In Dungeons and Dragons 5e, there are 13 Charisma save spells that debuff enemies rather than deal damage. These saves are primarily found in the abjuration and enchantment schools of magic. Charisma saves target anything that you resist by sheer will rather than simply being aware of its unreality. Spells that require Charisma saves include Banishment, which strikes at the soul itself, and other spells that require wisdom saving throws include Charm Person, Command, Compulsion, Dominate Person, Enthrall, and Hideous Laughter.
The Tome of Leadership and Influence permanently boosts Charisma and maximum Charisma by 2. The Ioun Stone (Leadership) boosts your Charisma. Intelligence has a small list of spells that affect it, but Charisma’s saves tend to be against more impactful effects. Dexterity has the most spells that target it in the game, with Dexterity being the save for 64 distinct spells according to D and D Beyond, compared to 57 for Constitution.
Charisma saving throws are used as saves against some spells, such as Bane, Banishment, Calm Emotions, Dispel Evil and Good, and Weight of Justice. Banishment and Bane both target charisma saves, and CHA and INT saves are required to avoid being banished from existence or bound. Some spells, like Maze, require CHA saves to avoid being banished from existence or bound.
In Dungeons and Dragons, 10 best save or sink spells include Banishment, Plane Shift, Confusion, Contagion, Fear, Slow, and Tasha’s Hideous.
📹 Dungeons and Dragons – Spell Attacks and Spell Saves
Nick continues covering the rules of D&D. We continue talking about Spells, specifically Spell Attacks and Spell DC. Interested in …
What spell increases Charisma in D&D?
The spell augments the composure and assertiveness of a transmuted creature, bestowing upon it a +4 enhancement bonus to Charisma. This imbues the creature with augmented benefits for Skill Checks and Charisma modifiers. Those who are affected by this spell, such as bards, paladins, and sorcerers, do not gain additional bonus spells. However, the saving DCs for spells that are cast while under the spell’s effect do increase.
What classes use Charisma for spells?
Bards, favored souls, sorcerers, and warlocks receive bonus spell points based on their Charisma scores. The minimum Charisma score for casting a spell is 10 + the spell’s level. They can also apply their Charisma Modifier to Melee attack and damage rolls through Tier 1 Familiar’s Flourish I, Tier 2 Familiar’s Flourish II, and Tier 1 Illusory Weaponry. These abilities allow them to use Charisma for attack and damage, and can be applied to Melee attack and damage rolls.
What causes Charisma saves 5e?
Charisma, a term used in old role-playing games (RPGs), is synonymous with force of personality, strength of character, and personal magnetism. It is often used to measure a being’s will and ability to directly connect to or alter reality. Charisma is tied to luck, the universe’s favor, and magical potency. Mechanically, Charisma saves are required to avoid being banished from existence or bound to another’s will.
If Charisma is a measure of being likable, a Charisma save for certain spells makes no sense. However, if Charisma is something more akin to force of personality, force of will, or metaphysical weight class, a Charisma save makes perfect sense. Just as a Strength saving throw opposes being pushed around physically, a Charisma saving throw opposes being pushed around metaphysically.
In conclusion, Charisma saves are necessary to resist being banished from reality or bound to another’s will, depending on the context and the nature of the spell.
What is Charisma’s Saving Throw for?
Charisma saving throws are a type of saving throw that a player’s personality plays a crucial role in their ability to resist powerful magical effects. These saves can be used to fend off situations like possession, where a spirit or ghost attempts to possess the player. Players with strong personality can resist these effects, making role-playing CHA a fun and enjoyable experience.
Intelligence saving throws are rare but often result from powerful spells that can lead to life or death situations. These saves are influenced by a player’s mental acuity, and the more powerful the player’s intellect, the easier it becomes to defend against invaders.
Dexterity saving throws are common in both combat and out, and can be used to determine a player’s landing position, navigation ability, and the effectiveness of certain spells. Role-playing clumsiness can be a hilarious adventure, as players often stumble into danger. Overall, balancing personality, intellect, and DEX can be a rewarding and challenging experience for players.
How to max Charisma in D&D?
To increase your charisma in Dungeons and Dragons, you need to reach 18 or obtain two feats that increase it as you level up. These feats include Dragon Fear and Dragon Hide, Telepathic, Telekinetic, Gift of the Gem Dragon, Fey Touched and Shadow Touched, Flames of Phlegethos, Fey Teleportation, and Second Chance. For spellcasters like bards, sorcerers, and warlocks, choosing feats that boost charisma allows them to maximize social skills and innate powers.
Half-feats that offer +1 charisma and unique perks can also enhance your character’s abilities during the campaign. Examples of specific feats include Actor for impersonation, Elven Accuracy for combat, and Fey Teleportation for quick getaways. Charisma is an interesting ability score in Dungeons and Dragons, controlling social skills and innate powers. At certain levels, you can add a +2 to your charisma or other ability scores, while some feats still give you a +1 charisma while offering different perks.
What is the saving throw for spells?
Many spells allow targets to make saving throws to avoid effects, with the DC to resist one equaling 8 + your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus. Some spells require an attack roll to determine if the effect hits the target, with your attack bonus equaling your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus. Most spells requiring attack rolls involve ranged attacks, with disadvantages if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and isn’t incapacitated.
Do bard spells use Charisma?
Charisma is a spellcasting ability used for bard spells, derived from the heart and soul of the performer. It is used when a spell refers to the spellcasting ability and when setting the saving throw DC for a bard spell. The spell save DC is equal to 8 + your proficiency bonus, and the spell attack modifier is equal to your proficiency bonus. Ritual casting allows casting any bard spell with the ritual tag.
What spells require intelligence saving throws?
The effects of mind flayers, synaptic static, psychic scream, phantasmal force, and feeblemind all force Intelligence Saving Throws (IST), which are crucial to avoid failure in a limited number of ISTs.
How to calculate Charisma saving throw?
In order to make a saving throw, one must roll 1d20 in addition to the ability modifier and proficiency bonus, provided that the player is proficient in the relevant save. For every two ability points above 10, the ability modifier increases by 1, and it may also decrease.
What is the most charismatic D&D class?
A poll on the Baldur’s Gate 3 subreddit, conducted by user Fable_Nova, has garnered over 5, 000 votes in just a week, with Paladin being the most popular class. The poll followed three other Charisma-based classes: Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. Paladin was the most popular class (16. 49), followed by Bard (14. 59), Sorcerer (11. 5), and Warlock (9. 39). The popularity of Charisma characters is a result of the tabletop system built upon Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, which governs all skills related to talking to people, including Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion. The four Charisma-based classes are all suitable for the role of party leader and face.
When would you make a Charisma save?
A Charisma save is required when an individual directly attempts to impose their will upon another, akin to the phenomenon of forced teleportation. This differs from the Charm effect, which is more subtle in its manifestation.
📹 Charisma Checks in Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition are TOTALLY BACKWARDS
Why do we treat Charisma checks in Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition differently than the other abilities? But, even if we do, …
Crazy Amazon Sales going on right now! Snag a new book and support the website at the same time. Player’s Handbook: 54% off – amzn.to/2CEUoWx Dungeon Master’s Guide: 58% off – amzn.to/2s12SRA Monster Manual: 58% off – amzn.to/2SqHukz Volo’s Guide to Monsters: 58% off – amzn.to/2Sopl6H Xanathar’s Guide to Everything: 58% off – amzn.to/2RnUASi Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes: 58% off – amzn.to/2SojMVZ Dragon Heist: 58% off – amzn.to/2Rko9UN Dungeon of the Mad Mage: 37% off – amzn.to/2RkoQxn Starter Set: 40% off – amzn.to/2BHqpeS
As far as the “not mercenaries!” To the guard argument. If he doesnt believe without a dice check, allow follow up. Like if the guard says “You are clearly well equipped” the charismatic one could say “Ah yes, thats the ruse. Our equipment IS our wares. We wear them to look like rough and tumble mercenaries in order to trick thieves into not trying to attack!”
I would argue that all stats should be rolled like Charisma, and I’ve seen it done: 1. Player wants to do something. 2. Dm asks “how do you approach the matter?” 3. Player describes in an appropriate amount of detail their method, approach or, in the case of Charisma, wording. 4. Dm evaluates, among various factors, how hard the task would be with that method, decides if player needs to roll (e.g. no one is ever asked to roll Strenght to pick up a twig); if the solution is particularly clever or fun, the Dm may award advantage on the roll; if the solution is dumb or extremely implausible, they may give disadvantage. 5. Dice is Rolled, the end. A different approach can even change the stat rolled: the good old climbing with Athletics vs Acrobatics for example, depends entirely on how you describe your actions. Of course, everyone should be allowed not to roleplay their task if they feel uncomfortable doing it (just saying “I climb the wall” or “I lie to the guard”), but that boils down to player preference. Creative thinking, in my opinion, should always be allowed to make ANY task easier in roleplaying, we just do it a lot more often with Charisma because it’s the simplest stat to act out (while most of the others are usually described). Example: Barbarian trying to force open an heavy stone door 1. Brb: I try to open the door. 2. Dm: How do you do it? 3. Brb: I push with my mighty muscle! (DC20 Strenght) VS I find a big piece of wood to use as a lever. (DC18 Athletics) etc…
When I run games, I run Charisma checks like this: 1) Player tells me their goal 2) I Determine base (maximum) difficulty of the roll 3) Charisma check roll by player, WITHOUT telling the player the difficulty 4) Have player role play the encounter 5) Adjust difficulty of the roll down by how well the role play goes. This method allows player that are not inventive or charismatic themselves to still play the Charisma-based characters without being negatively affected but also allows me to give a bonus to players when they role play the encounter well. I always write down the base difficulty and tell players that this is how I run the checks at the beginning of ANY and ALL campaigns so they know that they can play whatever without being penalized for the player’s inability but can still be rewarded for their good play. This also prevents the game from devolving into a solely dice-based game unless the group prefers that play style.
Isn’t this actually how all checks are supposed to be? The PC pushes against the rock, they make an Athletics check, and the rock reacts by moving or not moving. The PC lies to the guard, they make Deception check, the guard reacts by accepting the lie or not accepting the lie. The PC scans the horizon for enemies, they make an perception check, they react by either noticing something unusual or not noticing something. A checks failure doesn’t change what the PC did, only the result of it, so the roleplay should always happen first. This goes with the unwritten (actually is it written?) rule that only the DM calls for rolls, not the players. Players don’t explain their intentions, they make actions! And the DM determines how the world reacts to these actions. We only notice it with Charisma checks because charisma is also something that people have and can represent in their characters.
Charisma based skills, at our table at least, are the only skills that might NOT need a roll. That’s what makes them different. A plausible or convincing lie/argument might, with the right support or background, forego the need for a roll. Town guards have a lot on their plate. Claiming to be a worried parent searching for one’s child might be plausible enough to distract a guard. Looking battered and bruised because of poor decisions might be enough to claim you’ve been mugged and your friend needs help. Communication is a two way deal. Sometimes all you need is to get the target thinking in s plausible direction. The problem comes when players try outlandish lies with zero evidence or plausibility. The same goes for persuasion. What is the mood or outlook of the target? What evidence can you bring to bear? How do you approach the problem? That’s why p244-245 of the DMG are so important. Combat is AC/DC. Simple. Armor Class or Difficulty Check. A number. Social encounters involve a lot of complexity, and that complexity might require a roll, or with enough preparation or set-up, none at all. We handle Charisma differently because it is different. And intelligence check means you either know or don’t know. A dexterity check means you fall or you don’t.. But Charisma? Charisma is the long play. It’s a conversation. It’s s bluff. It’s a Disguise. It’s complex. If it wasn’t complicated then politics would be easy.
This reminds me of an experience with my original group of players (I was the DM) in 3.0 (not long after it came out). We had this sorcerer who was discussing a situation with an important Outsider NPC and trying to get leverage to get them to teach them new magic (i.e.: a new spell). After trying to word something eloquent properly for a few minutes and the other players getting annoyed waiting on this, the sorcerer’s player got fed up with it and straight up asked me “How can I ask in role play to get more spells? Can I just make a roll and get on with it?”. That kind of shocked me at first, but it really brought up an interesting question that I spent much time thinking about afterwards. Why don’t we just roll it and then rp it out? Now we are nearly two decades later and in my group (and with this player specifically) we still mention sometimes the inside joke of “how do I get more spells in role play?” when the players just can’t figure out how to say something from their character’s perspective (especially for those with high INT/CHA that would be FAR more eloquent than the players themselves). Similarly for those with high INT, I will often dialogue with that player when their PC is considering actions, acting as that PC’s high intellect. None of us nowhere near qualifies for 20 INT, but I also don’t want the players to fall into meta gaming, so instead I role play their internal dialogue with them which allows the PC to stay true to itself and the player to think things through like someone with such a high intelligence would.
I think this happens because the call for a roll doesn’t come directly, instead they come indirectly as a consequence of role-playing. Sometimes a player didn’t think at first about trying to lie his way through the guard, but a feed lines of dialog in she just says something that, to the ears of the dm, sounds like an opportunity for a roll. I don’t think that’s wrong, it’s more like a chance to have the role play affect the game more directly. And if it happens that a player doesn’t shine on these situations because he is shy or something, just talk to the player prior to the game and be like “hey I know this is hard for you so whenever you want to do something like this, just say that what you wanna do and we’ll go from there”.
3:20 I disagree with this example… for the following reason… When a player makes a strength check, or agility check, or stealth check, the players have a general idea of how difficult the action is, and the DM even more so. Oh a fallen tree is blocking the road, preventing the carriage you’ve been hired to protect from proceeding. The players then decide a course of action to remove the obstruction. The DM takes account of how difficult their planned course of action will be (Lifting the entire log would need a higher roll than using an axe to chop the log into a couple pieces and rolling them out of the way.) Player decides to cross a stampeding herd of horses to rescue a child… HOW? Dance through their legs? Leap across their backs? Player decides to deceive the guard?…. HOW? What lie will you tell? Are you actually trying to convince him what you say is true, or are you telling an obvious lie in a joking manner? These actions factor in to how difficult the skill check needs to be. The player doesn’t have to roleplay the deception. They could instead state their intent to deceive the guard, and how they intend to do it. For example, “I am the king’s personal knight” said in a lofty manner with a hint of steel. This lie might make a village guard tremble in awe at a roll of 8, and wet himself with a roll of 17. On the Captain of a Duke’s personal guard though, a roll of 8 might have him immediately attack the character for their impertinence, and a roll of 17 might have him laugh in the character’s face at the audacity of his statement before turning him away.
For me rolls are for performance only, and can’t change your actions. If a player said his character jump in the water and cross a river, I will ask for an athletics check. A success won’t make the character do something else like using a rope, or building a bridge, he just crossed the river using his strength. But if the player specify before that he is using a rope to secure himself, I will make the athletics check easier. A character trying to intimidate a band of goblin saying “Run or I’ll rip your face off” will need a intimidation check, it won’t change what the player said to them, but the way the character is saying it. A success won’t make the character say something else, but he will be very convincing with his intonation and attitude. Charisma rolls are not backward at all, they work exactly like every other check.
It’s both. Like everything. We shouldn’t change how it is approached, but how it’s executed. We should let people say “I want to lie to the guard” and then the DM asks for a deception roll like any other check, but if a player is more comfortable or if things just naturally spiral in the “backwards” direction where the player makes the lie and you need them to roll to see how the deception pans out than that is fine. But I think the solution is actually that you should make a roll based on the outcome at hand, the method shouldn’t be the instigating factor. The conversation initially arose with the need for something to happen. As a DM you need to determine if the desired outcome is a possible outcome. Then the player initiates what they say and you determine “How is the player attempting to convince the guard” it’s either a persuasion, a deception or an intimidation. You have them roll the accompanying roll and then determine whether or not it passes. Here’s the key bit though, that roll shapes the reality of what’s happening. Let me explain, as a player I say “Hey you, uhh, guard, we are a band of, uhh, merchants, let us pass!” the DM understands that I am trying to lie to the guard in order to gain passage. The DM calls for a deception roll. If I fail the roll then my character was caught in the lie, maybe my voice quivered or that verbal hiccup even more pronounced, maybe I was a bit more quiet or more boisterous, it doesn’t matter because I failed my roll. However, I might have just passed the roll.
It actually makes me feel really disadvantaged as a role player. I’m not shy, but I’m not also especially logical on my feet. I prefer some time to think about all angles. So as a think on your feet charisma player, I feel like I let my DM or fellow players down. But I am a creative problem solver. I don’t think anyone thinks I’m dumb, but I do feel disadvantaged by the dissonance you’re talking about. I think a roll would allow me time to process my thinking and allow me to be clever OR act out a REALLY bad lie. I would love to have the opportunity to make a bad argument too for roleplay sake instead of just having a fail state be determined by my roll. Those moments can be particularly fun. And in character, by just being given the time instead of acting it out on the fly, I think I’d be much more comfortable and it would allow me more creativity in my response. Even if fail. I’d rather have a moment of the roll of dictate whether I should be bumbling OR brilliant as guidance to my RP. This was a lovely article to think on and I look forward to talking over one aspect of playing with my DM to enhance my roleplaying experience and comfort that I hadn’t thought about before. Thank you for the illumination.
Here’s the argument from ine of my fellow GMs that got me thinking. “If a player has the ‘gift of gab’ why would he allocate points in social traits of his character if he (the player) can persuade/outwit/con anyone?”. And her’s where it got interesting to me because the same can be said about anything else. I know a lot about guns, my friend knows a lot about programming and cybersecurity, someone else will have extensive medical knowledge. Now should my character be able to disassemble a rifle just because I as a player can explain in great detail how to do it even though my character has no skill representating that knowledge? Should my friend be able to crack a gov database just because she actually knows how to do it even though her character has no skills reflecting the subject? Should an experienced paramedic be allowed to simply explain how her character helps a victim of multiple stubbing even though the character has only basic knowledge of first aid? I see roleplayers dismissing some arguments for and against certain styles of skill testing depending on the something I call a “hands on” aspect of the skill. If your character doesn’t know how to drive a car it doesn’t matter if you, a player, are a professional driver. Your character won’t drive a car. If you are a rally driver should your character be allowed to make movie-like car maneuvers during a chase just because the player could do it? But somehow it’s a different thing when it comes to charisma, intelligence and so on.
This is a huge problem for me right now. I thought I would love playing as a bard (and it’s been pretty fun for a lot of the more obvious stuff like performances and that kind of thing), but I have a ton of trouble getting my dm to even let me roll for persuasion, intimidation, or deception. I go up and do something risky, but apparently not obvious enough and he will punish me for it by having the guy not believe me or call for help and stuff without even rolling to see if it worked. I just don’t think I’m comfortable enough yet to do be super charismatic at the table since I’m still pretty new to the game. Edit: Actually, I think the thing that annoys me the most is even if I tell him I want to attempt a deception check or something he makes me say my lie first before he determines if I need to roll or if it was just terrible in general
As a GM, I tend to set the DC, based on the way an extrovert player RPs it, but for introvert players or newer players, I tend to treat it more like how you said, asking intent first. Also, usually, introvert players and socially challenged players often only make one roll, while I don’t usually tell more extrovert players if they succeed or fail, but rather, I RP the result, and a failure or narrow success might warrant a subsequent roll, based on their response.
I’ve had amazing results running my table’s Charisma checks with basic modifiers. 1) Call for Charisma Check 2) Player LARPS out their action, which the DM (me) then assigns a modifier: 0, +2, or +5. 0 and +2 are the most common, with +5 reserved for incredibly convincing RP. 3) The player learns their RP modifier, rolls their charisma check and applies the result. I’ve found that this lets players feel that their RP has a real impact while validating character investments in CHA and CHA skills. The table cheers when they hear, “that was amazing; +5 for that,” and the person RPing feels like an IRL hero. I tend to rule a bit softer for newer and more introverted players, often giving them the +2 bonus when they push themselves out of their comfort zone. Overall, Charisma checks are where your Actor-style players shine, and giving them the spotlight (within moderation) often leads to a memorable session.
A check is only necessary if the outcome is in doubt. If a PC attempts such an absurd lie that it would never be believed by the person their speaking to, you don’t need to roll; just like you wouldn’t need to roll an Athletics check if the PC attempted to make a single high jump from the Earth to the moon. Likewise, you don’t need to make someone roll a strength check to lift a glass of wine or a charisma check to convince a total stranger the PC’s name is Robert (assuming that’s a normal sounding name in the location the NPC is encountered). How you do something matters. Look at the example of a Strong character trying to lift a heavy log. Sure, that’s pretty easy. If their Strength score is high enough, and there’s no time crunch on the action, I might let them do it without a check. But, if you have a 24 strength and you tell me you want to lift that log with just your pinkie finger, I might decide you automatically fail, or I might give you disadvantage on the check, or I might make failing by 5 or more result in some kind of injury (or disadvantage and a fail by 5 or more consequence).
I love when a player gives an absurd argument with a high roll. It’s fun for me as a DM to roleplay why that NPC believes it. I also almost always allow a roll, and while I do adjust the DC on occasion due to how it is worded, it’s usually only a small amount. So in a way, it’s not too different from doing the roll first, it just gives more opportunity for roleplaying and having fun.
If you treat charisma checks differently, you need to understand that you are affecting the difficulty of the game. Getting proficiency in a skill comes at the cost of not getting proficiency in a different skill. If your decision to call for a roll is dependent on a character’s ability to roleplay, you’ve made the game more difficult for players who invest in charisma skills and easier for players who don’t.
I can see both. With deception as the example, if the player lies first, they get to be clever, and the DM can reward the player by having the DC adjust based on what the player actually says (or maybe give the guard disadvantage on their insight check). However, if the player had to roleplay the result after the deception roll was made, what they say might better fit the result. if they roll an 8 on deception, they might roleplay a more commical lie like how some characters is movies and TV shows make obvious lies that might be funny.
I’m not aiming to just resolve the debate with a single observation, but I do note that the reason for most players to treat charisma as their dump stat isn’t because it doesn’t give enough advantages, but because it can easily be substituted by the charisma of the player – usually without either the player or the DM noticing what happens – in 90% of the cases. (Also, as an introvert, can’t say I really appreciate the condescension)
It seems to me that you – and several commenters, from what I gather at a glance – are focused on the problem that these backwards Cha checks keep the characters from being more charismatic than the players. But there’s a flip side to this issue: they also can’t be less charismatic than their players. Suppose a PC gives a well-thought-out argument that should be able to persuade the NPC, given the circumstances. The GM makes the mistake of asking for a roll; perhaps they silently assign a generous bonus. Then, the die rolls a 1, and the cumulative bonus doesn’t meet the DC set by the rules. This is what persuaded me to treat Charisma checks the same as any other check. Your roll tells you, the player, what your character was able to come up with. This prevents a convincing argument from being “wasted” on a failed roll.
I mean, is it really backwards? The Charisma check isn’t to see if you can be deceptive or persuasive or intimidating, it is to reflect how deceptive or persuasive or intimidating the NPC sees you. You’re ultimately seeing how strong the words are to their perception, not if you’re going to fumble your words. You can say the same exact line to persuade two different guards in two separate cities, your Persuasion check is to see how well it influences the guard and how they are receptive to your Charisma. It’s the same as you exemplified, pushing a stone means you roll Athletics to see how effective you are at pushing it, or rolling History for how effective you are at recalling lore about dragons. It seems that people are too focused on Charisma checks being “I’m rolling to see if I jumble my words” and less on “I’m rolling to see if the baron really believes I’m his long lost cousin.”
Player: “Good sir. We are not a threat. We are thespians travelling town to town entertaining locals with our theater of war.” DM : “Roll a charisma check.” Player: “I rolled a 5, modifier -1, so a 4.” DM: ” You prepare your explanation and when ready with an elegant explanation of being thespians you spit out: “We thesilions! Ignore our props of killing. We just come to have a war.” IMO: Charisma checks are done if the best parts of RPG. It creates a distinction in the psychology of a character of how they think of themselves and how the world sees them.
I’ve seen it where some DMs rarely call for dice roles in all cases. If a DM knows the characters being played there are a lot of things which should just be roleplayed without the check. What’s the point of a strength check to move a log for a character which is crazy strong? Or rope check for a character who is super skilled with rope skills? It’s kind of like just taking 20 with many skill checks so the focus is on the story and not on 15 million dice rolls. Of course, there are times when a check should still be called for as the possibility of rolling something that shifts the outcome adds to the story (especially when it’s a crit success or crit fail). When to call for a check and when to just move the story along is a good DM skill. DMs who are inconsistent with what and when they call for a check, or who demand a check for every little action are super frustrating to players.
It’s because of this I don’t play charisma based characters even if I have an interest or what I think would be a good character idea. I feel like some stats do get pushed onto the player. /I/ am not a highly intelligent wizard or some wise cleric, so how do you expect me to know all the intriguing details/histories of what’s happened? I feel like asking for players to BE charismatic if they’re playing one of those characters isn’t fair.
What you need to remember, is that it is a game, and therefore you should have fun. But you also need to be fair, so every player should be leveled to the same standard. I’ve seen not that “charismatic” or “wise” players try and fail to play what they want because it’s too different from them, and it’s a real struggle that can lead to frustration and finally acting the character completely differently. And I find that stupid, as a person who’s struggled a lot with these stuff as I’m quite introvert but been doing some work to try and express myself better. But one problem I have is that I’m slow. I need to plan things in advance and can’t come up with quick solutions on the spot. The first things that come to my mind are usually stupid and/or contradictory and silly. Having that point of view, my way of doing it as a GM is like this: – I talk to my players, they tell me what they want to do and do whatever is at my disposition to help them achieve the idea of that character. – All of those checks are rolled, I don’t ask for people to come with quick, wise, or charismatic responses, only that they want to do it. IF they roleplay it, and it enhances the atmosphere, the fun that they have is all the reward they need. If they come with a fantastic solution, they might have an advantage, as it’s heavily contributing with the roleplaying. But if they can’t, I don’t penalize them, since now I’m judging the player, not the character. So, putting effort into making the game cooler is a plus, but never a hinderance.
First, I definitely agree with the general premise, and, as a player, I’ve been frustrated when a DM expects me to be as smart, wise, or charismatic as my character. (Why can’t I just make an intelligence roll to solve the puzzle? I mean, I get that you spent time coming up with the puzzle, but not being able to solve the puzzle undermines a core ability of my character) On the other hand, it isn’t so different from other checks. If a player is making an attempt to hide, the DM might as how they’re going to try to hide (blend in with a crowd? Crouch behind a barrel? Try to melt into a shadowy corner?), and the DM might adjust the difficulty of the roll, or even make it an automatic success or fail. And even with something like an attack action, the player needs to specify how they’re attacking, and with what. Asking the player for specifics about the lie/argument/flattery that they’re attempting is essentially asking for the tactical expression of attempt.
I hadn’t thought about it that way, but yes. We absolutely are gimping charismatic players by handling it that way, and I will change how I handle it in future. We have all played with people who suffer from social anxiety or significant introversion, and we should absolutely let them be able to play vicariously as well. (this might explain at least some of why there’s so much hate for bards – they are just not fun to play if you aren’t extroverted enough)
This is one of the main reasons I tend to use Charisma as a dump stat…. As an introverted and socially awkward player, my arguments and “convincing” ideas rarely mesh up with what a DM might consider reasonable… I’ve been breaking out of the shell more recently in attempting to play more charismatic characters but I do feel very under powered when my 20 charisma bard fails a negotiation check because I as a player can’t develop a convincing reason as to why my party should be paid just a little bit extra for the magical loot we attempt to sell. Very frustrating at times when I want to be more suave and have fun with the role-playing…. only to come up short due to my own psychological quirks. Bleh.
One problem is that I think people are slightly unclear on exactly what Charisma implies. Charisma is not necessarily your ability to make a reasonable argument or come up with a clever deception, or just be good-looking and likable. In its most base form, Charisma describes a character’s ability to intuitively make themselves do what they want on a very granular level. To expand on that, Charisma is the character’s ability to look at a person, notice subtle details about them, and subtly adapt their own behavior to put across what this character wants the other person to think of them, depending on the situation, without having to think about it too much. So like, imagine that you roll your diplomacy check after saying all the right stuff, but you roll like a 6, he says all that stuff, but for whatever reason he’s off his game, and his body language is very off-putting and possibly a little suspect, like he’s licking his lips frequently in the middle of talking, scratching under his eye in the middle of the conversation, just stuff like that where they’re like, “Yeah, that sounds good, but something seems off about this guy, I don’t know if we can trust him.” Obviously for deception, that means you’re letting slip a lot of tells, whereas successful deception is covering up or consciously suppressing your tells. And with intimidation, it’s, again, body language, and subtle things, like, the difference between saying, “I’m gonna rip your head off and shit down your neck,” while giving exaggerated pro-wrestler crazy-eyes and flexing like a brute to the point it looks like your shirts about to rip, and just kind of saying it while looking normal and maybe stumbling on it just slightly, to the point it loses all impact.
I played with a very backwards and quiet teen once. Our party of five, mostly mid 20s and 30s guys were largely less socially awkward than he was, but none of the rest of us were playing charisma characters. The teen though was playing the groups bard. He almost never handled any negotiation with NPCs, never haggled for better prices, never got us out of tight spots with persuasion. Why? Because every time he tried to role play what he would say the few times he did (I can only think of three times he even tried) he made the situation much worse and the DM didn’t allow him to even make a roll since what he said was so awkward or very unconvincing. Meanwhile the rest of us would try actively make reasonable arguments with NPCs, and would then get typically allowed rolls or wouldn’t have to make them, but if we did would usually fail because none of the rest of us even had proficiency in persuasion and left charisma a dump stat. I do feel like this is sort of unfair generally compared to the other checks, although I’m sure it varies by DM. If you always abstract conversation I could also see it detracting from the game, but maybe the other players or the DM could help with details after the roll succeeds. If you have someone who wants to play a charisma character and they are backward, I do think DMs should be mindful of trying to help that player out with checks and possibly narration.
I’m DMing for a party right now that has an Elf Swashbuckler with a Charisma score of 18, expertise in Persuasion and Deception, pretty much a lovechild between Jack Sparrow and Legolas. The PC for this elf was pretty shy when we started playing. Now, only about 10 sessions later, she’s blossomed into a confident roleplayer and really loves being clever and charismatic in the game. I think that the standard 5e style for Charisma checks is perfectly fine, in fact, I enjoy it and I actually do it for other checks, like Intelligence. I want to see the gears in my PCs’ minds whir as they try to figure out a dastardly trap, or as they search a clearing for goblin tracks. Overall, I like the 5e system for Charisma checks.
I think that all other ability checks would be backwards too, if they weren’t simple.. Let’s say the player wants to move a bolder. The DM asks for a strength check and, well, you know the rest. But if there were multiple ways to move the bolder. Like the player asked to move it with, lets say, his nose. Then the DM most likely wouldn’t let him throw a strength check after he heard what the player wants to do. So if there were multiple ways to do something, and the obvious way wasn’t the way of the player, then the procedure would be also backwards. And that’s why I think the charisma rolls are backwards. Because there’s no standard or obvious way to do something that needs charisma. There are thousand lies you could tell to deceive someone, but everyone expects only one way of moving a bolder (or doesn’t really care how you do it). So my opinion is, backwards is the right way, but is usually not needed for the simple stuff, and rightfully so.
Even though I’m an amature player, I’ve experienced both versions of both sides. Not only Charisma RP being done before and/or after the check, but also situations where the player will describe the specific action they want to perform (for example, a spinning leap over an ally to hit the enemy on the other side of them) and then a check is called for. I think its entire situational and can even be hybridized: The player gives some specifics of what they want to do then based on the roll gives extra flair to the description
I always have players describe their charismatic action before the roll and then based on the roll I determine its effect. That way when a player says a really absurd lie it builds up suspense and then when they still succeed everyone gets a huge laugh out of it. If they fail though I normally describe something the npc notices that gives the player away.
The thing to remember in this debate is that you are not your character. If your character has low charisma, accept that. No matter what you as a player might be able to say, your character would likely act differently. To compare it to another skill – intelligence… I am a fairly intelligent guy (not hugely, but intelligent enough to get by). But my maths sucks. If I play an intelligence 18 high elf, I would get stumped by a maths puzzle that my character would think is a distraction for children. In the same way, my charisma 8 half orc is going to be less successful at flirting with a barmaid for information than I am. Making the role before my half-orc tries to chat up the barmaid will give me roleplaying cues to work with. Of course, this works in conjunction with the DM. A good DM will know when to require a roll. Not every door has to be strength checked before being kicked in, and not every barmaid needs a charisma check before putting out.
Charisma checks are treated opposite, imho, because they work more like a check on WHO we’re trying to convince. Sort of like we imprint our charisma stat onto the target and have them check what we did. Anyone, for any reason, could say something slick, but that in no way may be convincing to the listener. RP wise you could say something amazing, but dice roll low, and that doesn’t have to be incongruent with what occurs, it could just mean that the guard, let’s say, thinks: ” look at this wise-guy” and deny you. The DM could now run with it and write down that the guard hates people that talk too much, and prefers no-nonsense persuasion. Let’s say the slick persuasion has a DC 15, but a no-nonsense persuasion would have a DC 8. Maybe too extreme a range, and maybe frustrate the bard, but could be fun
“Why do we, the dungeon masters, wait to see how convincing a lie the player’s come up with before we determine if they can even make a role with a possible chance to succeed?” For the same reason we tell players “no” when they ask for the Athletics DC to rip open a hole in reality with their bare hands, to a player attempting to hide in plain sight by holding up a treebranch, and to a player trying to start a regular (non-magical, non-alchemical) fire while actively underwater. The situation that leads to the roll should first consider whether or not an action is actually possible; any time the d20 leaves a player’s hand, even with advantage, it is an acknowledgement that there is the real possibility of a successful outcome. For instance, I’m not going to call for athletics when a player attempts to put a nail into a wooden board using a hammer, or even to set pitons down for the purpose of climbing. They have the tools for a basic function, and I would hope that a group of adventurers would be at least competent enough to do so without specializing/showing proficiency in the specific skill just to drive a nail. Now, if they want to punch a nail into stone without a hammer, they really need to convince me. Are they a monk who specializes in using their fists as though they were as strong and fast as steel weapons? Yeah, sure, I’ll give them a chance. Are they a barbarian who thinks a warhammer (or even a steel club) can get the job done? Go for it. Are they a rogue who is convinced that they can somehow drive the nail without any tools at all?
I’m currently playing a rogue mastermind with a pretty good charisma. Around my table are other players who have a lot of charisma of their own, and their characters do too. I make no bones about the fact that they can think faster than me in the social interactions than I can, but I try, and if either myself or one of the other folks make a great social play, the DM may make us do the roll, but will also leave it up to the role play. If I’m having a hard time coming up in the RP side of things, I can fall back to the roll play, and see how it turns out. I see both sides of this argument, and try to rely on my own wits, but like having the option of relying on my dice if I need to. Just my 2 cents.
I’m intentionally escalating this to 10 right now: this was the Most pivotal dnd vid i’ve watched. This truly intriguing Q is making me rethink my DM style in a new perspective, in a great way. I think either approach (description of actions then roll/ roll then description of actions) is legit, just be consistent! Love this vid!
be thankful that you have players TELL you what they would like to do, in any roll check instance. all too often, i have players ask “can i roll X?” not conducive to role play at all. in most scenarios, im fine with the player asking to do something, even language based skills, rolling a die, THEN explaining how things play out.
The sequence you describe for rolling a log down a hill is exactly the same as the sequence you describe for lying to a guard. 1. The player tells the DM what they want their character to do (convince the guard that the party is not dangerous) and how (by telling him they are traveling merchants) 2. The DM determines if an ability check needs to be made to be successful, and calls for a roll if necessary – Either there is no possibility the guard believes the lie (no check necessary) the guard doesn’t believe that the party is dangerous despite obviously being a group of heavily armed mercenaries (no check necessary), or the guard may or may not believe the lie, depending on how convincing they find the lie (Deception check). 3. The player rolls their check (If necessary), and the DM, and sometimes the player, describe what happens next – roleplaying the Guard’s reaction. If the procedure looks backwards to you in one scenario, it is because you are conflating steps 2 and 3. If you are concerned that the player needs to be a good liar in the lying to the guard scenario but doesn’t need to be strong in the rolling the log down the hill scenario, it is because you are neglecting to consider the player’s goal and character’s approach when determining whether a roll is needed to be successful in one or both scenarios. The player does not need to tell a convincing lie in the lying to the guard scenario, they only need a valid goal and approach. This can be determined through roleplaying in 1st person, or by describing in 3rd person that they want to convince the guard they aren’t dangerous by lying and telling him they’re merchants.
Two points: The DM controls the DC of all these rolls. E.i.: some rolls might not be nessicary because your “passive charisma” or something is high enough. Where other rolls can be made at DC:40 or higher, possible? Yes but only under the most extreme of circumstances. Also, the players should try to use the their clever tactics beyond charisma, why say I’m going to lift this log up the hill, when I can have a rig system put up and THEN use my strength to do that. It drastically changes the roll. Use your ingenuity to see alternative actions to simply throwing your stats at it. As a DM I always reward the player who think outside, and find new ways to use old tools.
GREAT article. awesome analysis. Really making me rethink how I will run my table. Perhaps playing it both ways. Reward player cleverness with easier DC’s, and don’t punish players who can’t come up with an “impressive” lie/story by setting a reasonable DC regardless of their lie. Would LOVE to see a article on illusions because they have the SAME issue. A GREAT illusion could & should radically affect enemies, but thinking up something clever can be so difficult. I would LOVE to play a great illusionist who practically warps reality with his amazing illusions, but most DM’s just won’t work that way. Just like a 20 charisma character who is still hamstrung by my feeble real-world mind.
I had a DM that when I created a Bard for the first time required me to actually sing in RL to use my Bards instrument magic. I cant fucking sing, just let me roll for it. But he wouldn’t let me use magic unless I did so I said fuck it, left the campaign and never played again as a player. I’m a GM only now.
I like having my players make their case before they roll because I like seeing their ideal solutions and stuff, but also like a lot of people say I can slightly adjust the roll based on their argument. And, even if their argument at the table is sound but they roll a 1, I’ll just be like “You’re saying some of the right things, and it makes sense to your party members who understand some of your speech idiosyncrasies and jumbled words, but the (NPC) doesn’t know you personally and isn’t following your thought process” or the classic “(NPC) is incredibly stubborn and doesn’t care about your strong argument” Idk, I feel like there’s always a way to explain why good RP can be undone by a bad roll.
I have not yet had the opportunity to try this, but I feel like the way I would solve this as a player is to roll my charisma checks first, regardless of whether the DM has asked for it yet, then use that number to decide what I’m going to say. That way, if the DM asks for the roll, I can give them the number and they can decide if it works, and if they don’t then it doesn’t matter. I’ll admit that it probably does have flaws, but one big advantage is that it’d give me more time to think of what to say and have it be interesting or funny without breaking the flow, even if the roll isn’t good. I would, however, at least check with the DM that it’s okay to do it this way.
I feel like as strange as it sounds explained out, it makes perfect sense to be done this way. While you may look at it and say it seems backwards, the fact that the scenario involves another living being makes it more complicated. Simply rolling an 18 and deceiving someone and then having the character say something obviously not deceptive isn’t very realistic, I feel like it makes more sense for them to attempt to deceive, make their choice of words and then roll, and then as a DM the determination of the roll is where the DM decides WHY the character believes or does not believe. Perhaps your Insight against their Deception rolled low and your NPC being deceived is having a bad day or has something else on their mind and cant be bothered to think about whether it’s genuine or not. Perhaps they had a fight with their leading officer and doesn’t care (potential bonuses to the modifiers on the roll? I would) or they just got a promotion and are being more scrutinous. I feel like this kind f thing really shines with the DM and how much they want to flush out the world for their characters to be immersed in.
Does it make that much difference? Hear me out, I swear I’m not having a go at one or the other conclusion! So, our players say something in game… an intimidation check, let’s say. “I am going to go through this gate, and you, little man, aren’t going to stop me. You can try, but you’ll fail.” Fairly vanilla stuff. But this is a nine foot tall Goliath. Now, if a four foot gnome said it to a bouncer you’d have a different situation. But because it’s charisma we roleplay it then rollplay it. Same Goliath says that he wants to break the door down. Now – here’s the thing. Do we ever ask how? Not often. We just roll a die. Now, we could ask them to describe how they break the door… “I flex my muscles and heft my maul after spitting on both hands. I unleash a roar and swing at the door”. Again, a gnome hitting the door with his fist… totally different situation. The point here is that we are doing a charisma check in “reverse” out of habit only. We could easily roleplay every check. But charisma is the single skill (as you quite rightly point out) where the player can truly bleed their personality into their character, either because they’ve built a self-insert character or because they enjoy role playing. The end result either way, is the same. But I think that the only actual reason we do “charisma in reverse” is both because of habit and because of that bleed, that fusion between player and character. So, as far as the point raised by this article goes, we could just as easily say why don’t people describe what their character does when leaping across a chasm, examining a runic engraving on a tomb or breaking down a door.
TL;DR: Role-playing-based Checks are reactive to what a player has specifically attempted, whereas plain Checks are proactive to what a player wants to attempt in general. Both absolutely have their place & happen with all Skill Checks. I’d say that the best way to think about this is that this is just a side-effect of Charisma often being a more role-playing-triggered Roll. However — this absolutely does happen with other Skills, but just not as often. A couple examples: A Bard wants to make an Acrobatics Check when attempting to do a back handspring and snatch something out of the air. That’s something described before making a Roll, helping to set the DC of how hard it is to achieve. Whereas an Acrobatics Check to jump and grab something out of the air would be more simple, and a high roll may allow it to be narratively described as a back handspring. We often have low Intelligence characters make rolls when attempting to explain a complex idea, where the player has a good plan for the party, but the character may not be as sharp in concocting or communicating those ideas, which makes for fun pitfalls in tactics and also helps to have players help one another out when there’re varying levels of experience playing D&D, without falling too deep into problematic meta gaming habits. If players are role-playing well (and sometimes making their own Check DCs a little tougher as a result) I like to reward that with minor advantages when the checks pan out in their favor a tiny bit beyond just what they planned as a way to help them get used to the risk & rewards of doing so, likewise slightly softening the blow a tiny bit of they fumble something they came up with as a player.
I think that the way that every skill check should be (whether charisma or not) is that the method you specify before the roll affects the DC of the check. The specifics of what you decide to investigate should affect an Investigation/Perception roll (if you’re prioritizing a specific thing you’re looking for, then that will affect how likely you are to find what you want), and the lie that you tell should affect how believable it is (so if it’s a more obvious lie, you need to roll higher, for example). This is just my personal opinion on the topic.
I’d say the reason to do it backwards is to not break the flow of roleplay. You don’t need to make a CHA check just to talk to someone, but if, while in the middle of talking to them, you try to persuade, deceive, or intimidate them, then you would need to make a check. It might be more jarring to suddenly stop conversation and say, “I want to deceive this person,” so instead you use your RL charisma to try and slip something in without the DM calling for a check. Things run more smoothly, and the DM only needs to call for a check when it’s really needed, instead of for every small request or slight exaggeration. Again, it’s not the player’s place to call for a check, instead they player says they want to do something, and the DM either allows, forbids, or asks for a check. In the case of RP, telling a lie or making a request are the player stating what they want to do, and the DM must then decide whether or not that particular request or lie requires a check or not.
Consider using different stats for the same problem for different players. In the situation when they walk into the bar, the charismatic bard may be convincing with CHA, the Wizard may have used INT to remember to conceal any obvious magic paraphernalia, the rogue may use DEX to hide behind the bard, the cleric may use WIS to recall a local custom the locals practice when encountering friends, etc Each character should be able to use their abilities in different situations. This also helps to prevent certain stats from seeming unimportant.
I would ask the players about what they are trying to play. A good exemple would be the other way around. Our old DM (a very Charismatic guy, doing a lot of DMing and Improv and acting) was playing a low charisma low intel character. Well, even if the player came up with a good concept or speech, I would ask if the character could think of that himself. In case of an argument I would rely on a roll. On the other hand, if an introvert player would like to play the Paladin Leader of the group but the player lacks the quick thinking and verb. I would let the player taylor something if he wants but just asking for a roll would be enough. I would fill in the gap for that player “speech”. It really depends in the players. Do they want to roll dice or improv with their character, or both. Adjust accordingly.
I always joke that I am irl, which translates in me saying “oh look, there’s a squirrel in that bin” (having seen movement at night) and my friends went to check only to come back screaming it was a rat. Really funny, and how I’ll apply charisma like that, as how much someone is willing to believe you.
Yeah, I find this a pretty big problem too, honestly. If you want to be a charismatic character, you’re punished for not being charismatic in real life. You’re punished for trying to be something you’re not in a roleplaying game. But only if that’s charisma. I could play a big strong barbarian, even if I couldn’t lift 50 pounds, and have no problem. A sneaky, eagle-eyed rogue, even if I’ve got 2 inch thick glasses and a crooked leg. A wizard with a mind of glue, able to remember information gleaned from a book 20 years ago, even though I can hardly remember what I ate for breakfast. A ranger, who can tell any track, mushroom or animal apart at a glance, and lead you through the thickest of forests in record time. Even though I couldn’t tell a toadstool from a chanterelle. But the time I want to be a smooth talking, suave bard, who laughs, jokes and seduces his way through life, I’m punished. Because I’m socially awkward and not always super comfortable, and not used to lying. Of course, I’m over exagerating for effect here, but still. It feels like the only stat that’s limited by your real life one. And it’s fun to pretend to be something you’re not. That’s the whole point of roleplaying.
Or perhaps we should use the other skills like Charisma more. For the sake of the example: if the PC wants to turn a boulder/box it’s a DC 20 Strength by pushing it straight or by not specifying how they do it, however if they say they will try turning it by rising it from the bottom of a side then reduce the DC to 15 because the motion of the body uses more muscle power compared to pushing or reduce the DC to 15 simply as a reward for creativity/description of the action. However this goes a bit against the “streamlining” philosophy of 5e. I think the reason we treat charisma differently (more often than the other ability checks) and inherently ask the player how they doe it is because it’s the hardest check to “assume” the way the players do it. I think the Charisma check is the one with the most creativity freedom and where most of the players/characters’ personality transpires making it difficult saying “oh you rolled high therefore make up a believable story”. On the other hand we don’t ask players to describe their running style before a jump or where do they position their feet before pushing the boulder because these are actions we assume or take for granted. The amount of details of the dialogues regarding charisma checks or the other checks if one were to use it similarly varies from group to group.
A lot of commenters are taking the tack that the typical way of handling Cha checks is actually isomorphic with the other checks. To some extent they’re correct, and to another they’re irredeemably wrong. Let’s look at the correct part first. Let’s say I want to convince the guards that I’m a traveling merchant. I say, “Good sir guard, let me pass, for I am but a traveling merchant.” The DM interprets this as a method (lie about being a merchant) and goal (get into town) and calls for a Cha/Bluff/Persuasion/whatever check. Afterward, we narrate the results. In this respect, the order is actually the same as deciding to have my character move a boulder, then having the DM call for a Str check, then getting the result. So that’s it, then. There’s no tension, right? Well, not so fast. The issue is that the quality of the deception the player performs often influences the check. For instance, I might say, before even looking at the guard, “Gods take them all! Why did you put all the silk on the wicker cart? You knew we were going to have to ford that river, and now what have we got?” The DM considers this a convincing performance and doesn’t even call for a roll. Or maybe he does, but he gives me a bonus/advantage. Either way, it ceased to be merely Method+Goal>Check>Result. That’s the problematic reality. The player’s skill in concocting or presenting deception translates into the character for Cha checks, whereas it doesn’t for Str checks, attack rolls, saving throws, etc. This gives the charismatic player the equivalent of a statistical advantage not given to the uncharismatic player.
I’ve played for 27 years and I’ve never played that way. A dice roll works the same regardless of why you are rolling. I’ve never heard of anyone else doing this either. It has always been VERY clear that players don’t have a clue what to say during role-playing encounters. Only a DM that doesn’t know what they are doing would expect the player to act in REAL LIFE like their character. Players should never be held to character standards. You are not your character.
Charisma can be learned, and in d&d, you should encourage your players to roleplay because it’s one of the most important parts of d&d and most RPGs. Even if the player themselves are nervous and shy, encouraging them to roleplay is what helps break them out of their shell and become more comfortable.
You seem to forget the two fundamentally cheated stats in dnd. Intelligence and Charisma are both largely out of character stats, even if they have in game statistics. This isn’t by intention, but by the fact that it is very hard to simply assign them a statistic and have it work. It goes both ways, good and bad, but it isn’t a check that is easy to adjust.
Your defense of the backward order is this: “I enjoy overcoming the situation regardless of—and sometimes in opposition to—the stats on my character’s sheet.” The problem with this argument, and I’m not trying to be inflammatory, is that it boils down to a desire to escape the dictates of the game, to gain a greater advantage than the rules actually allow, an advantage that you acknowledge is unfair to those who aren’t actually charismatic. In other words, the literal dictionary definition of to cheat. If you plug “define cheat” into google, you will get “act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination”.
I’ve pointed this out to friends many times before, and it also applies to the other 2 mental checks. A player playing a 18 int wizard is most probably not as smart as their character, and should not be expected to act that way, and same thing applies to a player making a very naive decision on a really wise character – the DM can ask them to roll a wisdom check, and if they succeed, give them a tip and allow them to reconsider. This, I think, also eases the way in for new players, as they know that it’s their character that they play and that they are not expected to play to an experience level that they lack.
Consider: Charisma isn’t your ability to come up with a good lie; thinking on your feet like that is arguably Intelligence. Charisma is your ability to tell a bad lie convincingly. But a REALLY bad lie is less believable, which would raise the DC. “We’re just merchants,” when everyone is clad in mail hauling 2-handers on their shoulders might raise the DC by 5 or add 5 to the opposed Insight check. “We’re just merchants,” when everyone is wearing traveling clothes and has a wagon of goods (illusory or otherwise) might subtract 5. Then the PC rolls to see how well they tell the lie, not how good the lie is.
another perspective on this is when you say you wanna push a log or kick it down, you are saying what you are trying to do and then roll, similarly when you say your lie (it is obvious contextually that) you are trying to deceive the guard into letting you in and then you roll. the assessment of the dm is to know that a strong character can probably push that log with his muscles and technique, and that the deceptive rogue can lie to the guard with his charm, wit and underground experience, not taking at face value of what they say for example: the strong fighter says i push the log and rolls a 1 he slips and fucks it up, or rolls a 20 and pushes it with 1 hand or rolls a 10 and barely struggles to get it out of the way, similarly the rogue rolls a 1 and the guard sees through his lie or rolls a 20 and the guard offers some assistance letting them through toll free, or rolls a 10 and the guard suspiciously but uncaringly just rolls his eyes takes the toll and moves on with his life. its not that WE are doing it backwards, its the dms job to be unbiased with how to interpret rolls rather than calling for anything and everything or taking someones real life inability to express something their character is very likely to be able to do as a failure.
Well, I’d say we should handle the other checks a bit morr like charisma – for example, when a character wants to break open a door, we should determine the dc according to whether he tries to punch, kick or bodyslam it open differently, as those options require a different level of strength, much like different lies will require a different level of charisma to sell.
I like the was Alex from Rusty Quill Gaming handles charisma checks. Basically it goes 1)Player says they want to do something that is charisma based 2) He asks them to roll the check 3) They RP with that number in mind, and he tells them if they are too good/ not good enough It leads to a lot of in character moments that otherwise wouldn’t come up, like a low charisma character rolling a nat 20 and having a real heart to heart, or the high charisma character rolling a 1 and doing “as bad a job comforting her as you could while trying to help”
In our campaign, our DM does all checks kind of “backwards”. In any check, we have to describe how we do things first, and then he adjusts the DC accordingly. For example, I wanna open a stuck door so my dex character brings out a crowbar to use as leverage and they’ll have about as equal or sometimes greater a % of success as a high str character simply trying to brute force ram it open, depending on why the door is stuck. Similarly, cha check DCs are raised or lowered depending on how you phrase something or how polite or rude or well disguised you are. I did, in fact, use the merchant approach to enter a town she was already infamous in from a previous visit. She took days before to clean up, any blood splatters from adventuring, changed clothes for a merchant look, and got a partymate who was proficient with disguise kits to change the look of her face and hair. Then as she was a ranger with a bunch of weapons on her already, she didn’t hide those at all, adding a few more to sell the bit, and using the excuse she was a trade and sell kind of merchant, looking for new connections for why she wasn’t selling any right this moment. And my 8 cha ranger made it through.
Recently, the groups I’ve been apart of intimidation has kinda just turned into scaring someone into doing what you want or whatever with you having no real intention to inflict harm. More of a threat than anything else, but in the case of the characters I’ve played, if they don’t tell me what I want, I will drip poison on them, break something, have 100 spiders bite them, or whatever else it may be if they don’t do what I want. It’s pretty much gets determined by the individuals willpower to withstand any torture I may put them through.
In both cases you described the order of events as: 1. Description, 2. Roll Check, 3. Resolution. With strength checks we dont say, “i’d like to make a check – then describe feat of strength” so why would we do so for charisma, “I’d like to make the check – then describe the lie”. And dms do limit the other checks if the seem unreasonable, “i try to lift the building – no you cant, its a building.” Roleplay is one of the actions of the game. One of the pillars. So players should act on it. But it can be narrative, not dialogue too. “I would like to convince the guard that im a merchant – roll check – The guard believes you.”
I do it differently with my students (I teach English abroad and with some of my students we play D&D). They tell they want to do something, like persuade an NPC to give them a key. I then ask for a roll, then offer ideas about what the characters might do. If they start to describe, I go with it but if they are not sure, I describe for them. However, if some players role-play from the beginning instead of telling me what they want to do, I go with it as well. I might make a hidden roll if I am not sure how the NPC would react. It all depends on the players, how the session is moving and what is most enjoyable in the moment.
This is really interesting and made me think a lot more about checks. After some thought, I don’t think of Charisma checks as being done differently than most other checks. I’d argue that most skill checks (not only Char-based) can follow the same steps (and this is how I like to do it with my limited DM experience). Step 1: HOW — The player explains (or RPs) specifically how they attempt the task in as much detail as the like. Step 2: DC — Based on Step 1, I adjust the DC accordingly, (maybe give advantage/disadvantage or decided that no roll is needed). Step 3: ROLLS — Player rolls if needed (and NPC too if needed). Step 4: RESULT — I describe the result. I think what makes Charisma checks different is just that they inherently have way more options in Step 1. There are a lot of different lies you could tell the guard, for example. However, I think the same steps in the same order can apply to most (all?) checks. STRENGTH EXAMPLE: The player wants to lift a huge fallen tree branch off of another character. They first tell me how they try to do it. Maybe they don’t think to specify anything (so, a high DC). Maybe they specify lifting from the far end of the log to get leverage (so, a medium DC). Maybe they have, or can conjure, or are able to rig, a pulley system. So, a low DC. This step, while not RPing, corresponds to the “what do you say to the guard” step. Anyone have other good non-charisma examples?
I think a happy medium would be treating it like calling your shots with ranged attacks. You can make a general description of “I want to negotiate for a lower price” dm calls for any applicable rolls and decides how much of a discount you get if you roll well. Or you can try to convince the merchant to give it to you for whatever you want and the dm handles it as usual for charisma
I think something I’ve seen from myself and a few friends as players as well as Marisha on Crit Roll is instead of changing charisma rolls we change our other rolls. So if a monk like Marisha’s character is trying to make a strength check to open a gate, shes done stuff like said “I use my staff for leverage to pry it up” or if you are doing an int check on the last great war and while you dont have proficiency in history maybe your grandfather fought in that war and told you stories as a kid. I think playing like this really adds something to the feel of the game even if your dm doesn’t give you any bonuses fro it like Matt and my DM often don’t.
As a DM, I normally ask the player what they want to do/what lie they want to tell. Then, I’ll have the NPC roll to counter it, with a DC determined by how convincing they were. Note that most of my players don’t have high CHA for their characters, so I guess the way I do things is to kinda ensure that they don’t end up getting stuck in a certain spot in the campaign. It makes some VERY memorable moments for everyone.
I play systems that work like this. 1. Player chooses their skill and describes their approach 2. DM declares difficulty of the roll 3. Player rolls (success/failure is determined) 4. DM describes result The big difference is in step 1. and could include; “I make a Strength (Athletics) Check to Push the log down the hill.”, “I make an Intelligence(Nature) check to use find a strong branch to use as a lever to push the log down the hill.”, “I make a Wisdom(Handle Animal) check to get my horse to push the log down the hill.”
I think it probably depends on the table, and possibly even the player. I’m a fairly new player and I’m very introverted and shy, but my group is full of veteran players, most of whom are pretty outgoing. I’ve noticed our DMs (we switch between two campaigns to give the DMs more time to write) are more likely to call for roll first on a charisma check for me, whereas for the other players they’ll roleplay first and then call for a roll. The one exception to this was in a one-shot we did where part of my character was that she was just super unlucky in love so I asked the DM to just have any NPC my character flirted with turn her down.
It depends on people playing the game. Years ago, I played with a group on engineers. They relished the description of the mechanical traps and coming up with ways to disable it. Based on their description of actions they got bonuses to the disarm trap skill. As a DM it is important to know your audience and what they would like. Same with charisma. Some people live to pontificate, others are not blessed with a glib tongue. I always award a bonus for a heartfelt attempt, but I never force the issue. Roll first or describe what you are hoping for is my rule. Thank for the great article.
Mainly the times I end up doing it backwards is when the player is already role-playing with an npc and starts lying through their teeth and I call for a check. Mainly if they’re already role-playing and acting with their character first then the check comes later, otherwise the player can say “I’m gonna intimidate this dude ” check then description.
I just figured it was because it’s the only thing you can do at the table. I can’t study ancient runes or comb through ancient tomes at the table, or lift and throw rocks, or leap over gaps, or perceive the details in a room in-game. I can, however, in all contexts, talk to the characters in-game all the time. It removes all the intrigue from deceiving or persuading to just skip by it and decide success first. Plus it means that I can retroactively say whatever I want it’s already successful so it doesn’t even matter
At the table I run I tend to ask for two things when people want rolls; what they want to do, and if they want to try changing the DC via how they RP it. If a person wants to make a diplomacy check I ask them if they are actually comfortable trying to talk to the guard, as if so I will change the DC based upon how they speak. The same however also happens to work for things like acrobatics checks where a person talks about how they want to run and jump at the wall, kicking off of it to grab the nearby ledge, and with the description I many times alter the DC depending on what they wanted. For me I change the DCs based on RP, or allow the rolls to allow them either to bypass RP or to just let their naturally talented character do something the player isn’t great at. (Pathfinder for the system, BTW.)
The way i approach it is that what the player describes influences the DC of the roll. If they provide a convincing argument before a persuasion check, then they require a lower DC to succeed, for example. But i’d also use this approach for any roll. Let the players come up with creative solutions to the problem, and they need to roll a lower number. “I cast goodberry and feed it to the wolf to try to befriend it” is a lower DC than if they just say ‘i want to tame the wolf’, for example
Since it’s an old article this probably won’t get attention, but how we do it at our table, the player tells the DM what they want to do (i.e. the lie they are about to tell) and based on that, depending how good or bad it is, the DM will lower the cr or not or even give advantage or disadvantage on the roll. But the same way goes for other rolls, taking the example on the article, if a player tries to move a log, it will probably be a straightforward strength roll, but if the players instead roleplay how they set up some pole system with ropes to lift and move the log, for example, the DM will lower the cr or even give advantage to roll (maybe in this complex case addind some rolls for the creation of the pole system)
I feel like we handle the checks this way is honestly because of what you said, the role play is important. My ruling typically as the DM is that if someone can bring up a good point in their persuasion, or threaten something that truly matters to someone then they can make that roll with advantage because they were clever and brought up that crucial point.
Thanks for this article! I like a “both and” approach… If a character wants to make a check for their character to be persuasive, intimidating, or deceptive, I say, go for it. If the player role plays the situation successfully, and I think it’s logical / convincing / etc. then no check. You just get it.
I know this isn’t really the feedback you were looking for, but there’s actually a game system I’ve seen that had a really interesting argument on the other side. What if we did the other checks more similar to how we did charisma checks? It’s all a matter of outcome, and what the check is deciding, and I think there’s many many ways to run a table . I don’t always run the table the way I describe, but one of the things I try and think about when running sessions that aren’t pre-written modules is a bit more like what I said above. I think the reason we run charisma checks this way is because of how we think about action, intent and failure. When you’re doing a strength check, or picking a lock, it’s very easy to scope your action and then resolve the intent. You’re trying to move an object, you’re trying to open a lock, and if the intent is a surprise to the DM that’s ok because failure means the status quo is maintained. For charisma checks, we tend to combine the intent and the action, “I want to convince the guards that we’re normal merchants” comes across in the roleplay, rather than being stated as an intent upfront to call for the dice roll. Failure means that the guard flat out doesn’t believe you. We could, as the article suggests, run that as action first, but that isn’t always done because the intent and the action get entangled. What the system I alluded to above postulates, is that it benefits us to state intent upfront clearly, and then roll for complications. For the example of pushing a log off a cliff, why am I doing so?
The way I do CHA skills checks is, and skill checks in general; I allow for more roleplay to determine the outcome by changing the DC of whatever the check needs to pass based on what the player roleplays. For instance, if a flirty bard tries to woo some comely NPC, and the player lays down some genuinely smooth pickup lines irl, they either get a bonus to the roll if I want them to know that their roleplay made an impact, or the DC for the check will be lower if I want them to not know their roleplay made an effect. The same is true for other skills as well, I actually had a player do 20 pushups to reroll a STR check, and I had a player answer 10 rapid-fire simple math problems to get a bonus to an INT check. I think stuff like that gets the players themselves more involved in the game, and it brings the game away from being figures on a table and numbers on a page to people gathered and having fun, which is what the game is really about, for me, anyways.