determinant). I like the agency of (3) and could see the appeal to the min/max crowd. (2) is my least favorite, but I could see this being RAW.
Thanks in advance.
Usually option 1. Good use of abilities or information to influence social interaction is usually just advantage.
The DC of the social skill check is still completely up to DM and usually completely independent of the target's skills (less believable lies require more convincing than just the target's ability to detect lies for example). You and your DM should also remember that not all NPCs will be as phased by glowing eyes or sound effects as others and may not get advantage.
How are you using thaumaturgy to help in social situations? Opening doors and flickering candles to set a mood, or display your power, I guess?
Like DxJxC says, the DC is going to depend on the target -- a peasant will be more easily impressed by your eyes changing color than a cleric who could do the same trick back at you. Maybe if someone was really impressed, a bonus to your roll, or advantage works. But its also going to depend a lot on the world, possibly even where specifically within the world you are. If its high magic, people will see this sort of thing all the time and be less impressed. If there's lots of tieflings running around, people will expect you do be able to do it and be less impressed. The more rare it is, the bigger the impact of it, I'd generally say.
My very first time playing D&D i used the minor ground quake effect as part of an intimidation check. The DM allowed advantage which caused a crit. I've used the same mechanic when DM'ing my own games ever since, when its appropriate to the situation of course.
(1) is definitely the most elegant solution. I like the adv/disadv mechanic but also wasn’t sure how much leeway other DMs would like for quantifying the effect. This is definitely not a high magic world. For instance, maybe an interrogation accompanied by ground tremor or whispers would be especially compelling, but the more complicated roll would give a sense of what the DM/NPC would need to resist it. Or maybe the player is trying to somehow disadvantage an attacker. In this regard it’s almost more like a challenge setup or head-to-head spell encounter. The other strength of the more complicated roll is that it preserves the drama of the adv/disadv mechanic for those weary of overuse. I’m just spitballing here. We are in-between arcs in the campaign I DM and are switching roles and adventures while I prepare. So I’m finally getting to play while also developing the next part of the campaign. I’m also trying to use the opportunity to gain some perspective in how we all see the game.