I was musing on twitter about social conflicts in 5e, and how I think there’s a big disconnect with how they intersect with NPCs and Monsters, and thought I’d bring it to the blog to expand on it. I love twitter, but it’s not great for lengthy musins like this one…
In 5e, social encounters between PCs and NPCs are presented as an opportunity for PCs to use their three main socials skills (Intimidation, Persuasion, and Deception), along with their Charisma attribute. They use their skills against a system that presents NPCs as having three attitude levels toward the PCs: Friendly, Indifferent, and Hostile, and leaves it up to the DM to decide the starting attitude of the NPC or Monster.
It then tells DMs to ask for a CHA check (with an appropriate skill if it applies) against a DC on a table reflecting the NPCs starting attitude. The result of the check determines the NPCs reaction to the conversation or PCs attempt at social interaction with the NPCs.
That’s fine. NPC is Hostile, you roll your CHA check, here’s what happens…
But wait.
Monsters and NPCs have CHA scores of their own. Some even have proficiencies in Intimidation, Persuasion, and Deception skills of their own.
A Bone Devil has a +7 Deception!
A Gladiator NPC has a +5 Intimidation!
Mind Flayer has a +6 Persuasion!
Are you telling me that during a social encounter against these creatures, their stats and skills never come into play if you follow the rules as written? No, they don’t.
In fact, nowhere in 5e does it say how to use these NPC/Monster skills. The rules do not touch them at all when interacting with PCs. I guess you could run a social encounter between two different sets of NPCs, and the players can watch you talk to yourself, but as far as PC vs. NPCs, they never come up.
NPCs are PASSIVE PARTICIPANTS in the Social Interaction rules. The DCs the players roll against are purely subjective and not tied to their CHA or Skill scores or bonuses at all. When I realized this it sort of blew my mind. Why? Because it begs a few questions:
Why include these skills in a stat block at all? D&D Designer Dan Dillon had a good answer on twitter:
And that’s fine. But where is the guidance on that in the DMG? Or in the MM? It doesn’t really exist. I’d argue that any skill presented as a “+6” or whatever is begging to be rolled on. Why? Because the rules say as much. Especially if you are a new DM opening the books for the first time. Players expect to roll the dice in the game, and to use the available parts of a monster stat block.
Why not have these numbers be a mechanical part of the social conflict rules? Surely the DC the players roll against can be impacted by these Skill bonuses, can’t they? They don’t!
As experienced DMs, it’s easy to come up with ways to account for and use the NPC/Monster skills in our games. They can serve as guides for dictating the Starting Attitude. They can be used in Contests vs. the PCs, they can be used in all sorts of ways–but those ways are basically trying to patch the hole that the social mechanics have built into them, which is that as written, monster skills and stats don’t matter in social interactions as presented to DMs in the DMG.
As an aside… the “Contests” section of the PHB has two examples of possible PC vs. NPC contests, but interestingly, they are both physical in nature, not social:
Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen to the floor. This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal—for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.
So if you are a new player and see this example, combined with the DMG’s social conflict rules, you might be right in wondering why certain monsters and NPCs have CHA skills at all–when they never come into play!
I feel there are design spaces here waiting to be explored for social interactions. I need to give it more thought, more to come on this!
If you’d like to support the work I do on my blog or twitter, perhaps you’d consider supporting me on Patreon. I’m only asking for $1, and I’m doing it for a good cause, so go ahead and visit for more details.
You can also support my work by visiting Amazon.com for your next rpg related purchase. All links to Amazon in this article are linked to my Amazon Associates account.
If you’d like, also check out the following D&D products:
Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft
Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything
www. Newbie DM .com 
ronarscorruption
June 3, 2021
This is a great point. RAW also doesn’t leave any real room to account for the idea that different creatures and characters might not have the same DC to influcence. A CR 10 inquisitor whose job is about spotting lies, and a CR 10 troll champion who is the best at eating stuff requires exactly the same DC to defeat.
DDOCentral
June 3, 2021
Reblogged this on DDOCentral.
alphastream
June 3, 2021
I think the Social Interaction rules in the DMG are really looking at a big group situation and a more mundane scenario. It’s a bunch of guards, or merchants, or a band of goblins. You determine their starting attitude, have an opportunity to pick up some info, then make a check to sway them. Tasha’s adds some additional rules if you want to learn what the group wants and please them that way. The concept here works well for things like convincing the goblins to let you pass without a fight, or talking the merchants into not telling the constable you were here, or having the guards forgive that you are out after curfew. In these situations, it’s a more general check you are making to placate someone, without taking into account the creatures, because, I think, the idea is that you are rolling against the situation. The determining factor is the attitude, not the creature, and you are trying to change the attitude. If you want to factor in the monster, you could as a house rule add their bonus to the skill to the DC.
newbiedm
June 3, 2021
And I’d be fine with that if the game were clearer about that. But as it is, the “social interaction” pillar is a bit underdeveloped, IMO.
alphastream
June 3, 2021
A separate question is around how monsters use skills, and I think you are specifically asking about skills like Persuasion and Intimidation. In a situation where we aren’t working against swaying the prevailing attitude in a group, and are instead speaking specifically to one individual, then the DM again makes the call as to whether a check is needed. I always want to hear the PC/player argument, because that will shape my decision (as I also consider the monster).
Maybe the PCs run into a mind flayer in the Underdark, and they want to persuade it to spill secrets on the drow, rather than turn in the PCs (or fight/eat them). That’s a clear case of using the skills (as described in “Using Ability Scores” in the DMG and PH. And, how good the monster is matters. Opposed check, with the DM accounting for good RP and so on. Physical checks are easy, because they are just the math (if there were some benefit, it would likely grant advantage). Monster pushes, PC pushes, here’s who did best, done. With social skills, we have to roleplay that result. You ask the mind flayer for secrets, you roleplay really well, but you roll a 10 and the mind flayer wins. But, based on the argument, you might decide the mind flayer bluffs them. It gives them the info they want, but will also turn them in. An Insight check could reveal that. It’s complex, because social scenes are complex.
The reverse is where the monster is using social skills against the PCs. Here we have to be careful to not remove character agency. The lone surviving kobold argues for her life. We would not want to roll for the kobold, get a 20, and tell the PCs that no one can harm her. (We used to play this way in the early days, and it was no fun). Instead, our roll dictates how we describe the situation to the characters. Kobold rolls a 20, so we might say, “you realize this is an unusual kobold. Strong for its size, with a keen intellect. She seems genuine when she says she can be valuable to your party.” Now, the players may still kill her, but the dice had an outcome and you incorporate it into the scene.
newbiedm
June 3, 2021
It is odd to me that these skills are not codified into the social conflict mechanic.
Thug (MM page 350) has a +2 bonus to Intimidation.
Spy (MM page 349) has a +5 bonus to Persuasion and Deception.
Priest (MM page 348) has a +3 bonus to Persuasion.
Noble (MM page 348) has a +5 bonus to Persuasion and Deception.
Gladiator (MM page 346) has a +5 bonus to Intimidation.
Cult Fanatic (MM page 345) has a +4 bonus to Persuasion and Deception.
Cultist (MM page 345) has a +2 bonus to Deception.
Bandit Captain (MM page 344) has a +4 bonus to Deception.
Assassin (MM page 343) has a +4 bonus to Deception.
alphastream
June 3, 2021
I think the intent is to capture the DC of the situation, not the people in it. If someone is hostile, getting them to be somewhat friendly requires DC 20. It’s about that difference between the goal and hostile. “Think of it as that abstract level: what is the DC to talk a hostile group into going along with your idea? It’s 20.”
The rules in the DMG for “Social Interaction” are based on the premise that this is a broad strokes situation. That’s why they say at the beginning that you can simply RP the scene, use this system, or a mix of both. This is just guidance for general situations. For specific situations, you use the guidance in Ability Scores in both the DMG and PH. There, it’s down to the default mechanics. If you want to intimidate the mind flayer, cool. That uses Intimidation, it’s an opposed check, and the mind flayer can oppose it with the skill you think fits the situation. Roll, and adjudicate result.
I think it’s just not clear enough from the writing that this isn’t a section to govern all Social Interaction. It’s for very general situations to talk a group that feels one way into behaving another way. This existed in prior editions in various permutations. In this case it could be clearer what the point of this is and how it fits into everything else. But that’s true of a lot of what is in this DMG.
Eddie
June 10, 2021
Deception still works for monsters to an extent. I use it often when they are deliberately trying to deceive a PC. Recently had an NPC who was physically weak but a master manipulator. The PCs were convinced he was up to no good. They tried to use their insight but I rolled against the villains Deception and won out. Therefore to their ears it seemed everything the NPC was saying held truth. You could perhaps handle persuasion skills in a similar manner.
wyffenpublishing
August 23, 2021
Hi newbiedm. I’ve only just stumbled across your blog. Nice work. May I suggest a situation where there may be social skill v skill rolls?
Perhaps the PC’s and a crime boss are either side of a portcullis. The PC’s are itching to chase after the crime boss and the crime boss has just dished out some smack talk and is about to turn tail. At this point the PC’s will be screaming at the guard above to open the portcullis. The crime boss in return will threaten to do unspeakable things to parts of the guards anatomy that never see a suntan. Roll Intimidate or Persuasion against Intimidate.
Another situation may be a courtroom drama with the PC’s and opposing lawyer rolling persuasion against persuasion, or even persuasion against deception.
I do agree that the 5E rules are vague in a lot of places but I like that.
Cannibal Halfling wrote a great piece about how constraining the rules could or should be .
https://cannibalhalflinggaming.com/2020/09/09/how-exactly-do-i-play-this/