I wanted to see how other DMs handle this:
The group burst into a room and consequently surprises all the human enemies inside. They are drunk and not quite ready for combat, so they skip on their turn the first round. Now instead of the players attacking them the first round they try to intimidate them as in "Put down your weapons or we will kill you!".
Is this just an intimidation check? What would you place the DC at? What happens on success (enemies give up just like that?)? What happens on fail? Does it use an action -> can the one who failed the intimidation still attack when he notices it doesn't work?
If I may throw in my two cents, I'd say that yes, it would simply be an Intimidation check. I'd base the DC on how many enemies there are, and how strong each one is. On success they might submit, albeit with scowls, snarls, and rude comments under their breath, then go about their buisness again. On a fail, they might simply just continue to fight. It is entirely up to you whether it would use an action or not, we had a discussion whether ability checks cost actions in another thread, and the general consensus was "it's case by case". My rule is, if something the character is doing is big enough to have the DM require an ability check, it's strongly worth considering. In this case I might, just because on a success it might negate combat.
In the absence of any other context, I would say Intimidation check. I would have to gauge the situation as to what would be the most enjoyable outcome at the time for success/failure. Clearly on a success I would want to reward the PCs for trying this, so at least a dialogue would open between the PCs and the somewhat cowed human enemies. On a fail, maybe it's combat, maybe the human enemies say "No, you throw down your weapons". Like I said, depends on the mood of the table and whether the group would find another combat fun.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Forgive me as I am new to the 5e rules and some of these checks give me fits when running a game. I am more Role-Playing oriented in my games that Roll-Playing.
Couldn't this a also be treated as a contest? Perhaps the drunk NPCs at disadvantage?
bakerjw wrote:
bakerjw wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure if making them drop their weapons just like that is a good idea. That means battle instantly won with a single successful ability check compared to an almost even-matched battle (well since they are poisoned it's not quite so even, but I see being drunk to actually make intimidation harder, because they will overestimate their abilities). I don't really want to encourage that kind of play because combat is fun (also for the players) and if I make this solution too easy, there will never be combat anymore.
Also the DC certainly should depend on how challenging the battle is for the group, no?
Anyway, I decided to go for something completely different because I thought it's more fun... I made the enemies start a long, drunk and funny conversation on whether they should surrender or not which didn't really change anything because at the end they are still going to fight, but I ruled the player can still use an action as the conversation takes a while.
Being drunk makes you quite talkative so I thought this fits best and it doesn't make the battle instantly won. And there's still a benefit as the funny conversation wouldn't have taken place otherwise.
I'm not sure if the rules even support making enemies give up through intimidation, at least any of the examples given are completely out-of-combat. I mean I'd probably allow it if most of the enemies were already killed and it's quite obvious that the remaining ones can't defeat the PCs anymore, but not right at the start of combat.
Next time you could also choose to rule that those sufficiently intimidated would get disadvantage on their initiative roll, as they have to see what the majority of their buddies would do first.
yes, drunk conversations are always preferable to NOT having a fight 
It is already after the initiative was rolled though. It was already the enemy's turn, but because they were surprised they didn't attack yet.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Yes, I decided that it's not possible to avoid combat, because combat is fun and I don't see an intimidate check to be a fair tradeoff for a full battle. But even realistically. If I'm an evil ruffian, I'm not gonna give up just because someone asks me to.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
A few things come to mind. First, the enemy surrendering is a Role Play situation from that point. What will the PCs do with them? Question them? Take their stuff and push the drunks out into the alley? Murder them in cold blood? (Oddly enough, fighting and killing a drunk disadvantaged enemy is not generally "evil" in common D&D games but slaughter them after they surrender would be. Go figure).
If the players release the ruffians, they might well rearm and seek to attack the players at a later point in revenge for humiliatung them. Or be around town hampering the PCs in non lethal ways when they can for a few weeks.
Finally, as DM one does not have to give full XP credit for a group 'defeated' by one skill roll. Given how blood thirsty most PCs are (kill it for the XP!) I find it refreshing when my players seek non leathal resolutions when such could logically occur.
I think a good thing to remember is that your job as a DM is to make the game enjoyable for the players. On some occassions, that might mean throwing your plan out the window and going with whatever the players have come up with. It also means rewarding the players for thinking creatively. I constantly tell my players to think outside the box, and they know that unless something is entirely unreasonable, unbelieveable or downright impossible, I'll try to find a way to make it work rather than say no. I want them to feel like they've accomplished something by coming up with a variable I hadn't taken in to consideration.
So in the case you've mentioned, I would say let them roll Intimidation, and if they succeed, they avoid the fight. True, combat is fun, but alternatives to combat can also be fun. You don't want every single encounter in your campaign to be combat related (unless that's all the players want), and vice versa you don't necessarily want all dialogue, challenges, etc., without any combat.
Roll with the punches, and be willing to adapt your plan to the players' plan so that whatever happens is their accomplishment.
iserith wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Well my point is if my group rushes into a room full of enemies and then one PC says "Give up or we kill you" and then I'm like "Okay they throw away their weapons and give up", the next thing that will happen is that after the session some of the player come to me and say that it's lame if I just make them give up like that.
If I let them roll intimidation and they roll high and I do it, it's still not too satisfying, but that's already better, because there's at least some sort of feeling of accomplishment even if that was just a single good roll.
Combat on the other hand is not just a bunch of rolled dice, it involves thinking of a strategy and many other things where player can actually apply their skill rather than just luck, so the satisfaction from winning that is highest.
Also when my players try intimidation it doesn't mean they themselves don't want to do combat, but rather they think their character wants to take the enemies alive to interogate them (and then kill them off afterwards when they can't fight back).
Well anyway, I made the thread to see how other DMs handle it. It's interesting to see that many seem to allow to avoid combat just with a single good intimidation check (or even without any roll).
Well I think it's important to note that for many of us, this is just a unique case that isn't meant to be a recurring alternative to combat. I definetely feel that it is good to reward players for thinking differently then just storming in and fighting everything they see immediatly, and providing them with unique situations for succeeding in their unconventional endeavors. It shouldn't be something for the players to abuse, and it can definetely be handled in a satisfying way. Perhaps instead of all the enemies submitting upon a fail, only the more timid ones of the group do, and the party is left facing the toughest out of them not willing to back down? Maybe it causes them to panic instead of dropping their weapons, and they all have disadvantages on their attack rolls (if they didn't already from being drunk) instead? On the other side of the coin, you could always set the DC to impossible, so it atleast gives the illusion they could've done it (unless you let your players know what the DC is for ability checks prior to them rolling) as a way to fulfillI the fact that while their PCs would've attempted it, the group wanted combat. At the end of the day, you're the DM and as long as everyone had fun and felt satisfied, I believe you handled it right.
As far as I know there are no rules for intimidation. Thus, if you want some sort of result that seems like an intimidation effect, you can obviously just make that up yourself.
Generally though I think getting XP from a single roll when usually there are atleast a handful of rolls and resources cost (ie, combat), it seems a short circuit of the system. Why have XP if all the normal rolls it takes to earn it can all be bypassed?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
lestroissauvages wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
you could have used the 4e model of skill challenges if you a single die roll was not enough to determine the outcome. Have each player declare intent, have each one roll an appropriate check with the DC based on the targets motivations (street punks DC 10, bandit toughs DC15, mercs looking to kill the PCs DC 20). Require 6 or 8 successes before 2 failures, this should mean more the one round passes. The DCs can increase or decrease based on RolePlay, or use Advantage/Disadvantage if the players work towards or against the targets motivations. The typical combat take 3-5 rounds, this interaction would take about the same. To suggest the players would not be satisfied by talking them down doesnt make sense, why did they try that if thats not they wanted to happen? Maybe one player is disappointed that there was no combat but what of the players that thought it would have been a memorable tale of the time they scared the bandits out of fighting?
@iserith
Mainly the difference I see is that you think that there is a chance to get the enemies to surrender whereas I think in that particular situation it's impossible. I'm not generally denying player's their ideas, I only estimated how much likely something is to succeed and decided that the player approach was impossible to succeed out of several reasons (they are drunk which makes negotiating harder and makes them overestimate their abilities, they would have had a good chance in winning the battle if they weren't drunk and they clearly see the PCs as intruders they need to kill).
Also you say the combat isn't over then, but y'know the group will make sure they can't fight again after surrendering (restraining them with ropes).
So the characters wanted a social encounter instead of combat? F#¤% them
Maybe the characters thought it would be prudent ot try and avoid bloodshed? F#¤¤ em again, so whose in charge of the story!
YOU ARE! and not just you Rya.Reisender but your players too.
Sure the lawful good paladin wanted to take them alive, but to me it sounded like his player didnt, and thats totally ok.
iserith wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
lestroissauvages wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
iserith wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
I don't see myself barking at others, I just point out that certain approaches don't make sense or aren't according to the rules.
Also it's not like I asked my players "Do you want to fight or intimidate them?" just to then tell them that intimidate was the wrong choice, that's not how Pen&Paper works. Players can generally make their PCs do whatever they want whether it makes sense or not, even if there is only one solution that actually works. It's up to them to figure it out, not up to me to allow any action they imagine to succeed.
@iserith - And that has nothing to do with me choosing anything for the players. I simply try to determine whether something is possible or not, that's not even a choice.
You will if it will likely save your life and you are aware of that. Most evil ruffians aren't suicidal or have secret death wishes.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender, I think the point you're missing in all of this is what your role as a DM is. Your job is to run the game, make it interesting and exciting for the players. I've been playin D&D for 22 years and DMing for about 20. I've learned there is a big difference between running a game and controlling one. Running a good game means allowing the players to have a certain amount of control as well. Don't get so set on your encounters and plans that you challenge the players on what they want to do. Find a way to make it work. Allow them to be creative, and make sure that you can be just as creative so you can handle whatever they decide.
It is not your game. It is theirs. Yes, you're running the campaign. Yes, you've come up with the ideas. Yes, you regulate play, make rule decisions, etc. But without the players, you have no game. As a player, I've walked away from campaigns before because the DM was a control freak. It wasn't fun. As a DM, I've thrown an entire portion of my campaign out the window because the players wanted to do something else.
In the end, it doesn't matter what you think about what makes an encounter fun or not. It matters what the players think. Listen to your players. Encourage them to explore different options and to think of different ways to get through an encounter. Remember that beating an encounter doesn't have to mean killing every enemy. That is an option in a lot of cases, not a hard and fast rule. An encounter is just a small part of a bigger story anyway. Don't become so invested in every single encounter that you can't let one go easily. Sure, if the players decide to do something different, it might mean the encounter is over quickly or avoided completely. So what? Move on to the next one, making new plans that take in to account what your players have done.
Run the game. Don't control it.
Your job is to run the game, make it interesting and exciting for the players.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
If this is that room I'm thinking of in Lost Mine of Phandelvar; Then you should have them roll intitiative since the enemies are aware of the players and therefore will react to their presence momentarily. Giving the players the suprise round was probably the best call there. If a character wants to use an intimidation check during combat, They would roll a skill check against the insight of the enimies (they could either be at advantage or disadvantage due to the drink, your call). Honestly, I would make the check 10 if they aren't super loyal, and 15 if they are rather loyal subjects.
Again, if this is the room I'm thinking of, my Paladin beat the entire encounter with deception. :P
Zephemus wrote:
Yeah, but the module handles deception, it explains pretty thoroughly what exactly the character need to do for a deception to be successful (you need certain items equipped and say the right things). And even in this case, if the players didn't have the items needed for the deception or said something I would consider impossible to work, I wouldn't stop combat just because they want to.
The module doesn't say that they can also win it with intimidation (generally intimidation doesn't seem to be intended to work as a battle-stopper). Though yeah if you had that one unconscious body with you I'd also be inclined to allow it to succeed. That would make a certain women in town really happy.
Then you should have them roll intitiative since the enemies are aware of the players and therefore will react to their presence momentarily.
I don't believe the DM nor the adventure module should be deciding beforehand what the "correct" solutions to a challenge are. And in the case of published adventures, a DM is well-advised to take whatever they say on this score as a suggestion, not as the one and only solution. For example, if the characters aren't sporting scarlet cloaks, but still make a good case that they're new recruits, we can just make the DC higher on the Charisma (Deception) check rather than say what amounts to "Nope - auto-fail - you didn't guess the right answer."
Picking the "correct solution(s)" ahead of time turns the challenge into a puzzle or riddle rather than an open-ended affair that allows for player creativity. Players should be coming up with the solutions in my view with the DM judging them fairly based on the fictional context, calling upon rules and dice as necessary to resolve uncertainty. If you're basing your adjudication on what the module says is possible, I would say that the wrong call was made with regard to intimidation.
If you want to have combat and the players want to have combat. Then there is no point in asking someone to make a skill check. It seems silly to have someone roll a check that is both a wasted action with the only gain is successfully managing to not embarrass yourself.
I get a player may want to still have combat, but there is room for the skill to have an impact without the impact ending combat. It is a little implausible that a player wanted to do a intimidate check in the hopes of successfully accomplishing nothing. Something positive should come from success; It could be as simple as having a few of them fumble to draw their weapons for an extra round or leading off with a defensive action instead of a more aggressive one.