So I'm at a table right now and the question has arisen in an encounter with a bear sloth. Can a face character use charm to convince the bear sloth not Attack. Consider that he rolls a force dice due to influence.

my opinion is that it is a creature, not a sentient being and so could not be convinced to stop. What is everyone's opinion?

Nah, not imo, I think you're treading on what a Beast Rider does with a survival check.

Yea, we put animal handling under survival using the presence stat.

Yah, plus you've got those animal companion talents in F&D. I think pretty clearly the intent is dealing with animals and beings is considered a separate gig.

Well F&D only matters if you're using material from those books.

I agree with the others. However, you can use the Influence Force power to affect their emotional state. This doesn't necessarily require talking.

31 minutes ago, Spatula Of Doom said:

Well F&D only matters if you're using material from those books.

It only reinforces the point that animals are handled differently than people, and that's all 3 CRBs if someone wants to be pedantic. Whether it's Survivalist, Beast Rider, or the F&D specs, it's all the same across all 3 books.

In the case of the character with Influence, just the Influence basic power would be enough to get it not to attack - Charm isn't needed there.

If you really wanted to handle it via skill check I could see allowing the Influence skill boost to apply even though it isn't normally used with Survival since this is a case where Survival is effectively functioning as a social skill.

I don't think it is fair to say "no, you can't do it" Let them give it a go, but pump up the difficulty to do so.

The mechanics are there, just make it very hard. The dice rolls will help play out what happens narratively.

I wouldn't say no, I'd just say it's a survival check that's all. I'd let em use the Influence Power to modify that roll.

I might allow a Charm check - not so much that the character is sweet-talking an animal, but that they're deliberately appearing non-threatening and using a calm tone of voice. But I would definitely make Survival the primary option, with Charm suffering from probably both increased difficulty and setback dice. And I may well upgrade the check as well...too many good opportunities for how this goes wrong with a Despair!

IRL actress Nina Dobrev, who is very charming in real life, tried to "charm" a monkey once and now has permanent nerve damage in her right thumb where the monkey bit her. She has no feeling in that thumb anymore.

So no. You can't "charm" animals. That's a completely different skill set.

Seriously just imagine wth the following "conversation";

"Hey Baby! What's your sign?"

<GORE>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

45 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

IRL actress Nina Dobrev, who is very charming in real life, tried to "charm" a monkey once and now has permanent nerve damage in her right thumb where the monkey bit her. She has no feeling in that thumb anymore.

So no. You can't "charm" animals. That's a completely different skill set.

Seriously just imagine wth the following "conversation";

"Hey Baby! What's your sign?"

<GORE>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember, though, that this a cinematic system, not a simulationist one. I agree with others here who say you should default to Survival for calming animals, but that you should be able to try with other Social Skills, but with upgrades and setbacks.

3 hours ago, SavageBob said:

Remember, though, that this a cinematic system, not a simulationist one.

Sure, but the designers have made clear there's a preference. There's no point allowing Charm, that's not what it's for, and the game already contains an alternative. This sounds like the face character just wants to game the system, no different than somebody who wanted to, say, do some welding with their blaster.

There's nothing wrong with the plan being "none of us have Survival, I think it's time to run!" instead of trying to bulldoze through every scenario with the highest dice pool one can vaguely rationalize.

I think the system is cinematic, but even in a cinematic system it's ok to simply require the proper Skill be used. There is no req to have a Skill to make a check, in fact I feel like wanting the use the best option in a backdoor way actually isn't all that cinematic, I think it's more power gamer/I always wanna win. It would be much more cinematic for the narcissistic Charmer to say "I got this, I dated a anthropologist 3 months in college." Then they're all running for their lives when the Rancor is unimpressed. Some cinema is called comedy......

53 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Sure, but the designers have made clear there's a preference. There's no point allowing Charm, that's not what it's for, and the game already contains an alternative. This sounds like the face character just wants to game the system, no different than somebody who wanted to, say, do some welding with their blaster.

There's nothing wrong with the plan being "none of us have Survival, I think it's time to run!" instead of trying to bulldoze through every scenario with the highest dice pool one can vaguely rationalize.

Your rules, your table. I'd allow it, but require a Destiny point spend and make it very, very hard.

Functionally speaking, what's the difference between "use charm but the difficulty is dramatically higher" versus "use survival, which you're untrained in, at the normal difficulty?"

1 hour ago, Spatula Of Doom said:

Functionally speaking, what's the difference between "use charm but the difficulty is dramatically higher" versus "use survival, which you're untrained in, at the normal difficulty?"

The first would also require a destiny point spend at my table, but I'd say functionally they wouldn't be different, but narratively they would be.

Then use the normal function and use the narrative you like.

KISS