Yeah I kind of do the same thing as DM except I adjust the DC of diplomacy checks for good/bad roleplay. Everyone is aware I do this, and it usually helps people actually *think* when they're trying to solve a problem
In my games I want all persuasions and lies to be said out loud. I just think it's really lame to go "Ok I lie to get past the guards, Ok I rolled a 24, they now believe me" I don't expect magnificently-crafted lies or breathtaking speeches, but I do expect you to come up with *something* convincing. Yes, you are probably not as charismatic as your Sorcerer is, just as the Barbarian probably can't bench 500 pounds, but that's what the stat is there to compensate for. Maybe your character's body language and mannerisms make up for the lie, or maybe their choices of words are subtly different in-game, but the meaning of your words are your own. And the most fun part is that the more you do it, the better you get. So eventually you'll get good at coming up with lies on the spot or reading a character to tailor persuasion for them.
@@ToxicSunrise132 I mean isnt that kind of normal? Skill checks aren't automatic successes on nat20s and if ur trying to make someone believe the blue sky is red then firstly, a fact the npc can check himself to be clearly false is not even worth a role. Secondly if he cant cause hes indoors then that should be a dc25 or higher at the minimum.
This is an interesting homebrew rule. The way I've always understood it, though, is that there's a difference between persuading someone that you are not lying and persuading someone that you are telling The Truth. If you roll a nat 20 on a claim that the sky is green, *they will believe that you believe that.* They might think you're color-blind, or that you're delusional, but they won't automatically believe that you're correct about something absurd.
Ok, two things: For starters, you don't need any homebrew rules to avoid situations where you convince someone that "the sky is green" or some stuff like that. The rules as they are already take into account the fact that you set out DCs. You can't lift an entire mountain with a Natural 20 even if you have + 17 in Athletics (which, btw, possible to have +17 in a skill: +6 proficiency, doubled with some kind of Expertise, and +5 for a 20 in Strength). You can't spot a fly that his hundreds of miles away with a Natural 20 in Perception. You can't stealth pass a bunch of guards literally guarding the front door and open said door even with a Natural 20 in Stealth. And you can't convince someone with working eyes that the sky is green with a Natural 20 in Deception. So, first of all, no need to homebrew this, the rulebook already takes into account that Nat 20 don't allow for impossible stuff. Secondly, even with normal rules, a simple 12 in Deception would OBVIOUSLY not work because, like they said in the story, she would know how many children she had in her life, and if there's nothing in her backstory that states she once lost a child, then that lie is pretty much impossible to believe! MAYBE a Natural 20 and a +5 could convince the guards themselves (I could see myself set a Very Hard DC of 25 for the guards themselves; they are not the queen, and a high Deception roll could make them believe that the queen once had a secret child she never told anyone about), but the queen herself would know, and the thief here would eventually have to convince her, and the DC for her would obviously be 40 or above!!!
Exactly, this isn't a homebrew rule, it's RAW (rules as written) that only attack rolls can crit, at best if you roll a 20 I might give you the best outcome of you doing it, even though you still fail... like, if you try to convince the king to give you his kingdom and you roll a 20, he'll just laugh and comment how amusing you are, instead of throwing you in the dungeon.
depends on what edition they are playing. 5e has some really solid standardizing for variable difficulty, but that was created specifically to solve problems from older editions. A LOT of groups had home-brew fixes (or at the very least, limitations) for social skills in 3.5 because the rules as written were too vague.
"That's a twelve!" So? If I was the DM and someone was trying to convince people he was a long lost prince with no evidence I'd put the DC way higher than twelve. In fact, rarely do I have DCs lower than 13 for anything meaningful unless my players put forth a good argument before rolling.
Or you can just say no as the queen would know if she had given birth. Skills aren't magical and can't change reality or the past, no matter what is rolled.
@@craigtucker1290 a d that’s the part of it that made no sense for it to be a believable lie. The simple fact that the bbeg was a woman and would know about her lost child already and so would her guard’s
@@Allantitan In theory memory altering magic could cause it but would likely need to be on such a scale it would take 1 or more archmages... unless you have a cabal of mind fucking memory mages, it is pretty hard to imagine.
The DM was 100% correct in kicking the thief from the game, and the thief expecting such an outrageous, obvious lie to succeed on even a natural 20 is silly. I certainly wouldn’t have any NPCs in any campaign I ran believe such a thing unless the queen actually had lost a son that was the correct age to be the thief, and even then he would have to roll better than a 9 or even a 12. Part of running a good campaign is maintaining verisimilitude, and there’s few ways to better break immersion than having NPCs act unnaturally, and falling for such a lie would be unnatural except for the most stupid NPCs.
Problem is, there are actually idiots who believe a natural 20 is an automatic success on ANYTHING. As though it's basically a wish spell and whatever you say happens because you happened to roll a 20.
@@webhead4414 Unfortunately, there are people who believe their characters can jump to the moon on a natural 20. I would simply tell them no, but if they pushed the issue I’d tell them their character dies in the vacuum of space, gets eaten by a space dragon, and tell them not to bother writing a replacement character. Of course, none of my regular gaming group would ever do such a thing, so the whole thing is theoretical for me at least, but if it did, they’d certainly back me up if a newcomer happened to act like that, especially since they all also GM/DM as we all rotate campaigns, and wouldn’t put up with that nonsense either.
The problem is, that even if they were successful and rolled like a nat 20 with the +3 modifier to make the guards totally believe the story... The story isn't gonna hold up when they immediately try to reunite the lost son to the Queen. They'd basically be closer to getting killed than their first party member that got captured.
@@williamfalls Yeah, it wouldn’t go well when the queen says “My oldest son is 9 and he’s standing over there!”, “Son? All I have are daughters and the oldest one is only 7!”, or “Son? I’ve never been pregnant, and I certainly haven’t adopted any sons, especially one’s near my own age!” Honestly, what was he even thinking?
I know that a lot of people tend to avoid confrontation (and in many of these dnd horror stories going to great lenghts to not fight anyone) but its pretty nice to see a gm that calls bullshit on a bad player´s behaviour and just show him the door after seeing that being diplomatic was not going to lead anywhere.
My rule is you CAN roll deception without saying anything, but if you say something you can get advantage or disadvantage based on how much the DM thinks it would convince the NPC.
Recently I was playing in a party that snuck into a cultist lair. We all had uniforms identical to the cultists and one of the party members tried to save some innocents and a fight started. The other party members got out weapons to fight the cultists. My character, decided to use deception to make it seem like I wasn't part of the heroes. I didn't need to speak or anything, just take out a weapon facing the party. I was able to use deception to get in a good position to stand close enough to the enemy leader to attack with advantage.
The only problem I have with giving advantage/disadvantage based on that, is that adv/disadv cannot stack, so that makes any player abilities that would give advantage (i.e. charm spells) less valuable. Personally, I'd adjust the DC based on the argument, thus allowing any other sources of adv/disadv to have their normal effect. This is really just a general problem with adv/disadv as a system, though.
Rude rule lawyer who doesn't get why a group doesn't want him there after he causes trouble and insults them. He really needs a reality check, sadly it sounds like his bullheadedness is higher than most rolls to make that check.
It is actually how one is supposed to play the game properly regarding mundane skills as our reality forms the basis of what is possible and what is not.
I imagine its a DM who didn't fully read the DMG and all the horror/rule of cool stories stem from it. Can even skip the *1 page* on Social Encounters and go to the chart, Conversation Reactions, on page 245 if too lazy.
This is something I always explain to my groups, and it seems a lot of people don't understand. Being a good liar doesn't automatically mean people will believe whatever you say. Being persuasive doesn't mean people will do whatever you want them to. Much like the home rules given in the story, I ask for what people are saying when they try to persuade of deceive an NPC and modify the DC according to how likely it seems that they would think it believable. And some cases I just don't allow the roll at all, or declare it's an automatic failure. You can't make someone go against their own interests. A guard isn't going to let someone just go into a restricted area, no matter what a player rolls to bluff. They are literally being paid to keep people out. Now if the players can come up with a reasonable other excuse, preferably with documentation to back up the lie, it may be possible. But just rolling up and saying 'Oh yeah.. I'm totally supposed to be allowed into the vault you've been ordered to keep everyone out of, isn't going to fly.' The same thing goes with seduction and rolls. Yeah, the horny bard is a funny meme, but I don't care how high you roll, the dragon or evil overlord, or ruler of a kingdom is not just going to fall madly for the player, no matter what you roll. Even if they are normally attracted to someone of the player's race or gender. And even if you succeed in one roll, that wouldn't mean you immediately move to jumping in bed most of the time. You don't decide combat based on one roll. You wouldn't reduce a major heist adventure into a single stealth check. Why do you think you would go from "I want to see you dead" to "I want to have your children" with one roll? Even the DMG has social interaction rules that say it doesn't work like that. Some people even oversell the idea of Charm magic as well. "I cast charm person on the guard, and they failed their save, so I tell them to let us into the restricted area." Um, no. That's not what that spell does. It just means that the charmed target sees you as a friend. If you were a bank guard and a friend walked up to you and said "Hey, mind if I slip into that vault there and fill up these sacks with money?" you'd rightly tell them to beat it. It also doesn't make them see their allies as now enemies, so telling your 'new friend' to fight his old friends is probably not going over so well. You need much higher level magic, like Dominate Person for those.
@@nekoali2 Wisely stated and actually how the game is supposed to be played. Skills and nonmagical abilities were never supposed to be a replacement for magical abilities. However, those stories where the DM allows charm, persuasion, and seduction to go overboard end up being those ridiculous stories we all just 🙄 at.
@@nekoali2 You could totally get a guard to let you into a restricted area with a good roll 🤦♂️ Its in the DMG under Social Interactions and frankly trying to get into a restricted area with a persuasion check is not even near the ballpark of seducing the dragon. Im curious what the hell you'd actually allow a charisma check to change.
I actually secretly do this in the background most of the time anyway. I decide right there on the spot as the player is making their argument or trying to deceive an NPC what the DC will be based on what they say. If it sounds legit convincing, the DC drops, if it sounds stupid, the DC raises. Also, even a nat 20 doesn't mean you automatically succeed on something. Instead, you get the best POSSIBLE outcome. If you walk up to a king for example, tell him he is a bad ruler and that he should step down and give you the crown and roll a nat 20, he isn't going to do just that. He may instead assume you are joking, think you are hilarious and offer you a job as a court jester.
@@willparry530 Perhaps, it'll just result in the best possible result. In other words, you won't get ordered to be executed on the spot or thrown in the dungeon for treason like you would for a lower roll.
@@Zarkonem Aye, my comment was more tongue in cheek than anything. It would have to be a very, very self-aware king to think of offering someone like that an advisorship. XD
@@willparry530 I daresay the self-aware king might think about the character's criticism and possibly pitch the point to his actual advisors to check whether there are improvements to be made, but not offer the character an advisor position, since a guy who expects you to just give him the crown is clearly insane ;-)
You're not a coward for giving someone the benefit of the doubt. The DM was right to expel the player, but don't pretend that it was brave when it was so obviously sensible.
That "What you say affects your roll" is a very VERY common mod for 'talk skill' rolls I've seen many DMs use, myself included. Problem player was just extremely stupid and pointlessly prideful.
Yeah I personally think most people just do it on the back end with adjusting the DC of rolls as opposed to doing it on the front end with bonus/penalty. I actually like the bonus/penalty system for its transparency better than adjusting the DC behind the screen
I’m new to actually play, haven’t even gotten in a group yet, but reading the starting kit book it has one line of text that says it all ‘There is no winning or losing in D&D, there is only the DM and players working together to create a adventure’ to me that is the only firm rule. The others are needed to create a structure, but if others agree, and you yourself agree and stay, then it should be all good.
That is the basic principal of most if not all TTRPGs. Those "rules" are a baseline to work with mechanics so all members of the group can get an idea of what should/would happen, but if a group really wanted to they could strip it down that one firm rule and play how most Text RPs usually go.
@@truekurayami Yeah. My group doesn't play with any of the 'squares'. We describe what we want to do and then if it makes sense, we do it. We still roll for attack and etc, but our characters movement and the movement of enemies is just described mostly. It's a very strong rp style dnd for us.
@@bradleymoore2797 That sounds pretty interesting, though with the RP I'm working on, I would love to watch someone fumble through a campaign with the mechanics we figured would be attached to one of my characters. I will be honest he is utterly broken and we even broke that because his sheet would either be negative infinity or positive infinity for his stats depending on how a coin toss went for anything he tries to do.
I thought that rule existed as a variable DC. Convincing somebody the sky is green, especially as a Goliath talking to a gnome looking up at him outside, should be impossible. But convincing them of a forged letter is easier, especially if the player who made it has calligraphy. My DM rarely rolls for persuasion or deception, since we are good talkers and explainers. We have rolled, however, a couple times against a paranoid NPC who didn’t trust anybody easy.
Yeah IDK why DM's get themselves into these types of situations, enough to where they need homebrew rules. Just *raise the dc* if it seems like something a rational person wouldn't believe.
@@GusJenkinsElite They might be doing it against passive insight or an insight roll So the DC is determined by the targets stats. This would explain why they have that homebrew rule
@@unwithering5313 Persuasion and Deception, as my DM is doing it, is attempting to change the mind of a NPC who isn’t buying it. We once found a city under siege, and half the party had issues with the siegers. So we rolled Stealth to go around the checkpoint. Or would have if we didn’t have Invisibility and flight. After that session, the DM told us that if we were caught, he had plans for us to interact with the siegers, and it would have taken several persuasion or deception rolls in order to talk our way to safety. Luckily, I already had an argument prepared that should have made it easier to convince him.
A rule a friend of mine has is "I'm having you roll to see how badly you're punished" when it comes to lies and persuasive talk, that makes no sense. Basically, her idea is that no king would give his crown away for free, to a random bard, even on a nat 20.
Number one sign that the DM is a great person is that brief consideration "Maybe the problem isn't with him, but with us." Mad respect for not assuming you are always right, even when you are.
I've always told my players, just because you roll a nat 20 doesn't mean you automatically succeed in whatever you're doing. It just means that you get the best POSSIBLE outcome.
In the official rules there is no critical success for skill checks (wide spread error) and it is up to the DM to set the DC for any check. So convincing someone with a bad lie should be near impossible, so like DC30. I think this homebrew rule is closer to the actual rules than one may think.
Yup, unless it's combat a nat 1 or a nat 20 aren't a critical anything, if they were it would mean you always had a 5% chance of doing the impossible or a 5% chance of failing at something basic in a spectacular way. Like there shouldn't be a 5% chance that I could walk up to a king and perform a single persuasion check with no prep that I"M the king now, and there shouldn't be a 5% chance that if i'm accused of a crime I didn't commit that I somehow fail so spectacularly at it that not only do I insult the guard that came to arrest me but I also admitted to the crime.
Tip for anyone wondering if you're doing something "wrong" by homebrewing or ignoring rules: Are you having fun? Is everyone* at the table having fun? If yes, you're all good. *If one person is not, talk to them. If changing it to be different to make them have more fun would sabotage the fun of the rest of the group, come to terms with the fact that maybe that game is not for that person.
I believe the DM and party were in the right while the cousin was defiantly in the wrong. If he had such an issue with the rule, he shouldn't have agreed to it. Also, in context to his lie, there was absolutely no way he could trick those guards even with a successful roll. It's simply impossible. Well, unless of course magic was involved to cover up the "prince's disappearance". Still, his lie would defiantly not fool anyone. I actually agree with the homebrew rule on deception. If you're gonna try to lie to someone, you gotta at least come up with a believable lie. Depending on the quality of the lie, that should effect the actual worth of the roll. After all, If I was trying convince someone that fire is wet and rocks are soft, I should defiantly have a massive disadvantage on my roll. It's a lot more believable.
I remember my two shots of Diplomacy, which went really well. You see, I was playing as a Variant Human Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer with the Noble background in a spin-off to LMoP. The group was at the tavern, and my character compared the beer to piss. Barkeeper not happy at this - luckily the other player characters, Half-Orc War Cleric and Variant Human Eldritch Knight(level 3) (not to mention hidden Level 1 Goblin Rogue - we'd adopted Droop) convince him that my guy was dealing with the effects of the road. During this, we spot a street urchin steeling bottles, and decided to follow the kid (first thing of crime we'd seen - there was something very odd about this city we were in). However, a distraction was needed, and my guy volunteered for the job. My Distraction - Walk up to the barkeeper, and apologize to him for my earlier rudeness, citing the many issues on the road - goblins, bandits, undead, a dragon - and that it makes one temporarily forget their manners. DM has me roll for Persuasion. 17. Add 5 for my Charisma Modifier and Proficiency bonus, making the total 22. Bartender: Well, its good to see folks acknowledge when they've made a mistake. Apology accepted. My guy then rents a room for the party. Meanwhile, the other three follow the kid, find him, find out what's going on - corrupt Lord making things difficult basically. Then they have to hide from Guards. Soon enough, my guy finishes with the barkeeper, heads out to look for my party. Hear a whispered "Over Here!" by a party member in alley. Head that way, only to get stopped by patrol (5 guards). Head Guard: What are you doing? My Guy: Heading into the alley. H.G.: Why? M.G.: (In real life, I'd just finished drinking 1.5L of Mountain Dew) To take a piss! (Cue the laughs from everyone at the real-life table.) GH..: In Public? M.G.: No, in the alley! H.G.: Which is in Public! M.G.: No! In the Alley! H.G. (and other guards): (Insight Check - 4 low, 1 high) Drunken idiot - there's a bathroom in the tavern! M.G.: Oh! Thanks! (Head back to inn). H.G.: What is this world coming to? Back to the patrol. They never did look down that alley - they should have - party overthrew the corrupt lord the next session.
In my campaigns when it comes to persuasion and deception, i always hear out the player first. Not everyone is a gifted roleplayer or liar, but if what they explain they want to do makes sense, i may just let them have it. But when it comes to outlandish lies like that, i’d have them roll. The way i decide a dc is to start out at 10, raise or lower based on how much or little evidence you have (max 5), how convincing your lie is (max 10), and your charisma modifier. So for le theif, i’d say 10 + 3 for lack of evidence besides the poisoned wine, +8 for a really hard to swallow lie, and - 3(?) cause charisma. So roll above a dc 18. Also second rule: the rule of cool. Anything goes if its cool enough, but likewise uncool is not okay. So i’d still punish him for mucking up the party’s plan and upsetting his cousin.
5e's persuasion rules (pg 244-245 DMG) are pretty similar to this, first the players tell the dm what they are saying, then the dm determines the npc's attitude toward the party and what the dc for the roll will be depending on what the players said, Rogue has no idea what hes talking about, besides what's in the books is mote anyway cause they had all agreed on how to handle things before hand HIM INCLUDED
For some folks there's only one way to do something, be it tie their shoes, drive to the store or play a game. These people find it hard to change something they know and that works for something unfamiliar. Too bad- those folks usually miss out on a lot of interesting things.
I like when players think creatively. I’ve never really taken points away, but I will often give anywhere from a +1 to +3 depending on how well they prepare before making any type of skill check to encourage explaining how they go about it as opposed to just “I climb down and sneak to the doorway” “ok make a check”. It makes for memorable rp and gives them a sense of accomplishment for thinking ahead or fast on the fly.
We had a kind of homebrew rule that was even more tailored towards actual storytelling roleplay instead of just dicebattle for diplomacy and deception. Such scenes were always fully played out at our table, so there was no "I roll diplomacy to make the guard let me pass", you had to tell the DM in detail what you intended to say. After you told him, the DM then decided the DC of the roll based on how convincing you sold your point and you rolled. If the DM judged that what you said was completely plausible and was something your character could have easily delivered that way, you didn't even have to roll, you'd get a straight up success. If it was fairly plausible, but maybe a bit suspicious or badly presented, then you had to roll to see how well your character would present that story, with an easy DC. If it was a tall tale, but there was a chance that person would buy it if the character was a really convincing actor (or if the player presented it really clumsily, but his character was maybe a better speaker than the player), then you'd roll against a high DC. If what you presented was complete bullshit, contradicted confirmed better knowledge of the NPC or simply wasn't suitable to sway that NPC at all, you automatically failed. (And needless to say, claiming to be the long lost son of a queen who was only few years older and - as far as public knowledge goes - has never been pregnant would be an automatic fail) One could argue that this isn't even a houserule, since the DM is the one who sets the DC of an attempt at diplomacy and it would be kinda weird to set that DC on an abstract level without taking into regard what the character was actually going to say (unless you go full dice war no roleplay and just let the player roll without telling what his character would say, meaning that his high diplomacy roll causes the character to find the perfect lie or argument to convince the NPC).
I always just assumed this was how things were, I mean if someone wants to be descriptive in what they're doing of course that would effect a role. Like I had a session where the players had to get across a 6 foot gap in a hallway, a couple players had already found a safe way across but the other 2 players had to just cross the gap(a fall would have been a problem but since the 2 other players were across the gap there was a "safety net", as long as the roll was at least 5 below the dc they'd be safe just that they needed help). 1 player wanted to try wall run and the other just decided to jump it, I gave the wall run an 18 dc and the jump a 15 with both being athletics (they both had a running start), both trying to do basically the same thing but they went about it differently so the dcs would be different.
Honestly, that rule is just upping or lowering the DC based on the lie. It's what DMs do all the time. The DC I would've set for this was 25. It's unbelievable, full of coincidences, and goes against the guards previous beliefs. If a random lie starts out at DC10, the inconsistencies give the DC a +15.
Even theoretically "unfair" rules that are agreed to at the start are fair game for the sessions until they become a problem. At that point you bring it up after or between sessions
I've seen roll with advantage or disadvantage based on the argument the PC was trying to make for persuasion or deception, , but +/- 3 seems like a decent rule as well, especially if they're free to discuss the ruling.
+3/-3 is pretty close to what advantage/disadvantage does on average anyway. (on an average, single d20 roll, advantage is worth about +3.5 and disadvantage is worth about -3.5).
that's a wonderful homebrew rule and that can help or hinder a player with their own words to blame. The stick in the mud with the same stick stuck somewhere uncomfortable needs not be playing if they are going to be a but.
The only thing worse than a pretentious rules lawyer is a pretentious rules lawyer that doesn't understand the rules they are playing with. Nothing gets under my skin worse then halting a session for 5-10+ minutes arguing something that didn't even matter. The roll failed regardless of the modifier and hung onto the strawman argument of rigged rules just because he had no leg to stand on being mad. At the very least get over it and bring it up after the game instead of being a brat.
I would say since the thief is no longer part of the group because of his own stupidity. Use his own half ass lie, along with the justification made by the DM along with a magic enchantment placed on him. And you got yourself a brand new bodyguard for the BBEG. Whether he is legitimately her kid or that’s what she’s made him think he is. She can now have a lawyer meat shield she can use to escape.
Even without the house rules for deception, a twelve isn't exactly a guaranteed success. And even a natural twenty on Deception wouldn't make them automatically believe the queen apparently gave birth in preschool then lost the baby somewhere. Sounds mighty sus. Doesn't take a high insight to see through that one. EDIT: Then again, since the dice are meant to be a numerical representation of the lie being told, rather than a gauge on the gullibility of the dupe, a natural twenty would mean his character came up with a MUCH better lie than that. So him rolling a 12 (read: 9) on that implausible fabrication was actually somewhat appropriate.
Depending on the edition, nat 20s don’t mean anything except for combat rules. Because critting skill checks to automatically succeed doesn’t make sense. Let your skill modifiers determine the floor and ceiling of what you can accomplish.
We had a Champion's campaign (modern day superheroes) where the players had to sneak into a villain's high tech base. They got caught and came up with the dumbest lie on the spot - they were the cleaning crew and needed to get to the top floor to do their jobs. The guards critically failed their INT checks so the players were allowed to just walk through the base without any fighting. We were all laughing our heads off as the players in question hammed it up while the DM just kept shaking his head in disbelief. They got all the way up to the main bad guy who then turned around from the console and said, "I'm going to kill you then all the idiots who let you in." The villain been watching the entire thing on CCTV. Moral of the story - sometimes it's more fun to let players get away with terrible plans.
Clearly he is a very bad (problematic) player. I am glad to hear that the dm was apprehensive with his actions just to be sure that his group was not overreacting to a new player. It wasn't cowardly, just indecisive. And everyone should be like that at first, I have played with some people that go off the handle at the meer mention of something they don't agree with. If the same issues crop up 2 more times or so then there is no more need to stay your hand.
even if that was the actual rule and they decided to go the other way with it it would not matter cause everyone agreed to it from the start. its one thing to talk about how you don't like the rule its another to be a PoS
ill be honest - i wouldnt even call that rule homebrew... the DM/GM sets the DC for the check... if the argument is plausible, it makes sense to lower the DC and if its outlandish, it raises the DC what that group did is basically have a quick reference for an agreed upon modifier to persuasion DCs based on the RP and its nice that it motivates good roleplaying =) you folks handled that as best as you could and im pretty sure you are better off playing without that thief
I think it's a good rule and they were the problem. Even if it wasn't a good rule, everyone had agreed to it and sounds like they had ample time to say something beforehand. If thief was that against it, he should have just said something and asked to discuss it as a group. Emphasis on discuss and not fight and sling insults. If he raised proper arguments, perhaps they would have adjusted the rules to better reflect their game.
my rule for this is if it is a convincing lie you get advantage on the roll. If it is something stupid you get disadvantage. Same goes for persuasion, they trust you and its reasonable advantage. It's ridiculous request or they don't really like you, disadvantage. Dice rolls are for chance factor, not for breaking the game.
Nat 1s and nat 20s are (according to the rules) only automatic successes or failures if it's an attack roll. They are just normal numbers for ability checks. So, a rogue can roll a nat 1 on stealth, but still go undetected, due to their typical massive modifiers and bonuses.
The rule I like to use for rolling deception/bluff is I do the roll first, THEN say the lie. If I get a 20, it's something perfectly simple and believable. 1? I point at a random inanimate object and say "He did it." In between, it might sound a little odd but be passable if they don't look at it too closely.
Reminds me of a gaming session where, purely for laughs, we told a fellow pc the truth but used our worst cards (it was a card based rpg) so he believed we were all lying and he was doomed. The whole party had a good laugh, especially when I dropped a one pt card for the final question.
“You’re doing it wrong!” Is something someone who knows “real D&D” would never say, as every edition has had the (paraphrasing here) “DM can houserule any of this” bit in the books.
What a F-ing nightmare... the minute he went against the party like that.... warlock shoots 2 eldrish blast at the guard and makes it look like rogue did it.
I mean… You can always set the DC after how good the lie is… sure you rolled a Nat 20, DC was 40 though… That’s not even a house rule though, that’s just running the game. You can also, always, just not let a player roll. If what they want to do is literally impossible, this is the correct course of action.
If it's impossible, don't call for a roll; just declare it's impossible and it fails. Conversely if what they're trying is easy based on their knowledge and abilities, you can just declare it succeeds without calling for a roll.
I find it funny how the person said they were tired and didn't like people rolling a nat 20 and for example saying the sky is green and expecting people to believe them so they created a home brew to fix it. The reason it's funny is because the standard rule in d&d is nat 20's don't count as a critical success for skill checks XD. So many people don't realize that nat 1's and 20's aren't a critical fail/success outside of death saving throws and attack rolls. Most people use the optional home rule as though it's the standard rule. So the whole scenario of this video is based around them creating a home rule to fix the issue they had about the optional rule when they could of just been using the standard rule and the player couldn't complain about the standard rule. Of course the player is still got what they deserved after how they acted.
I'm commenting because the thumbnail of this video has been sitting on my recommended viewing page since yesterday, and I just can't help but comment: "That's not an angry face"
the plus or minus should be 5 rather than 3 for convincing Charisma checks, which is mathematically equivalent to rolling with advantage or disadvantage
I'd say that this loser's attitude was due to him being a habitual liar who got away with everything, but even THAT'S not the case. He needs a serious wake up call in the form of a From the Top Rope SMACKDOWN!
Homebrew rules are totally acceptable, and this one is not some crazy thing, it makes sense (although I would have a higher swing for totally unbelievable/believable lies)
Is this 5th ed? 3.5 had a clear scale that showed that BELIEVABLE lies could succeed, but convincing someone to believe something that they had evidence to refute was practically impossible. Then, ya know, there's magic that can do that
Although there are some funny dnd skits on TH-cam about characters using insane roles to get crazy lies, in both cases i know involved convincing guards that they were the killer instead of the player, but I im sure in actual games this homebrew would probably be better.
The way social checks should work, you say what you say, the DM decides, based on what you say, the DC. If the NPC involves would find it logical and convincing, it would be a lower roll, if it would find it impossible, it would be high, even impossibly high. And even if successful, it does not mean that the NPC would believe it, it may just mean that the NPC would act favourably to you
I just tell my players that everything they do can work in reverse. So if they want outrageous charisma checks to work, they need to be okay with outrageous charisma checks to work on them too!
Simple situation there, thief is run on the sword of the guards and brutally quartered in the morning. Next DMs can’t cheat, if your competing with your DM either they are an asshole or you are
The whole point of a dc is to do that e.g convincing someone the sky is green would be like a dc of 35 which is pretty much impossible for most people. Set the dc based of the lie your player tells
If the changed rules are made known to the players and everyone agrees on them before they are used then its fine i think, great even. Dnd rules are sometimes strict, and some campaigns, that have a more realistic setting, or any other lean can benefit a lot for tweaking or straight up changing the rules
i think the homebrew rule is good though i wouldnt make it hard +3 -3 and instead put on more of a scale, i think at the end of the day the rule of fun/ cool should be the number 1 highest rule and if someone has a really good argument i dont care if its even a nat 1, theyll fail successfully
I use a similar variation of this rule in my game as I find silly skill checks that don't make sense as being just another way to derail a good campaign. As I see it, if you're going to convince someone that the sky is falling; you better have magic to make it so either by illusion or mind control. Otherwise, you are just trying to bullshit someone and most would not be so easily fooled. This guy had a good rule and a bad player.
Hey quick question for a a newbie of D&D what does one do with characters like the thief not the players the characters themselves who get themselves in these situations do they just ignore them or disappear or what like when a player gets kicked down what do they do with it sorry if what I'm saying makes no sense and trying to do this well working on things
Are you asking about what does the party do with the character that was played by the now expelled player? The answer: Depends on the party. If there are enough players, then the DM can just say "Character decided to no longer travel with the group." If they need the character to fulfill an important role (there are only 2 or 3 players and the character was the only one with healing magic) then the character can become a NPC that travels with the party until a new player can join.
Here's the thing about rolling "checks" like these. Homebrew or not. A 20 means the BEST possible result. A 1 means the WORST possible result. So a dumb lie like this.. even if it's a 20+10-3 ...Would still have the best out come being: "Someone believes him being abit too drunk, but the rest don't believe it." You can be the best preformer in the world... but if it's too ridiclous...People won't buy it. The best outcome here wouldnt been arrested. The homebrew rule is a good middle ground.... but overall just consider the fact here: "If you jump off a cliff to reach the other side of a large canyon the size of the grand canyon." A dex throw of 20 (Nat 20 ) will get you very far, but you will still plummet to your death. Cause there is no way without magic or divine help you can make it. This is why you always gauge the jumping distance... Or in this case with the lie.. CHECK THE FACTS YOU KNOW! He was trying to jump the cliff, but he could have made an easy lie going with: "I believe the queen might be misguided and wish to see her, killing upon killing would only mean more innocents die" Wich would concide with his other lie. Suddenly his cliff jump becomes a "Normal jump across a puddle"
Just have to say.. the diplomacy rule is barely even "homebrew". RAW, Rolling a Nat 20 on a persuasion/deception (Skill check) is not an automatic success. Nat 20s on skill checks as a automatic success = homebrew rule. Increasing or Decreasing the persuasion/deception DC based on what's being said is... just good DMing.
Wait? Why Homebrew something that doesn't need it? When +3 and -3 when Advantage and Disadvantage are there to represent exactly what the DM wants? I just don't get it.
While the player was bad , so was the rule as it punishes people who are bad at lying convincing in real life , your 20 Charisma could make up a lie hundreds of times better then you likely could. So it's just better to come up with a static DC in mind rather then make dynamic based on the player themselves says.
My game is PRETTY heavy on role play. We almost don't roll dice for persuation and such. The DM makes the call if what we said is believable and proceeds as such.
Self insert time *when the thief leaps and and claims to be the son my monk leaps out and says* liar I am the long lost brother of the queen Foul magics modified her memory as our mother and father sent me away to a monastery for they were ashamed and I have come back to tell my sister I forgive our parents." (And that is how you do a almost convincing lie lol))
this is a bit confusing to me, i can't be the only one changing the DC depending on how good the lie is, right? seemed fairly obvious to me when i started DMing
Though 5e doesn't have a rule like this, I'm fairly certain that there's actually an official Pathfinder rule somewhere along these lines, and that it's a -5 there for spouting blatant nonsense.
Or... in Pathfinder 2e... ". . . The GM might give them a circumstance bonus based on the situation and the nature of the lie you are trying to tell. . . . some lies are so big that it's impossible to get anyone to believe them. At GM discretion, if a creature initially believes your lie, it might attempt a Perception check to Sense Motive against your Deception DC to realize it's a lie. This usually happens if the creature discovers enough evidence to counter your statements." Also, when rolling a failure "the target doesn't believe in your lie and gains a +4 circumstance bonus against your attempts to to Lie for the duration of the conversation. The target is more likely to be suspicious of you in the future (implies an increase of difficulty)." Wow... he was trying to convince the guard's he's the son of the queen... and he rolled a 12... with bonuses, making it a 15. A DC 10 represents something than an average person can do, in a rush, with 50% chance of success. Example of a DC 10 deception check "Yes mom! I did my homework before hoping onto discord to play D&D!" Example of a DC 15 deception check "Sorry, I completely forgot I had math homework. That's why I didn't do it before hoping on Discord!" Holy Tomanak! He accused the DM of making the rule so that the DM could cherry pick what is reasonable or not... Like... that's the _sole_ job the DM must be able to do. *Sigh* Otherwise, the players would roll poorly and say "I rolled a 8, with my -2 Cha, that's a 6. I successfully convince the Rogue he's a worm and he should wiggle on the floor!" That's the level of argument That Guy was making. :/
So they homebrewed a rule to overcome a homebrewed rule. Nat 20s only count in combat and if a NPC wouldn't believe you then they wouldn't believe you and the DM shouldn't ask for roll. But yes RAW Nat 20s outside of attacks don't countas crits.
I thought that was kinda the normal rule already? Like, if the lie is outrageous then the DC would be incredibly high because it is unlikely to succeed. But if the lie it believable then the DC would be lower cause they would be more likely to believe it. Maybe I’ve just been doing it “wrong” lol
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but is this really a homebrew? DCs are set by the difficulty of what you're trying to achieve and if your lie is shit that means the task is harder and has a higher DC
That homebrew rule is actually good to use in a heavy role playing game and makes you think outside the box
Yeah I kind of do the same thing as DM except I adjust the DC of diplomacy checks for good/bad roleplay. Everyone is aware I do this, and it usually helps people actually *think* when they're trying to solve a problem
In my games I want all persuasions and lies to be said out loud. I just think it's really lame to go "Ok I lie to get past the guards, Ok I rolled a 24, they now believe me"
I don't expect magnificently-crafted lies or breathtaking speeches, but I do expect you to come up with *something* convincing.
Yes, you are probably not as charismatic as your Sorcerer is, just as the Barbarian probably can't bench 500 pounds, but that's what the stat is there to compensate for. Maybe your character's body language and mannerisms make up for the lie, or maybe their choices of words are subtly different in-game, but the meaning of your words are your own.
And the most fun part is that the more you do it, the better you get. So eventually you'll get good at coming up with lies on the spot or reading a character to tailor persuasion for them.
@@ToxicSunrise132 I mean isnt that kind of normal? Skill checks aren't automatic successes on nat20s and if ur trying to make someone believe the blue sky is red then firstly, a fact the npc can check himself to be clearly false is not even worth a role.
Secondly if he cant cause hes indoors then that should be a dc25 or higher at the minimum.
This is an interesting homebrew rule. The way I've always understood it, though, is that there's a difference between persuading someone that you are not lying and persuading someone that you are telling The Truth. If you roll a nat 20 on a claim that the sky is green, *they will believe that you believe that.* They might think you're color-blind, or that you're delusional, but they won't automatically believe that you're correct about something absurd.
That's actually fantastic and a hilarious way to punish the players for trying to do something stupid
If they're inside or smth they might believe the sky has turned green, at least until they see the sky still blue
Ok, two things: For starters, you don't need any homebrew rules to avoid situations where you convince someone that "the sky is green" or some stuff like that. The rules as they are already take into account the fact that you set out DCs. You can't lift an entire mountain with a Natural 20 even if you have + 17 in Athletics (which, btw, possible to have +17 in a skill: +6 proficiency, doubled with some kind of Expertise, and +5 for a 20 in Strength). You can't spot a fly that his hundreds of miles away with a Natural 20 in Perception. You can't stealth pass a bunch of guards literally guarding the front door and open said door even with a Natural 20 in Stealth. And you can't convince someone with working eyes that the sky is green with a Natural 20 in Deception. So, first of all, no need to homebrew this, the rulebook already takes into account that Nat 20 don't allow for impossible stuff.
Secondly, even with normal rules, a simple 12 in Deception would OBVIOUSLY not work because, like they said in the story, she would know how many children she had in her life, and if there's nothing in her backstory that states she once lost a child, then that lie is pretty much impossible to believe! MAYBE a Natural 20 and a +5 could convince the guards themselves (I could see myself set a Very Hard DC of 25 for the guards themselves; they are not the queen, and a high Deception roll could make them believe that the queen once had a secret child she never told anyone about), but the queen herself would know, and the thief here would eventually have to convince her, and the DC for her would obviously be 40 or above!!!
Exactly, this isn't a homebrew rule, it's RAW (rules as written) that only attack rolls can crit, at best if you roll a 20 I might give you the best outcome of you doing it, even though you still fail... like, if you try to convince the king to give you his kingdom and you roll a 20, he'll just laugh and comment how amusing you are, instead of throwing you in the dungeon.
depends on what edition they are playing. 5e has some really solid standardizing for variable difficulty, but that was created specifically to solve problems from older editions.
A LOT of groups had home-brew fixes (or at the very least, limitations) for social skills in 3.5 because the rules as written were too vague.
"That's a twelve!"
So? If I was the DM and someone was trying to convince people he was a long lost prince with no evidence I'd put the DC way higher than twelve. In fact, rarely do I have DCs lower than 13 for anything meaningful unless my players put forth a good argument before rolling.
Or you can just say no as the queen would know if she had given birth. Skills aren't magical and can't change reality or the past, no matter what is rolled.
@@craigtucker1290 a d that’s the part of it that made no sense for it to be a believable lie. The simple fact that the bbeg was a woman and would know about her lost child already and so would her guard’s
@@Allantitan In theory memory altering magic could cause it but would likely need to be on such a scale it would take 1 or more archmages... unless you have a cabal of mind fucking memory mages, it is pretty hard to imagine.
@@ryanpiercy3390 well that opens the question of how you would convince that many mages to do it
@@Allantitan why do you think it remains unbelievable?
The DM was 100% correct in kicking the thief from the game, and the thief expecting such an outrageous, obvious lie to succeed on even a natural 20 is silly. I certainly wouldn’t have any NPCs in any campaign I ran believe such a thing unless the queen actually had lost a son that was the correct age to be the thief, and even then he would have to roll better than a 9 or even a 12. Part of running a good campaign is maintaining verisimilitude, and there’s few ways to better break immersion than having NPCs act unnaturally, and falling for such a lie would be unnatural except for the most stupid NPCs.
Problem is, there are actually idiots who believe a natural 20 is an automatic success on ANYTHING. As though it's basically a wish spell and whatever you say happens because you happened to roll a 20.
@@webhead4414 Unfortunately, there are people who believe their characters can jump to the moon on a natural 20. I would simply tell them no, but if they pushed the issue I’d tell them their character dies in the vacuum of space, gets eaten by a space dragon, and tell them not to bother writing a replacement character. Of course, none of my regular gaming group would ever do such a thing, so the whole thing is theoretical for me at least, but if it did, they’d certainly back me up if a newcomer happened to act like that, especially since they all also GM/DM as we all rotate campaigns, and wouldn’t put up with that nonsense either.
The problem is, that even if they were successful and rolled like a nat 20 with the +3 modifier to make the guards totally believe the story... The story isn't gonna hold up when they immediately try to reunite the lost son to the Queen. They'd basically be closer to getting killed than their first party member that got captured.
@@williamfalls Yeah, it wouldn’t go well when the queen says “My oldest son is 9 and he’s standing over there!”, “Son? All I have are daughters and the oldest one is only 7!”, or “Son? I’ve never been pregnant, and I certainly haven’t adopted any sons, especially one’s near my own age!” Honestly, what was he even thinking?
@@EyeOfMagnus4E201
He wasn't.
And he was an entitled, narcissistic fucktard.
I know that a lot of people tend to avoid confrontation (and in many of these dnd horror stories going to great lenghts to not fight anyone) but its pretty nice to see a gm that calls bullshit on a bad player´s behaviour and just show him the door after seeing that being diplomatic was not going to lead anywhere.
My rule is you CAN roll deception without saying anything, but if you say something you can get advantage or disadvantage based on how much the DM thinks it would convince the NPC.
Recently I was playing in a party that snuck into a cultist lair. We all had uniforms identical to the cultists and one of the party members tried to save some innocents and a fight started. The other party members got out weapons to fight the cultists. My character, decided to use deception to make it seem like I wasn't part of the heroes. I didn't need to speak or anything, just take out a weapon facing the party. I was able to use deception to get in a good position to stand close enough to the enemy leader to attack with advantage.
The only problem I have with giving advantage/disadvantage based on that, is that adv/disadv cannot stack, so that makes any player abilities that would give advantage (i.e. charm spells) less valuable. Personally, I'd adjust the DC based on the argument, thus allowing any other sources of adv/disadv to have their normal effect.
This is really just a general problem with adv/disadv as a system, though.
@@EmilyGamerGirl Yeah. I thought it would encourage rp. But it just discourages or encourages charm spells.
@@SuperBatSpider I mean...you could house rule in super advantage where you roll 3 times.
@@bradleymoore2797 I didn’t think of that
A natural 20 on a deception check that the sky is green would at most convince the NPC that you sincerely believe the sky is green
Rude rule lawyer who doesn't get why a group doesn't want him there after he causes trouble and insults them. He really needs a reality check, sadly it sounds like his bullheadedness is higher than most rolls to make that check.
Charisma isn’t mind control. This seems like the way DMs should adjudicate charisma checks.
It is actually how one is supposed to play the game properly regarding mundane skills as our reality forms the basis of what is possible and what is not.
I imagine its a DM who didn't fully read the DMG and all the horror/rule of cool stories stem from it. Can even skip the *1 page* on Social Encounters and go to the chart, Conversation Reactions, on page 245 if too lazy.
This is something I always explain to my groups, and it seems a lot of people don't understand. Being a good liar doesn't automatically mean people will believe whatever you say. Being persuasive doesn't mean people will do whatever you want them to. Much like the home rules given in the story, I ask for what people are saying when they try to persuade of deceive an NPC and modify the DC according to how likely it seems that they would think it believable. And some cases I just don't allow the roll at all, or declare it's an automatic failure. You can't make someone go against their own interests. A guard isn't going to let someone just go into a restricted area, no matter what a player rolls to bluff. They are literally being paid to keep people out. Now if the players can come up with a reasonable other excuse, preferably with documentation to back up the lie, it may be possible. But just rolling up and saying 'Oh yeah.. I'm totally supposed to be allowed into the vault you've been ordered to keep everyone out of, isn't going to fly.'
The same thing goes with seduction and rolls. Yeah, the horny bard is a funny meme, but I don't care how high you roll, the dragon or evil overlord, or ruler of a kingdom is not just going to fall madly for the player, no matter what you roll. Even if they are normally attracted to someone of the player's race or gender. And even if you succeed in one roll, that wouldn't mean you immediately move to jumping in bed most of the time. You don't decide combat based on one roll. You wouldn't reduce a major heist adventure into a single stealth check. Why do you think you would go from "I want to see you dead" to "I want to have your children" with one roll? Even the DMG has social interaction rules that say it doesn't work like that.
Some people even oversell the idea of Charm magic as well. "I cast charm person on the guard, and they failed their save, so I tell them to let us into the restricted area." Um, no. That's not what that spell does. It just means that the charmed target sees you as a friend. If you were a bank guard and a friend walked up to you and said "Hey, mind if I slip into that vault there and fill up these sacks with money?" you'd rightly tell them to beat it. It also doesn't make them see their allies as now enemies, so telling your 'new friend' to fight his old friends is probably not going over so well. You need much higher level magic, like Dominate Person for those.
@@nekoali2 Wisely stated and actually how the game is supposed to be played. Skills and nonmagical abilities were never supposed to be a replacement for magical abilities.
However, those stories where the DM allows charm, persuasion, and seduction to go overboard end up being those ridiculous stories we all just 🙄 at.
@@nekoali2 You could totally get a guard to let you into a restricted area with a good roll 🤦♂️
Its in the DMG under Social Interactions and frankly trying to get into a restricted area with a persuasion check is not even near the ballpark of seducing the dragon.
Im curious what the hell you'd actually allow a charisma check to change.
I actually secretly do this in the background most of the time anyway. I decide right there on the spot as the player is making their argument or trying to deceive an NPC what the DC will be based on what they say. If it sounds legit convincing, the DC drops, if it sounds stupid, the DC raises.
Also, even a nat 20 doesn't mean you automatically succeed on something. Instead, you get the best POSSIBLE outcome. If you walk up to a king for example, tell him he is a bad ruler and that he should step down and give you the crown and roll a nat 20, he isn't going to do just that. He may instead assume you are joking, think you are hilarious and offer you a job as a court jester.
Or an advisor if he's feeling especially generous? XD
@@willparry530 Perhaps, it'll just result in the best possible result. In other words, you won't get ordered to be executed on the spot or thrown in the dungeon for treason like you would for a lower roll.
@@Zarkonem Aye, my comment was more tongue in cheek than anything. It would have to be a very, very self-aware king to think of offering someone like that an advisorship. XD
@@willparry530 I daresay the self-aware king might think about the character's criticism and possibly pitch the point to his actual advisors to check whether there are improvements to be made, but not offer the character an advisor position, since a guy who expects you to just give him the crown is clearly insane ;-)
@@chrisrudolf9839 True that, lol. Or bold. :P
You're not a coward for giving someone the benefit of the doubt. The DM was right to expel the player, but don't pretend that it was brave when it was so obviously sensible.
That "What you say affects your roll" is a very VERY common mod for 'talk skill' rolls I've seen many DMs use, myself included. Problem player was just extremely stupid and pointlessly prideful.
Yeah I personally think most people just do it on the back end with adjusting the DC of rolls as opposed to doing it on the front end with bonus/penalty. I actually like the bonus/penalty system for its transparency better than adjusting the DC behind the screen
I’m new to actually play, haven’t even gotten in a group yet, but reading the starting kit book it has one line of text that says it all ‘There is no winning or losing in D&D, there is only the DM and players working together to create a adventure’ to me that is the only firm rule. The others are needed to create a structure, but if others agree, and you yourself agree and stay, then it should be all good.
That is the basic principal of most if not all TTRPGs. Those "rules" are a baseline to work with mechanics so all members of the group can get an idea of what should/would happen, but if a group really wanted to they could strip it down that one firm rule and play how most Text RPs usually go.
@@truekurayami Yeah. My group doesn't play with any of the 'squares'. We describe what we want to do and then if it makes sense, we do it. We still roll for attack and etc, but our characters movement and the movement of enemies is just described mostly. It's a very strong rp style dnd for us.
@@bradleymoore2797 That sounds pretty interesting, though with the RP I'm working on, I would love to watch someone fumble through a campaign with the mechanics we figured would be attached to one of my characters. I will be honest he is utterly broken and we even broke that because his sheet would either be negative infinity or positive infinity for his stats depending on how a coin toss went for anything he tries to do.
I thought that rule existed as a variable DC. Convincing somebody the sky is green, especially as a Goliath talking to a gnome looking up at him outside, should be impossible. But convincing them of a forged letter is easier, especially if the player who made it has calligraphy.
My DM rarely rolls for persuasion or deception, since we are good talkers and explainers. We have rolled, however, a couple times against a paranoid NPC who didn’t trust anybody easy.
I don't think there is a concrete rule for that in the official content
Yeah IDK why DM's get themselves into these types of situations, enough to where they need homebrew rules. Just *raise the dc* if it seems like something a rational person wouldn't believe.
@@GusJenkinsElite They might be doing it against passive insight or an insight roll
So the DC is determined by the targets stats. This would explain why they have that homebrew rule
How would a DM handle rolling Persuasion checks anyway?
@@unwithering5313 Persuasion and Deception, as my DM is doing it, is attempting to change the mind of a NPC who isn’t buying it.
We once found a city under siege, and half the party had issues with the siegers. So we rolled Stealth to go around the checkpoint. Or would have if we didn’t have Invisibility and flight.
After that session, the DM told us that if we were caught, he had plans for us to interact with the siegers, and it would have taken several persuasion or deception rolls in order to talk our way to safety. Luckily, I already had an argument prepared that should have made it easier to convince him.
A rule a friend of mine has is "I'm having you roll to see how badly you're punished" when it comes to lies and persuasive talk, that makes no sense. Basically, her idea is that no king would give his crown away for free, to a random bard, even on a nat 20.
I wonder why the king would never give his crown away :P
I've seen How a Realist Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom, and anime proves her wrong. ( ͡❛ ‿‿ ͡❛)
So he screwed over the party, ignored everything he had been told including berating his relation?
Oh boy!
Number one sign that the DM is a great person is that brief consideration "Maybe the problem isn't with him, but with us." Mad respect for not assuming you are always right, even when you are.
I've always told my players, just because you roll a nat 20 doesn't mean you automatically succeed in whatever you're doing. It just means that you get the best POSSIBLE outcome.
indeed
In the official rules there is no critical success for skill checks (wide spread error) and it is up to the DM to set the DC for any check. So convincing someone with a bad lie should be near impossible, so like DC30. I think this homebrew rule is closer to the actual rules than one may think.
Yup, unless it's combat a nat 1 or a nat 20 aren't a critical anything, if they were it would mean you always had a 5% chance of doing the impossible or a 5% chance of failing at something basic in a spectacular way.
Like there shouldn't be a 5% chance that I could walk up to a king and perform a single persuasion check with no prep that I"M the king now,
and there shouldn't be a 5% chance that if i'm accused of a crime I didn't commit that I somehow fail so spectacularly at it that not only do I insult the guard that came to arrest me but I also admitted to the crime.
@@Nyghtking yeah
Tip for anyone wondering if you're doing something "wrong" by homebrewing or ignoring rules:
Are you having fun?
Is everyone* at the table having fun?
If yes, you're all good.
*If one person is not, talk to them. If changing it to be different to make them have more fun would sabotage the fun of the rest of the group, come to terms with the fact that maybe that game is not for that person.
I believe the DM and party were in the right while the cousin was defiantly in the wrong. If he had such an issue with the rule, he shouldn't have agreed to it. Also, in context to his lie, there was absolutely no way he could trick those guards even with a successful roll. It's simply impossible. Well, unless of course magic was involved to cover up the "prince's disappearance". Still, his lie would defiantly not fool anyone.
I actually agree with the homebrew rule on deception. If you're gonna try to lie to someone, you gotta at least come up with a believable lie. Depending on the quality of the lie, that should effect the actual worth of the roll. After all, If I was trying convince someone that fire is wet and rocks are soft, I should defiantly have a massive disadvantage on my roll. It's a lot more believable.
That's actually a better rule, I think. If a lie's unbelievable, the player should roll with disadvantage.
@@lunavarion Agreed
I remember my two shots of Diplomacy, which went really well.
You see, I was playing as a Variant Human Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer with the Noble background in a spin-off to LMoP. The group was at the tavern, and my character compared the beer to piss. Barkeeper not happy at this - luckily the other player characters, Half-Orc War Cleric and Variant Human Eldritch Knight(level 3) (not to mention hidden Level 1 Goblin Rogue - we'd adopted Droop) convince him that my guy was dealing with the effects of the road. During this, we spot a street urchin steeling bottles, and decided to follow the kid (first thing of crime we'd seen - there was something very odd about this city we were in). However, a distraction was needed, and my guy volunteered for the job.
My Distraction - Walk up to the barkeeper, and apologize to him for my earlier rudeness, citing the many issues on the road - goblins, bandits, undead, a dragon - and that it makes one temporarily forget their manners.
DM has me roll for Persuasion.
17. Add 5 for my Charisma Modifier and Proficiency bonus, making the total 22.
Bartender: Well, its good to see folks acknowledge when they've made a mistake. Apology accepted.
My guy then rents a room for the party.
Meanwhile, the other three follow the kid, find him, find out what's going on - corrupt Lord making things difficult basically. Then they have to hide from Guards.
Soon enough, my guy finishes with the barkeeper, heads out to look for my party. Hear a whispered "Over Here!" by a party member in alley. Head that way, only to get stopped by patrol (5 guards).
Head Guard: What are you doing?
My Guy: Heading into the alley.
H.G.: Why?
M.G.: (In real life, I'd just finished drinking 1.5L of Mountain Dew) To take a piss! (Cue the laughs from everyone at the real-life table.)
GH..: In Public?
M.G.: No, in the alley!
H.G.: Which is in Public!
M.G.: No! In the Alley!
H.G. (and other guards): (Insight Check - 4 low, 1 high) Drunken idiot - there's a bathroom in the tavern!
M.G.: Oh! Thanks! (Head back to inn).
H.G.: What is this world coming to? Back to the patrol.
They never did look down that alley - they should have - party overthrew the corrupt lord the next session.
I find it so annoying how the thief player try to ruin his cousin's fun by lying about how the game she was playing was r rated. 😒
Luckily he was a bad at lying in real life as he was in the game.
In my campaigns when it comes to persuasion and deception, i always hear out the player first. Not everyone is a gifted roleplayer or liar, but if what they explain they want to do makes sense, i may just let them have it.
But when it comes to outlandish lies like that, i’d have them roll. The way i decide a dc is to start out at 10, raise or lower based on how much or little evidence you have (max 5), how convincing your lie is (max 10), and your charisma modifier.
So for le theif, i’d say 10 + 3 for lack of evidence besides the poisoned wine, +8 for a really hard to swallow lie, and - 3(?) cause charisma.
So roll above a dc 18.
Also second rule: the rule of cool. Anything goes if its cool enough, but likewise uncool is not okay. So i’d still punish him for mucking up the party’s plan and upsetting his cousin.
5e's persuasion rules (pg 244-245 DMG) are pretty similar to this, first the players tell the dm what they are saying, then the dm determines the npc's attitude toward the party and what the dc for the roll will be depending on what the players said, Rogue has no idea what hes talking about, besides what's in the books is mote anyway cause they had all agreed on how to handle things before hand HIM INCLUDED
For some folks there's only one way to do something, be it tie their shoes, drive to the store or play a game. These people find it hard to change something they know and that works for something unfamiliar. Too bad- those folks usually miss out on a lot of interesting things.
I like when players think creatively. I’ve never really taken points away, but I will often give anywhere from a +1 to +3 depending on how well they prepare before making any type of skill check to encourage explaining how they go about it as opposed to just “I climb down and sneak to the doorway” “ok make a check”. It makes for memorable rp and gives them a sense of accomplishment for thinking ahead or fast on the fly.
We had a kind of homebrew rule that was even more tailored towards actual storytelling roleplay instead of just dicebattle for diplomacy and deception. Such scenes were always fully played out at our table, so there was no "I roll diplomacy to make the guard let me pass", you had to tell the DM in detail what you intended to say. After you told him, the DM then decided the DC of the roll based on how convincing you sold your point and you rolled. If the DM judged that what you said was completely plausible and was something your character could have easily delivered that way, you didn't even have to roll, you'd get a straight up success. If it was fairly plausible, but maybe a bit suspicious or badly presented, then you had to roll to see how well your character would present that story, with an easy DC. If it was a tall tale, but there was a chance that person would buy it if the character was a really convincing actor (or if the player presented it really clumsily, but his character was maybe a better speaker than the player), then you'd roll against a high DC. If what you presented was complete bullshit, contradicted confirmed better knowledge of the NPC or simply wasn't suitable to sway that NPC at all, you automatically failed. (And needless to say, claiming to be the long lost son of a queen who was only few years older and - as far as public knowledge goes - has never been pregnant would be an automatic fail)
One could argue that this isn't even a houserule, since the DM is the one who sets the DC of an attempt at diplomacy and it would be kinda weird to set that DC on an abstract level without taking into regard what the character was actually going to say (unless you go full dice war no roleplay and just let the player roll without telling what his character would say, meaning that his high diplomacy roll causes the character to find the perfect lie or argument to convince the NPC).
I always just assumed this was how things were, I mean if someone wants to be descriptive in what they're doing of course that would effect a role. Like I had a session where the players had to get across a 6 foot gap in a hallway, a couple players had already found a safe way across but the other 2 players had to just cross the gap(a fall would have been a problem but since the 2 other players were across the gap there was a "safety net", as long as the roll was at least 5 below the dc they'd be safe just that they needed help). 1 player wanted to try wall run and the other just decided to jump it, I gave the wall run an 18 dc and the jump a 15 with both being athletics (they both had a running start), both trying to do basically the same thing but they went about it differently so the dcs would be different.
Honestly, that rule is just upping or lowering the DC based on the lie. It's what DMs do all the time. The DC I would've set for this was 25. It's unbelievable, full of coincidences, and goes against the guards previous beliefs. If a random lie starts out at DC10, the inconsistencies give the DC a +15.
Even theoretically "unfair" rules that are agreed to at the start are fair game for the sessions until they become a problem. At that point you bring it up after or between sessions
I've seen roll with advantage or disadvantage based on the argument the PC was trying to make for persuasion or deception, , but +/- 3 seems like a decent rule as well, especially if they're free to discuss the ruling.
+3/-3 is pretty close to what advantage/disadvantage does on average anyway. (on an average, single d20 roll, advantage is worth about +3.5 and disadvantage is worth about -3.5).
that's a wonderful homebrew rule and that can help or hinder a player with their own words to blame. The stick in the mud with the same stick stuck somewhere uncomfortable needs not be playing if they are going to be a but.
I don't know how many times I said to myself some variation of the phrase "What a nut sack" while listening to this.
The only thing worse than a pretentious rules lawyer is a pretentious rules lawyer that doesn't understand the rules they are playing with.
Nothing gets under my skin worse then halting a session for 5-10+ minutes arguing something that didn't even matter. The roll failed regardless of the modifier and hung onto the strawman argument of rigged rules just because he had no leg to stand on being mad.
At the very least get over it and bring it up after the game instead of being a brat.
I would say since the thief is no longer part of the group because of his own stupidity.
Use his own half ass lie, along with the justification made by the DM along with a magic enchantment placed on him. And you got yourself a brand new bodyguard for the BBEG.
Whether he is legitimately her kid or that’s what she’s made him think he is. She can now have a lawyer meat shield she can use to escape.
Even without the house rules for deception, a twelve isn't exactly a guaranteed success. And even a natural twenty on Deception wouldn't make them automatically believe the queen apparently gave birth in preschool then lost the baby somewhere. Sounds mighty sus. Doesn't take a high insight to see through that one.
EDIT: Then again, since the dice are meant to be a numerical representation of the lie being told, rather than a gauge on the gullibility of the dupe, a natural twenty would mean his character came up with a MUCH better lie than that. So him rolling a 12 (read: 9) on that implausible fabrication was actually somewhat appropriate.
Depending on the edition, nat 20s don’t mean anything except for combat rules. Because critting skill checks to automatically succeed doesn’t make sense. Let your skill modifiers determine the floor and ceiling of what you can accomplish.
We had a Champion's campaign (modern day superheroes) where the players had to sneak into a villain's high tech base. They got caught and came up with the dumbest lie on the spot - they were the cleaning crew and needed to get to the top floor to do their jobs. The guards critically failed their INT checks so the players were allowed to just walk through the base without any fighting. We were all laughing our heads off as the players in question hammed it up while the DM just kept shaking his head in disbelief. They got all the way up to the main bad guy who then turned around from the console and said, "I'm going to kill you then all the idiots who let you in." The villain been watching the entire thing on CCTV. Moral of the story - sometimes it's more fun to let players get away with terrible plans.
0:50 "WHERE'S THE MOUNTAIN DEW!?"
"IN THE FRIDGE! DUH!"
Clearly he is a very bad (problematic) player. I am glad to hear that the dm was apprehensive with his actions just to be sure that his group was not overreacting to a new player.
It wasn't cowardly, just indecisive. And everyone should be like that at first, I have played with some people that go off the handle at the meer mention of something they don't agree with. If the same issues crop up 2 more times or so then there is no more need to stay your hand.
Having tried Magic Spoon, I never thought people could enjoy cardboard bits so much...
lol
Pay me enough and I will eat cardboard and claim to enjoy it. Still won't sell Raid Shadow Legends though.
even if that was the actual rule and they decided to go the other way with it it would not matter cause everyone agreed to it from the start. its one thing to talk about how you don't like the rule its another to be a PoS
ill be honest - i wouldnt even call that rule homebrew... the DM/GM sets the DC for the check... if the argument is plausible, it makes sense to lower the DC and if its outlandish, it raises the DC
what that group did is basically have a quick reference for an agreed upon modifier to persuasion DCs based on the RP
and its nice that it motivates good roleplaying =)
you folks handled that as best as you could and im pretty sure you are better off playing without that thief
Agreed
"I am a god. Worship me and sacrifice cocktail pickles to me!" Dice are rolled. "Twelve. I graciously accept their adoration."
I think it's a good rule and they were the problem. Even if it wasn't a good rule, everyone had agreed to it and sounds like they had ample time to say something beforehand. If thief was that against it, he should have just said something and asked to discuss it as a group. Emphasis on discuss and not fight and sling insults. If he raised proper arguments, perhaps they would have adjusted the rules to better reflect their game.
my rule for this is if it is a convincing lie you get advantage on the roll. If it is something stupid you get disadvantage. Same goes for persuasion, they trust you and its reasonable advantage. It's ridiculous request or they don't really like you, disadvantage. Dice rolls are for chance factor, not for breaking the game.
"when rolling deception you have to convince dm too"
"When rolling athletics you have to run a marathon in full military gear"
Nat 1s and nat 20s are (according to the rules) only automatic successes or failures if it's an attack roll. They are just normal numbers for ability checks. So, a rogue can roll a nat 1 on stealth, but still go undetected, due to their typical massive modifiers and bonuses.
"turns out he was always shit at lying" lol
The rule I like to use for rolling deception/bluff is I do the roll first, THEN say the lie. If I get a 20, it's something perfectly simple and believable. 1? I point at a random inanimate object and say "He did it." In between, it might sound a little odd but be passable if they don't look at it too closely.
Rule #0: fun comes first, all other rules are a guide to work around.
Reminds me of a gaming session where, purely for laughs, we told a fellow pc the truth but used our worst cards (it was a card based rpg) so he believed we were all lying and he was doomed. The whole party had a good laugh, especially when I dropped a one pt card for the final question.
"He said he had made a perfect lie"
Me: *Punches through screen*
“You’re doing it wrong!” Is something someone who knows “real D&D” would never say, as every edition has had the (paraphrasing here) “DM can houserule any of this” bit in the books.
What a F-ing nightmare... the minute he went against the party like that.... warlock shoots 2 eldrish blast at the guard and makes it look like rogue did it.
Moral of story.
This is a team game. This game is not about you.
Also don't try to oversell a lie when you have little knowledge of those associated with it, else things may turn sour.
Alternative title: "Player finds out that the DM can in fact decide whether or not something is believable, regardless of how what they roll."
Yeah OP and their group are fine, play however you guys want to play. Thief is just a crybaby "neckbeard"
I mean… You can always set the DC after how good the lie is… sure you rolled a Nat 20, DC was 40 though… That’s not even a house rule though, that’s just running the game. You can also, always, just not let a player roll. If what they want to do is literally impossible, this is the correct course of action.
And you don't even need to house rule it...
If it's impossible, don't call for a roll; just declare it's impossible and it fails. Conversely if what they're trying is easy based on their knowledge and abilities, you can just declare it succeeds without calling for a roll.
I find it funny how the person said they were tired and didn't like people rolling a nat 20 and for example saying the sky is green and expecting people to believe them so they created a home brew to fix it. The reason it's funny is because the standard rule in d&d is nat 20's don't count as a critical success for skill checks XD. So many people don't realize that nat 1's and 20's aren't a critical fail/success outside of death saving throws and attack rolls. Most people use the optional home rule as though it's the standard rule. So the whole scenario of this video is based around them creating a home rule to fix the issue they had about the optional rule when they could of just been using the standard rule and the player couldn't complain about the standard rule.
Of course the player is still got what they deserved after how they acted.
I'm commenting because the thumbnail of this video has been sitting on my recommended viewing page since yesterday, and I just can't help but comment: "That's not an angry face"
Hi. Have a good day.
Same to you Martin
@@arsenelupin5424 Thanks for stopping by Arsene.
I hope you have an above average day
@@tylervasquez5001 I do now that you are here. :)
No, you have a good day!
The new art looks great, its nice seeing a different style so if this became the norm I would not be unhappy with that.
the plus or minus should be 5 rather than 3 for convincing Charisma checks, which is mathematically equivalent to rolling with advantage or disadvantage
I'd say that this loser's attitude was due to him being a habitual liar who got away with everything, but even THAT'S not the case. He needs a serious wake up call in the form of a From the Top Rope SMACKDOWN!
If he was a habitual liar, you'd think he'd be better at it.
Turns out, he's a bad liar in real-life too... so that's why he hated the rule lol
Love that rule. Honestly the only question i ask before joining a group is if they follow the rule of funny. Other than that I'm good.
Homebrew rules are totally acceptable, and this one is not some crazy thing, it makes sense (although I would have a higher swing for totally unbelievable/believable lies)
Is this 5th ed? 3.5 had a clear scale that showed that BELIEVABLE lies could succeed, but convincing someone to believe something that they had evidence to refute was practically impossible. Then, ya know, there's magic that can do that
It did? Nice
I like the new artwork. Looks great. 👍
I feel like even an nat 20 shouldn't convince an NPC of something impossible or incredibly far fetched with no evidence.
Although there are some funny dnd skits on TH-cam about characters using insane roles to get crazy lies, in both cases i know involved convincing guards that they were the killer instead of the player, but I im sure in actual games this homebrew would probably be better.
The way social checks should work, you say what you say, the DM decides, based on what you say, the DC. If the NPC involves would find it logical and convincing, it would be a lower roll, if it would find it impossible, it would be high, even impossibly high. And even if successful, it does not mean that the NPC would believe it, it may just mean that the NPC would act favourably to you
I just tell my players that everything they do can work in reverse. So if they want outrageous charisma checks to work, they need to be okay with outrageous charisma checks to work on them too!
Simple situation there, thief is run on the sword of the guards and brutally quartered in the morning. Next
DMs can’t cheat, if your competing with your DM either they are an asshole or you are
The whole point of a dc is to do that e.g convincing someone the sky is green would be like a dc of 35 which is pretty much impossible for most people. Set the dc based of the lie your player tells
If the changed rules are made known to the players and everyone agrees on them before they are used then its fine i think, great even. Dnd rules are sometimes strict, and some campaigns, that have a more realistic setting, or any other lean can benefit a lot for tweaking or straight up changing the rules
i think the homebrew rule is good though i wouldnt make it hard +3 -3 and instead put on more of a scale, i think at the end of the day the rule of fun/ cool should be the number 1 highest rule and if someone has a really good argument i dont care if its even a nat 1, theyll fail successfully
That thumbnail though is top teir
EECH! I don’t like how this background character looks at me. HALF AN HOUR of insulting for changing an ending???? YIRBEL LIVES. ah screw all this
I'm getting uncanny valley from this new art style, something about the faces...
I use a similar variation of this rule in my game as I find silly skill checks that don't make sense as being just another way to derail a good campaign. As I see it, if you're going to convince someone that the sky is falling; you better have magic to make it so either by illusion or mind control. Otherwise, you are just trying to bullshit someone and most would not be so easily fooled. This guy had a good rule and a bad player.
Hey quick question for a a newbie of D&D what does one do with characters like the thief not the players the characters themselves who get themselves in these situations do they just ignore them or disappear or what like when a player gets kicked down what do they do with it sorry if what I'm saying makes no sense and trying to do this well working on things
Are you asking about what does the party do with the character that was played by the now expelled player?
The answer: Depends on the party. If there are enough players, then the DM can just say "Character decided to no longer travel with the group." If they need the character to fulfill an important role (there are only 2 or 3 players and the character was the only one with healing magic) then the character can become a NPC that travels with the party until a new player can join.
Instead of modifying the roll, just modify the D.C.
Also, in R.A.W., crits only work on to-hit rolls, and fumbles aren't a thing.
Here's the thing about rolling "checks" like these. Homebrew or not.
A 20 means the BEST possible result.
A 1 means the WORST possible result.
So a dumb lie like this.. even if it's a 20+10-3 ...Would still have the best out come being:
"Someone believes him being abit too drunk, but the rest don't believe it."
You can be the best preformer in the world... but if it's too ridiclous...People won't buy it. The best outcome here wouldnt been arrested.
The homebrew rule is a good middle ground.... but overall just consider the fact here:
"If you jump off a cliff to reach the other side of a large canyon the size of the grand canyon."
A dex throw of 20 (Nat 20 ) will get you very far, but you will still plummet to your death.
Cause there is no way without magic or divine help you can make it.
This is why you always gauge the jumping distance...
Or in this case with the lie.. CHECK THE FACTS YOU KNOW!
He was trying to jump the cliff, but he could have made an easy lie going with: "I believe the queen might be misguided and wish to see her, killing upon killing would only mean more innocents die"
Wich would concide with his other lie.
Suddenly his cliff jump becomes a "Normal jump across a puddle"
Just have to say.. the diplomacy rule is barely even "homebrew".
RAW, Rolling a Nat 20 on a persuasion/deception (Skill check) is not an automatic success.
Nat 20s on skill checks as a automatic success = homebrew rule.
Increasing or Decreasing the persuasion/deception DC based on what's being said is... just good DMing.
I know I do this a lot, but if y'all like that deception rule, you should play Pathfinder 2e. It's really similar to how it works natively.
Wait? Why Homebrew something that doesn't need it? When +3 and -3 when Advantage and Disadvantage are there to represent exactly what the DM wants? I just don't get it.
While the player was bad , so was the rule as it punishes people who are bad at lying convincing in real life , your 20 Charisma could make up a lie hundreds of times better then you likely could. So it's just better to come up with a static DC in mind rather then make dynamic based on the player themselves says.
My game is PRETTY heavy on role play. We almost don't roll dice for persuation and such.
The DM makes the call if what we said is believable and proceeds as such.
Self insert time *when the thief leaps and and claims to be the son my monk leaps out and says* liar I am the long lost brother of the queen Foul magics modified her memory as our mother and father sent me away to a monastery for they were ashamed and I have come back to tell my sister I forgive our parents." (And that is how you do a almost convincing lie lol))
I actually like the sound of that rule
this is a bit confusing to me, i can't be the only one changing the DC depending on how good the lie is, right? seemed fairly obvious to me when i started DMing
Though 5e doesn't have a rule like this, I'm fairly certain that there's actually an official Pathfinder rule somewhere along these lines, and that it's a -5 there for spouting blatant nonsense.
Or... in Pathfinder 2e...
". . . The GM might give them a circumstance bonus based on the situation and the nature of the lie you are trying to tell. . . . some lies are so big that it's impossible to get anyone to believe them.
At GM discretion, if a creature initially believes your lie, it might attempt a Perception check to Sense Motive against your Deception DC to realize it's a lie. This usually happens if the creature discovers enough evidence to counter your statements."
Also, when rolling a failure "the target doesn't believe in your lie and gains a +4 circumstance bonus against your attempts to to Lie for the duration of the conversation. The target is more likely to be suspicious of you in the future (implies an increase of difficulty)."
Wow... he was trying to convince the guard's he's the son of the queen... and he rolled a 12... with bonuses, making it a 15. A DC 10 represents something than an average person can do, in a rush, with 50% chance of success. Example of a DC 10 deception check "Yes mom! I did my homework before hoping onto discord to play D&D!"
Example of a DC 15 deception check "Sorry, I completely forgot I had math homework. That's why I didn't do it before hoping on Discord!"
Holy Tomanak! He accused the DM of making the rule so that the DM could cherry pick what is reasonable or not... Like... that's the _sole_ job the DM must be able to do. *Sigh* Otherwise, the players would roll poorly and say "I rolled a 8, with my -2 Cha, that's a 6. I successfully convince the Rogue he's a worm and he should wiggle on the floor!"
That's the level of argument That Guy was making. :/
So they homebrewed a rule to overcome a homebrewed rule. Nat 20s only count in combat and if a NPC wouldn't believe you then they wouldn't believe you and the DM shouldn't ask for roll.
But yes RAW Nat 20s outside of attacks don't countas crits.
I thought that was kinda the normal rule already? Like, if the lie is outrageous then the DC would be incredibly high because it is unlikely to succeed. But if the lie it believable then the DC would be lower cause they would be more likely to believe it. Maybe I’ve just been doing it “wrong” lol
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but is this really a homebrew? DCs are set by the difficulty of what you're trying to achieve and if your lie is shit that means the task is harder and has a higher DC
In 5E you set a DC and if it's impossible there's not even a roll. I don't know what exact system they were using.