Allies
Bronze Dragon Wyrmling (CR 2) (A fight that begins with an ambush attack, but can become an alliance)
Young Bronze Dragon (CR 8) (A non-combat alliance)
Helpful
This section is for monster encounters where the monster is used in an ally capacity, but to a limited degree.
Young Gold Dragon (CR 9) Gift giving
Doppelganger (CR 4) Spying/subfertage
Aaracockra (CR 1/4) Long-range scouting and keeping abreast of world events
Neutral Parties
Copper Dragon Wyrmling (CR 1) negotiation
Young Brass Dragon (CR 6) Battle of deceptions
Trickery
Negotiation
Quest Giver
Quest for an Evil Dragon (Evil Quest Giver)
Bullywug (CR 1/4) A quick guide to building a quest that passes through the territory of a monster type—without making them the villain or the quest giver.
Deception
Hostage-Based Encounters
Escort Quest
Bone Devil (CR 9) Escorting a large group to safety
Advice for NPC negotiations:
Limit Arguments
Never let your players simply repeat the same arguments they’ve already made. If you do, they will simply beat you down by dint of having 3-4 voices arguing against your single voice, and they will become more convinced of their position the longer they argue it.
Either state out of game that you won’t allow it, or have the NPC they’re arguing with turn around and walk away, or threaten to do so if they have nothing new to say.
Know Your NPCs
When introducing an NPC that they’ll bargain with, you’ll want to decide beforehand what he’ll initially ask, and what he might be willing to go down to. Even if you don’t plan to negotiate, you don’t know what your players will pull. This does not apply to stores, as store prices being fixed is a well established RPG staple.
Consider the NPC’s feeling toward all of the major plot factions that are currently in the game. Also, think about how he’ll react to the common interaction methods that your players have already tried with pretty much every other NPC they’ve ever interacted with.
Charisma Persuasion Checks: Balancing Dice Checks and Roleplaying
The charisma skills have long had a problem. Basically, isn’t it better to roleplay charisma interactions rather than just say that your “persuading NPC X”, and if you do, is there a point in having the Charisma skills in the first place?
(This is what gave CHA the reputation of being the dump stat, as in the stat that every player whose class didn’t need it completely “dumped”, or neglected. This was in 3E, when INT determined skill points. Now, INT is as much of a dump stat, if not more so, given that only one class uses it.)
My Favorite Solution: Bonuses for Good Arguments
For every decent argument that the players can give, they will gain a bonus of +1-3, depending on the strength of the argument. In addition, the players can add the CHA modifier of the players with the highest CHA, as well as one instance of the proficiency modifier, assuming at least one player has the relevant skill.
They only add each number once, no matter how many players have high CHA and/or proficiency. In order to add the bonus, the relevant PCs must be present and be able to participate in the conversation. Finally, they’ll roll the dice and make a skill check, with the extra bonus for arguments.
In order to keep this balanced, I suggest adding + 5 to the DC of the skill check.
RAW version: Lower the DC Appropriately
For DMs that want to keep their game raw (rules as written), instead of giving points for good arguments, lower the DC by the same amount. There is no official rule as to what the DC should be, and it makes sense that a better argument would be easier to pursaude people with, and therefore justify a lower DC.
The reason I don’t like this way as much is because it’s less instinctive. Even if you share the effect on the DC with your players, it won’t feel as much like something they earn. Also, calculating it will be harder, and will slow the game.
Like with the last version, add +5 to the initial DC score to keep it balanced.
Quick Variant: Award Advantage
For DMs who like keeping it simple, give them advantage on the roll if their arguments are good enough. I don’t like this way, as I like being able to fine-tune the results to reward them according to how well they did, but there are DMs who like simple.
If you do it this way, you should know that the value of advantage is approximately +4.5. (four and a half.)
Do not penalize them for a bad argument. If you do, they will argue with each other every time someone wants to say something in the future.
Advanced Version: Speak Their Language
In the basic version above, I suggested the amount of benefit they get from an argument be based on how good the argument is. A better, although more complicated way, is to give them benefit for how they address the people.
To give some examples: Nobles expect deferential language, and will hint (allude to) danger, threats, and consequences rather than say them outright. Thugs are used to plain speaking, and will be dismissive of fancy talk as signs of the players being “chicken” “lily-livered” (I’m trying to stay PG-13, hence my “fancy talk” here.) Bards like the dramatic, and will enjoy talking to a kindred soul, and so on.
Another form of how to address people is tailoring your message to your audience. For example, if you’re warning a mayor of impeding danger, you’ll want to lay the emphasis somewhat differently depending on the mayor’s priorities. Does he care primarily about his people? The city’s economy? Himself and his family? Or perhaps he’s a religious zealot? The same basic message either way, but subject to fine tuning.
Other CHA Checks: How Best to Run
This also works with other charisma checks, to some extent. Let’s go through them:
Intimidation Checks
The default of most players is physical violence, but not everybody is cowed by that. Cultists especially are likely to be willing to give up their lives to a greater cause, which makes this tactic ironic, given the prevalence of cultists in D&D.
That said, threatening via graphic details, threatening family members, and similar will make players uncomfortable, and rightly so. I suggest reserving a small bonus for when they do something suitably demonstrative, such as tear down a door with their bare hands, and leave it at that.
If they start to repeat the same move, you could state that each creature is intimidated by something it recognizes, so that only a strength based monster will be intimidated with a strength act. Or simply don’t recognize the same action more than once.
Giving warning of danger could be said to fall under intimidation. If you feel this way, you can treat it like persuasion. If not, not.
Deception Checks
The way to gain points in deception would logically be to have a well put together story, to roleplay it well, especially limiting the extraneous details that wouldn’t be shared but only implied if the story had been true, and to have the story be one that leads to the result wanted.
All of these are easier said than done, at a game table where everyone keeps interrupting each other. A better way might be to give three possibilities on a DC check. Failure, success, and suspicion. For example, twelve or less might be failure, eighteen or more success, and 13-17 would result in cross-examination.
Depending on how they do, this might result in automatic failure or success, or on another check, with the DC affected by their performance and this time with only the normal two results.
When going this route, remember that the dice are there to help, not to take over. If the players were recently questioned by the guards, you might want to think twice about whether having another interrogation scene will be in any way interesting. If not, do a normal DC check.
Similarly, if you want to have an important NPC ask them questions, don’t feel constrained not to just because they rolled well. Have him ask before they roll.
Performance Checks
Aside from the obvious use, performance is also used when addressing a crowd. This can be inspiring people or soldiers, calming down a mob, distracting people, and much more. This also assumes that there’s no specific person in charge. If there is, you’re likely addressing him, and the relevant skill is persuasion.
When addressing a crowd, you generally have to keep it simple. A good tactic is to begin with something they want to hear, and then tie in the item you want them to believe. Of course, you have to connect it in a believable way. Change the subject, or contradict the first statement, and you’ll likely lose the crowd.
This is also the method I’d follow on determining persuasion check bonuses. I will note that it’s hard to make multiple arguments convincingly, so I’d go with the option of having the bonus be advantage, and maybe I’d give +2 if they deserve something less.