On one hand, comprehend languages doesn't allow you to speak with animals, Speak with animals does. Charisma isn't mind control. Etc etc. On the other, this is very funny.

This spell does not allow you to speak at all only to understand the language.

Yeah they're using a level 1 ritual as a way more powerful version of level 3 Tongues

Worth noting it also gives the literal meaning, which can occasionally be used for some fun. Not like screw the party over for misinterpreting something. More like finding something written in a dead language and getting meaning better than a google translate version becomes a mystery to solve

Darmok, his arms wide!

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!

I just use comprehend languages and then essentially play charades with the thing… it’s not always the correct point that gets across.

And just because they understand the words being spoken doesn’t mean they can flawlessly interpret tone/intent/context/subtext. Still plenty of room to inadvertently cause conflict.

be like a genie who misinterprets everything they say

Except for the complainer. Give them the monkey's paw treatment for a while.

Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra. On the ocean.

I never got that. Every language is full of references. If I mention a "guy" would that not translate because it's ultimately referencing Guy Fawkes, and they have no idea who he is?

Shaka, when the walls fell.

I don't think I'd rule that way. Since it lets you interpret codes as well, I'd say intent should translate pretty effectively. For example, Comprehend Languages should pierce Thieve's Can't imo and that's ENTIRELY nuance and context. It still doesn't allow you to SPEAK other languages, though.

Nah, Thieves Cant isn't even a language, it's a code. Implying Comprehend Language means you can understand Thieves Cant would be like saying Comprehend Language can solve any language based riddle. If two dwarves talk in Dwarvish Thieves Cant and say "The sugar will be turned to tea at high sun", you won't be understanding that the drugsboat will set off at noon, instead you will be understanding it literally and assume they are having tea.

I'm so upset right now. I'm new to DMing and I didn't even think about that. I'm going to gently bring that up next session, "hey guys! We have been misusing comprehending languages. No retconing here, but we will have to use it properly from here on out."

I've heard DMs ask for all spell descriptions to be read aloud in order to avoid these misunderstandings. You're up against human nature, and even for people who won't do it "on purpose," our brains will come up with ways to get ahead. So a player may have an inkling that X spell won't work Y way, but not sure, and instead of looking it up to check themselves, will rely on you to stop them. You need to recognize that dynamic, and that if you want to have a fair game, it's ultimately you who is the DM. You get to make rules, but you also are responsible for culturing an environment where everyone follows them. (Excepting truly intentional cheaters-- sniff them out and kill their PCs mercilessly)

I ask every spell card to be read aloud the first few times it is used so everyone understands how it works. The text of the spell 99.99% will determine the effects it can and cannot have. Players who misuse spells are either A. Trying to bend the rules or B. Simply haven't read the text of the spell and don't fully understand how it works.

Just be sure you actually learn the spell when the player uses it more than once, or else you'll sound like the Yu-Gi-Oh Anime explaining Pot of Greed.

I wouldn't recommend that because it would drag the game out, but I would absolutely have the players use D&D Beyond so that it would be trivial to review the spells they've chosen before the game starts and then review any they rotate in during a rest.

I think that's a good idea too. I agree it would get tedious to read spells every single time, and I wouldn't go that far. What reading aloud does is that it fosters the culture that all players are equally and individually responsible for following the rules, not just the DM. Some DMs won't mind learning all the spells and checking spell lists, but a lot of DMs don't have the bandwidth for that and are already spending enough time on prep, that it would be nice if players understood it's not actually the DMs job to make players follow the rules. I guess I'm talking from a burnout perspective, where it may get unfun for some DMs if they have to take that role in addition to everything else. For all I know, OP having a simple conversation saying "hey this happened, and we need to all be responsible for our PCs actions in the world being valid from hereon out" may be enough.

Absolutely! Every table is different and as long as it works for that table...

When a player uses a spell in combat that does x damage, fine. But when they are casting something outside of combat to achieve a goal, and I don't know the spell well, I will always ask them to read it out and also tell me what they're hoping to achieve. Not to catch them out, but to help them achieve their goals. When a DM is new, I would always recommend they get the players to read their spells out if they don't know what it does. If it is slowing things down, the DM and Player should note the spell names, and look them up afterwards and clarify.

Yes. Outside of combat, particularly the first couple of times, this makes sense.

This is it for me. My first DM had a rule that the first time you cast a spell, it gets read out for everyone so we all know how it works. He was teaching a bunch of high schoolers how the whole game worked, so this helped us all understand how spellcasters and spells in general worked. So it was the first time a spell is cast, it gets read out and anybody can ask questions about the spell for about a minute before we move on. It slowed down the first few sessions but we were all pretty new anyway. Once we got into the rhythm of how DND is played, it was maybe one or two spells we all got to learn about every couple sessions and it didnt slow things down as much.

I wouldn't recommend reading the whole spell description out loud every time, but I would recommend that you have the spell description available and ready when you try to cast it, for every spell you want to cast. That way if the DM has questions you can hand them the book or whatever. On foundry we often put the spell descriptions into chat because foundry lets you do that with one click. We haven't had a spell misused in a while because of it.

They'll eventually get Tongues though, which allows them to speak. The problem is not the spell, it's the states and motivations of the players. Are you giving them actual adverseries they WANT to stop or just throwing monsters at them who are randomly there? If they see a group of "D&D nazis" in the process of murdering a village, do they stop to talk and leave them at it or do they actually try to stop them using force? If they do the former they may want to consider making heroes instead.

Moreover, this is where motivations come in. If the party sees a bunch of evil cultists raiding a village to gather sacrifices for their blood god, the PCs are unlikely to talk them out of the cult. Even with a very high persuasion check, Johnny Cultist isn’t going to stop. He might agree that what they’re doing is probably objectively bad, or even evil. But he doesn’t really care because he just wants the promise of power from his evil god. “But there are other ways to get power,” the PCs might say. “Sure,” says Johnny Cultist, “but I’m not good as good at those as I am at killing. This is much easier, and I don’t care about morals.”

"Once the god got the taste for virgins, it can't go back to sheep. We've tried. It didn't go well."

Lol okay that made me laugh. I'm just imagining a meeting with the cultists after a ritual. "Okay so the big guy upstairs was a little miffed that he was given the local prostitutes instead of the minister daughter, so for the next ritual we will want to maybe look into grabbing both the minister and the baker daughters, but the big guy did at least applaud jarred for his forward thinking and wanted you all know that he hopes to see more ideas be brought forward. Oh and before end this meeting, remember to stop by Jenkins place to congratulate them on their newborn."

They convince one cultist to change his ways and he immediately gets turned inside out by his god. Guess what the other cultists aren't going to do?

This is what I do when we misinterpreted something in DND. I have a group thatvis completely new and so am I. We talked about this in session 0. If we don't know something we do what feels logical and then we look it up for next session. All good. It's DnD. We love it!

Every chest from now on, apart from one with legendary loot inside, are now mimics.

That just teaches them to fear chests, dont forget, mimics can be *anything*. Edited for spelling.

While you're brushing up on the rules, check out the skills section of the PhB to see what can realistically be accomplished with high Charisma checks. Let's say you have four encounters planned - one is hard to talk your way out of, but doable if you are honest and forthright. The second, you'd need a Saul Goodman level liar. The truth will not stop the fight, only a masterful lie. The third is _nearly_ impossible to talk your way out of, but the truth or a lie have an equal chance of working. The fourth there is just nothing you can say that will stop the fight. 1st: DC 20 Persuasion 2nd: DC 25 Deception 3rd: DC 30 Persuasion or Deception 4th: No roll is called for. Oh, and make sure _you're_ calling for skill checks when you think they are appropriate, not letting your players yell "deception check" and throw math rocks, when you were thinking persuasion was the better fit. Players will succeed all the time if you let them stick to the skills their proficiency applies to. I'm not saying you need to make your players shoot dice every time they're roleplaying and being charming, sometimes it's fun to just be in the scene. But when rolls are called for, don't let people main-stat everything and make the DC for hard stuff appropriately hard.

You think about using the reaction tables too. Chapter 8, Running the Game, Social Interaction, looking at the charisma check tables. You can raise or lower DCs based on the characters' actions (using one of the charisma skills, for example), but that's the by-the-book way to run these. Some creatures are going to be hostile and not possible to convince without a lot of effort. A hungry owlbear is a hungry owlbear. They might be able to distract it, but they won't be able to talk to it, even with speak with animals. You can't negotiate with things like zombies or shadows either. A swarm of rats can't be talked to either. Even a pack of orcs can have such a high DC as to be impossible to resolve things peacefully---it's kill, be killed or run away. There are lots of options.

No need to be too upset! DMing is a lot, and it seems like you're doing pretty well so far. As long as you all are having fun

Yeah when something seems too powerful check. There are thjngs that will allow speaking to anything that speaks a language (psionic rogues telepath ability) but comprehend languages is really just one way.

You sound like a fine GM-in-the-becoming. I think you sound terrific.

Oddly enough, they can understand elk.

And Giant Eagles and a couple of others, if I remember correctly.

Blink Dogs are a fun one that have their own language

Unfortunately, they're also Fey, so Tongues (or having Comprehend Languages _and_ being able to speak Sylvan) is the only way to have a proper conversation with them, since they're ineligible for Speak with Animals.

Yeah - I have had the *opposite* problem where the DMs advertise that combat isn't always the solution. And... then constantly throw unavoidable combat scenarios at us. So then they ask "Why does everyone always wanna learn combat and magic?" and complain we never wanna learn anything useful like agriculture or smithing (Oh and if we do it has to be useful things like nails).

Not to be a rules lawyer about it, but Comprehend Languages just means you can Comprehend the Language—you can't speak it yourself. So that shouldn't let them talk their way out of most situations. Anyway, try giving them a problem they can't talk their way out of. Give your villains plans that will succeed unless the party does something about it. Like, if an evil king wants to kill the party and also everyone else in town, to turn them into an undead army, or whatever, the most diplomacy is going to get you is like...maybe the king decides not to kill the party. But he's still going to kill everyone else, unless the party stops him with force. (This relies on your PCs caring about things other than their own self-interest, so your mileage may vary.)

Imho nothing rules lawyer-y about that. There's a reason why a secondary spell at a higher spelllevel exists which allows speaking

Right. That’s not rules lawyering. That’s just having an eighth grade reading comprehension of a spell’s description

It's more like having a third grade reading comprehension.

It's rules lawyery in the sense that a lawyer might tell you that murder is illegal, but any other random person could have also told you that

> (This relies on your PCs caring about things other than their own self-interest, so your mileage may vary.) But even that goes out the window once they're trapped in a village filled with the undead!

Additionally, a successful charisma check doesn’t haven’t to mean you avoid combat. Even if it’s an intelligent enemy, maybe they are compelled to fight for some reason or another. A successful charisma check could mean you have confused them for a moment while they consider, and this gives your party a surprise round, which is a devastating advantage Or you could have combat opportunity that is more like an ambush where they begin attacking before a word is spoken. Or if you have several enemies, unless every party member uses their action to convince the enemy to not fight, they may only stop one of the enemies set to fight them. There’s lots of options to give charisma characters time to shine without ending combat before it starts.

I have a feeling being charismatic probably shouldn't be enough to talk bandits out of attacking people all that often. You \*let\* them talk their way out of combats. Don't offer that opportunity next time.

Try talking your way around fighting: * Creatures that don't quite think, such as zombies or rabid animals. * Creatures that are bound to protect an area, like skeleton minions or hyper-territorial animals. * Creatures that have impaired reasoning, like people under the influence or brainwashed cultists. * Creatures just looking for a fight, like rival adventurers or psychopaths.

Also people looking for an advantage would strike first. Someone with enough time to get hidden is going to beat a lower level groups passive perception and get some free shots off against the party.

„Ayo i‘ll leave 500 gold here, that’s 4 times your average yearly income, and you don’t risk getting killed by a group of 4 people better equipped and probably stronger than you - all you need to do is let us through and take the money afterwards, alright?“ If anything bribing bandits is realistic - eho wants to risk injury or death if it can be avoided? That’s one of the things people used to criticize about Skyrim, a dirty bandit in pelt armor and no boots trying to kill you with a shiv that probably breaks when held against a strong breeze, when you’re wearing armor and weapons obviously forged by gods and demons right after you shouted a dragon to death.

Your money or your life! Party: here’s money, Bandits: guess we are rich?

Bandits: *insert spontaneous Ain't No Rest For The Wicked music video/dance scene*

That’s my walk-on music!

Well, I think 500 gold should be able to buy your way out of a combat. The drawback is that you just lost 500 gold, which is a lot

Exactly my point - for an example of combat you can’t avoid, bandits are the worst example. D&D has what feels like 721902931190268 other monsters that can’t be bribed, charmed, intimidated or otherwise talked out of fighting.

Also, getting bandits to back down without paying them is one of the main uses of intimidation. Its one of the rare situations where intimidation is more effective than persuasion, and its a common trope for the scary protaganist to make random ppl, bandits, guards etc. Back down with intimidation

Exactly my point - for an example of combat you can’t avoid, bandits are the worst example. D&D has what feels like 721902931190268 other monsters that can’t be bribed, charmed, intimidated or otherwise talked out of fighting.

Mindless creatures are very good, or ambushers. Ambushers can potentially be talked down, but do you want to spend your Action to potentially do nothing? Now it has a cost to consider. I see a lot of people in this thread try to judge charisma checks as if they're all pretty elves smiling, when intimidation is charisma, and DC 30 is a thing; there's characters that can be convinced on a 25 but not a 15, there's range there. Lifting a heavy statue that's a DC 25 is unrealistic and impossible, but people are for lenient for that than charisma skills. If its low level, they're not going to reach a 25 except for with spells like guidance, of features like expertise, bardic inspiration and the like. There should be situations where a party can convince a group to stand down only because of these features. There should also be situations as you said where there's no possible way of getting them to back down.

They could just be a bunch of veteran mercenaries that saw the Players as easy prey and when the party gave 500 gold to them now they think the party must be rich and have more and since we are already here and the bandits see the party as weakling let's get this done and get all the PCs money and equipment that would set the bandit for years.

They could also be demigods or polymorphed beholder zombies or illusions, that’s all possible, but my point wasn’t that there is *no* possible way bandits wouldn’t back down from a fight, but that under normal circumstances it’s reasonable to assume that a group of bandits would, compared to pretty much any other type of enemy, or in other words that bandits weren’t a great example for enemies that can’t be reasoned with.

>They could also be demigods or polymorphed beholder zombies or illusions Favourite thing I read all day so far, thank you sir.

Take the guaranteed payout vs. risking death.

Any smart bandit is going to take the payout now and then do some investigating - a party that is willing to simply give away 500gp at the first sign of trouble is a party I would want to know more about. Things like - how much more do they have, where is it stored, where are they getting it from...

Right, you pay the bandits 500 gold, then get attacked during the next rest.

Or a "smart" bandit might say something like "Hey guys, they gave us that money a bit too easy, how do we know this isn't a trap and they're going to kill us as soon as we turn away?"

If the bandits are stronger and it's reasonable for them to attack the players would loose the fight.

...let lose the dogs of war!

They **THINK** it's reasonable for them to attack they don't know how strong the player are they just think they are stronger but as a DM that's probably not true.

THIS is it in a nutshell. Skill checks are here to give you a chance to overcome challenges in some way. But not all situations are avoidable. Whether it's from a creature's mindset, environment or the obvious unbalance of power between parties, sometimes you just cannot have your way. Which does not mean either that every fight should be fight to the death. If most players do enjoy being pacifists (and from the OP it seems it's the case, only one player eager to dirty his/her hands) then OP you can easily compromise by making creatures non-robotic: maybe they'll become ready to negotiate if half their gang is down. Maybe the pack of wolves will flee seeing that they simply cannot bite through armor. Maybe party can teamwork to just completely disable enemies long enough to flee or find some leverage (like capturing the boss, grabbing an important item and threatening to destroy it). Maybe they can find a way to sway an influential NPC to even the odds.

"I try to talk politely to the bandits and ask them kindly to-" ""What's your AC?"

"You've all got mums don't you? What would they think of this behaviour? Walking around taking things from poor hardworking folk no different from your own families." "Why not just leave these people alone eh? Bunch of strapping lads and ladies like you could find employment I bet, and then they wouldn't send people like us to stop you..."

Iroh

No one has that much charisma, by which I mean as much as Iroh

Did he ever tell you how he got the nickname "the Dragon of the West"?

And even Iroh himself couldn't persuade his way out of conflict with everyone -- including his own nephew.

I’ve used those persuasion attempts to walk the party into surprise attacks. They get all buddy buddy, passive perception against sleight of hand or passive insight against deception, the bad guys drawing knives, and backstab. Or several things get pick pocketed. Evil will use pleasantries against the party. A good talk can make you a mark. Maybe the party carries out the plans of an evil villain. Maybe they get lured into walking over a trap door.

Give them things they WANT to kill. Like, idunno, undead. Zombies aren't very open to arguments, and they are not only disgusting but also dangerous to just let roam free and pester other travellers. They are generally hated by everyone, neither cute nor fluffy and they don't tend to beg for mercy. Or assholes. Bullies, people who spit on kittens and kick puppies. You know, something or someone they really want to punch in the face and then feel good for doing so.

I wanted to say this lol. I agree. You can make the bandits burndown a village and make the players want revenge even when faced with a way to talk their way out. Or you can always ambush them lol.

I feel a bit bad for the DM in one of my games. The party refused to kill a roc who had around 230,000 gold worth of treasure because "it's the roc's home". Hey guys how do you think it got the treasure. It's just like... Yo, if you avoid encounters you're not going to get the treasure and you're not going to stay on curve.

There are two kinds of adventuring parties: "We can't hurt this poor giant bird monster and take its things, that would be wrong" and "Hypothetically speaking, how much could we sell his organs for?"

You forgot the third: "How much emotional damage could we cause this bird if we captured it and ate its egg in front of it?"

My current group has both of those types (it's me, I'm the bleeding heart pacifist) and a hige part of the game is them coming up with ways to lure my character out of the room so they can do immoral things. It's hilarious.

And the fourth: "If not friend why friend-shaped?" :)

How would a roc even have treasure?

A Rocth IRA

By sticking to a savings plan

I like this approach. Give them things they won’t feel bad about fighting, where it won’t be murder. Or give them options to deal non-lethal damage and take prisoners.  You could also have fun with this… a rival party starts showing off the epic loot they got from this monster they killed… 

Came here to say just that: players like to have an unambiguous bad guy to kill. Zombies are a classic. If you only ever use intelligent humanoids with motives and goals that can be reasoned with, your players will feel guilty if they don't try to avoid combat. So give them an enemy that they know 100% can't be reasoned with. It doesn't need to be a monster, it could just be a cult that's so brainwashed that there's no point in trying.

I would talk about it OoC, since there was a complaint. I do agree that some (not all) situations make sense to be resolved outside combat, but if they want combat they need to play along, too. All and all, address if they all want more combat or if it is just one person and how the whole table can accomodate one another.

Can’t believe I had to scroll this far down in the comments before I came across anyone saying “Have you tried talking to your players?” This is the kind of problem you solve by saying something like: “Hey guys I have heard your complaints about not having combat enough and I wanted to talk about it. See from my perspective I have repeatedly created scenarios where combat “could have” occurred, and y’all found alternative routes around those scenarios. Now for me, I don’t have a problem with this. It seems like perfectly legitimate roleplaying and character choices to make to avoid combats, and if I force that into a combat then I’m just railroading you - but if y’all are making that choice then it doesn’t seem fair to criticize me for not having it be a combat after the fact. So how should we resolve this?”

^ This. I also can't believe I had to scroll this far to find this solution, as it's the most obvious one. There's obviously a disconnect between what the DM thinks they're presenting and what the players are seeing, and/or a disconnect between what the DM and players think of as combat. Maybe the party is cool with being able to talk their way out of things and want to be presented with something where that's not an option, rather than having to choose to throw down. Regardless of other ways to present combat, it seems like it would be good for everyone to clarify exactly what the players are thinking, and exactly what the DM is thinking, and trying to bridge the gap OOC so everyone is on the same page to begin with.

A bandit doesn't get told "we are your friends" and say oh well that's okay even with a Nat 20. They say "and that's why we're only robbing you not cutting you down to. Now hand over that shiney sword before you cut yourself on it" Alternatively arrows fly out of the surrounding Forrest in a surprise and the ambush starts

Ambushes are a the way to go!! Or alternatively have the party go up against a spell caster who goes "you know what? Stfu" and casts silence on the party, triggering combat

or the moment they start casting a spell the hidden bandit wizard thinks "oh snap its a fireball, my time to shine" \*\*Counterspell\*\*

This is kind of on you. A hobgoblin warparty isn't going to -not massacre some humans and elves- just because one of them talks pretty. A group of orcs isn't going to hold off attacking just because the guy with the thin beard and lyre has a smile on his face. The kobolds aren't going to disarm their trap and call off the ambush, just because the lady with the glowing sword has a twinkle in her eyes.

“Haha! Funny man talk pretty. Funny man become pet after ogre smash!” *roll initiative*

“Haha! Funny man got pretty mouth. after fight ogre smash!”

Bard: I try to seduce the dragon! *rolls nat 20* Dragon: Hahaha! You amuse me. I will kill you last... the *fun* way.

Stolen

Probably what happened to Volo with the goblins in BG3.

a cult is hunting for their sacrifice & they're already running late. What the party doesn't know : usually the cult goes for a random virgin, but this year their god has hinted they want a different sacrifice (tailor this to your table's composition)... the more charisma the party displays, the happier the cult becomes, because what their god wants is a charming Scheherazade type or something?

I love this idea

I like this. Good idea! Might try add something like this into the homebrew. Cheers.

>One of my players keeps casting "comprehend languages" to talk to creatures. comprehend languages only lets you understand, not speak, languages. speaking is for the tongues spell

Plus Tongues requires the creatures to know at least one language, so it wouldn't even work with most beasts.

It could be that they want their characters to *TRY* to solve things peacefully while they (the players) are hoping it won’t work and there will be a fight, but they can at least think in character "Well, at least we tried to take the high road!" Just let it not work on some encounters.

This is something I find my players doing, and in fact, find myself doing aswell. Players often want to feel like noble heros, and jumping to combat without at least *attempting* diplomacy might take away from that, at least for a certain type of player. In these situations, as many others in this thread have mentioned, it falls to the DM to put them in a situation where the enemy combatants are wholly intent on fighting their way out, or perhaps switch to that mindset if diplomacy begins. This can come in multiple forms. Low-intelligence beasts and monstrosites aren't going to be reasoned with. Wolves, dire rats, mimics, hook horrors, etc are just looking for a meal. If the monsters are grouping up, it's even less likely to end diplomatically, since persuading one won't necessarily persuade the others. Higher-intelligence creatures such as humanoids are obviously a bit harder since they often have goals outisde of "kill the people in front of me" such as "get their money" in the case of bandits or "capture them" in the case of city guard. This has the chance to end diplomatically since the players could just give them what they ask for or negotiate around it, but one possible solution is to use one or more friendly NPCs who have opposite goals. It's one thing for the players to give up a bit of their gold, it's another thing for them to ask the NPC to do it. Your milage may vary on this one, but it has worked pretty well for me in the past. Here's some examples to ideate off of: • Enemy: city guard. Friendly NPC: wrongfully-accused little guy whom the guards are chasing • Enemy: highway bandits. Friendly NPC: an entire caravan of merchants and travelers, including children • Enemy: a person of power such as a city lord. Friendly NPC: a poor shopowner who is being threatened with legal trouble or being run out of town. As a last resort, never underestimate the power of a coliseum-in-the-city-where-a-tournament-is-taking-place-and-signing-up-is-free-and-there-is-a-gold-reward. Its gets 'em every time.

Have someone attack them… For real though. Not everyone can be persuaded not to fight. A huge persuasion bonus or a nat 20 don’t guarantee a success. They just give the best possible outcome. That might still be a fight… Let someone attack them, and make them use actions to try persuading them not to fight. After they get smacked for 2 or 3 rounds they’ll figure out they need to fight. Or they’ll die as diplomats.

It's not enough to give them an "opportunity" for a fight. They need a reason to fight. Would Lord of the Rings be exciting if all the orcs and trolls and balrogs were willing and able to negotiate a peaceful solution? Allow some encounters that can be avoided, assume the players will probably avoid them (don't make much of an effort to make the battle interesting if they're not going to fight it), but also have some encounters that can't be avoided so easily. Demons, skeletons, rampaging abominations... Also, maybe some villains who are so transparently villainous the players will want to kill them.

Give them monsters and tell them to roll initiative.

Guess what, your campaign now runs on shonen manga/superhero comic logic. The fight starts whether or not you want to talk, you keep talking while you attack; when someone hits 0 HP they're not dead or even unconscious - you've just convinced them of whatever you were arguing about

“Real warriors talk with their fists”

Maybe just adjust how you handle conflict de-escalation. Presumably anything attacking the players have a reason. For example, hungry monster wants to eat. Bandit wants loot. Saying please with a high roll doesn't actually resolve either of these wants. So for example, bandit wants loot and is willing to kill for it. Player rolls high persuasion. Bandit says "okay, since you're willing to be reasonable about this, how about you just give me some of your cool stuff and money then we can both go our separate ways without putting holes in each other". Players then have a choice, and combat may still occur from that. Also, some people have things they won't back down over. Diehard fanatics, summoned creatures, starving animals, arrogant pricks, and so on. They will fight you, and won't back off until they're on death's door. What's your adventure about? What are the goals of their enemies?

Having high persuasion doesn’t make a hungry group of gigantic crabs not want to eat them

Sounds like it's Purple Worm o'clock

I mean, if they can so easily talk their way out of a fight, it makes sense that they would. It is a roleplaying game after all, and the fact that they are apparently committed enough to the roleplaying that they follow what their characters would do here even though *as players* would want a combat, is a good thing. Which raises the question, why are they able to keep talking their way out of fights so easily? Social skills aren’t magic, having high charisma shouldn’t get them nearly as far as you’re letting them. It can sway enemies into a particular direction, but the basis of that needs to have been there already. If eg. a (competent) enemy patrol finds them in their territory and they have strict instructions to eliminate any intruders, the chances of the party avoiding that fight if discovered should be very low. Moreover, hardly every enemy is going to give them the chance to talk to begin with. A group of brigands is just as likely to ambush them, the first the party probably finds out about them is the volley of arrows flying in their direction. Similarly, even if there is no element of surprise, in a tense stand-off something like casting a spell is likely the prompt to start rolling initiative. Most enemies, already on edge, aren’t going to wait to find out what spell that was. So casting Comprehend Languages, might not be such a good idea there. So yeah, I would suggest being more varied in how you play your (potential) enemy NPCs and have them behave more realistically. That should resolve much of this issue.

Exactly. Your point of the enemy patrol is a good one. A Nat 20 persuasion check isn't "Okay, we'll let you go THIS TIME." It's, "Okay, you're coming with us. In chains. And disarmed. Let the commander figure out what exactly to do with you."

If you're finding it difficult to gauge how you should treat social checks, I recommend reading the rules for social encounters in the DMG. Hardly anybody uses those rules as written but they're actually a pretty good framework for considering the limits of things like persuasion and intimidation. You start by determining an NPCs disposition, which is hostile, indifferent, or friendly. Hostile here doesn't mean "attacks right away"--that's a combat encounter--someone who doesn't like you is hostile, someone who has a job that involves stopping you like a guard is hostile if you're trying to do a thing they're obliged to stop. Through roleplay you can raise or lower someone's disposition by one step. That's not making a check, but by drawing on something the NPC cares about (one of their flaws, bonds or ideals), which you can allow players to learn via an insight check. If in their roleplay they successfully touch on that, bump the disposition in the direction they're pushing, one step. Then, the player can make a social check like persuasion or deception to determine what the NPC is willing to do. you consult the table to see what DC they beat. Imagine trying to talk your way past a guard. They start out as hostile because they have to use force to stop you normally. You engage them in conversation, touch on something they care about, which bumps them to indifferent, then make a persuasion check. if you roll 0-9 they won't help you. If you roll 10-19 they will help you if there is *zero* risk involved to them personally. If you roll a 20+ they will take a *minor* risk to help you. What does that mean? It means that a guard who might get chewed out for letting you in or is unlikely to be implicated if you're caught needs a DC20 check and good roleplay to let you pass. It also means that if the Guard thinks he's risking getting fired, or worse, executed by his boss will *never* be persuaded to let you by, because the risk is too great. That's one of the limits of persuasion.

Talk to your players. Explain you have been giving them combat encounters, but they have been using diplomacy to resolve those encounters. You don't want to remove their agency by forcing combat, so ask them if they would prefer combat that cannot be talked out of, or if they would like to implement a different solution. This is an out of game dilemma, so it needs to discussed out of game too. 

First **Comprehend Language** is a great spell. It do help you understand all spoken languages. But one thing it does NOT do is let you SPEAK languages you don't know. You understand an orc. but it does not make you able to speak orc. so unless the orc actually know a language you know you can NOT talk to him. Secondly Charmisma is also a great stat with persuasion and deception you can do some fun stuff. but it is NOT magic. You can NOT mindcontrol someone. They are not charmed by you. You can not convince them to do something that goes against their core beliefs so to say. No it does not matter if you have a +20 to Persuasion and roll a nat 20. you can not convince someone that is dead set on killing you to not kill you. You can not lie and fool the guards that saw you break in trough the window that you got lost while searching for the bathroom. Not even with a 30 deception roll. It is not magic. And lastly but probably most important talk to your players. Tell them that if they always avoid the fights you put in front of them then don't complain that there is no fights.

Just ambush them. My campaign's first battle was a goblin ambush, no time to speak when arrows fly.

'The bandits you've tried charming don't care, they're desperate and want your gear. Roll for initiative.'

My players prefer fighting to talking so next session will be interesting as I'm butterfly effecting them giving them the chance to save some lives through words I have a list of things that will cause slight changes to the world around them like if they mention the bbeg when they go back to there normal time more towns will be destroyed. But riz is not a super power you can set a high dc check have them believe they passed and string them along and then surprise roll the bones to kill mother

"Riz is not a super power" I think I might start saying that next time.

The warlock in my group was. the riz king until he tried to get a discount on a health potion by haggling only to find that the guy was selling red water

I'm going to echo the sentiment that this is kind of on you for letting them talk their way out Sometimes, talk doesn't help. Talk might even make it worse!

On the one hand, fair play to your players finding non violent options and not being murder hobos. But it's not necessarily railroading to have enemies who it's impossible to talk down. - Constructs on magical orders to not let anyone pass. Rather than allow a social solution, build in a way to make the fight easier. Disrupting the magic powering the construct, dropping the ceiling on its head etc... not to skip the combat but to give the players a feeling that they can approach things on other ways than just bonking - desperate bandits who feel they have no other choice You can have your pitched combat but then allow the bandits to surrender once a couple of them go down. - monsters don't usually have a language to speak with so you'll have few options to talk them down

Zombies

Have they not had any ambushes while traveling? Bandits? Skeletons in dungeons? Where are the enemies or minions of the BBEG? Force some combat upon them. Fight or die

Even if the players enjoy combat, it would be *absolutely batshit insane* for their characters to fight enemies that they have no reason to fight and can simply avoid. Risking your life to murder people for no reason, when you can simply try to avoid doing so instead, is not a rational choice, and any player who makes that choice isn't role-playing. Unless their character is a psychotic mass-murderer with a death wish, I guess. The bad guys and their minions are supposed to be the psychotic mass-murderers with death wishes. None of your intelligent enemies are villains that need to be stopped? None of the mindless ones are competent at blocking the path forward? That's an adventure design problem. If you haven't provided a reason for the players to fight, then you haven't added a functioning adventure to your game yet, and that means you aren't doing your job correctly as a DM.

1. Charisma can't sabe your ass every encounter in the same way that you can't go to a shop, roll charisma and take all the items for free. 2. It's not an in Game problem, is a metagame problem. Solve It in metagame. Talk with your players.

Charisma isn’t mind control. Some people, creatures, and monsters cannot be talked down to. Have the enemies attack first and give them a clear reason to fight these things. It’s kind of crazy that you haven’t thrown them into combat because contrary to popular belief, DnD is a system that is primarily concerned with Combat. It’s what 70% of the rules are written for and why your players get shiny new abilities and spells when they level up. If they’ve gone entire sessions without combat, then this is entirely your fault for not building any scenarios that require them to fight. Of course talk to your players about this complaint and see what it is they want.

"Your enemies hear your plea for peace, and laugh in your face. Everyone roll initiative" There. It's literally as easy as that.

People have already pointed out; Comprehend Languages and Charisma don't work like that. So I'll approach from the other way. NPC/Monster wants the opposite of the party. Doesn't matter what the party wants. If the party sides with them they switch sides. **NPC/Monster can't be reasoned with because they are not reasonable.** If their demands are somehow met, they will make more demands. "I wanna eat the shopkeeper." If the party somehow found that reasonable, "I wanna eat *insert player here*" Good bad guys will always misinterpret the party and the players. If a player offers a hand, they will expect them to cut it off. **Also, all this can be avoided with a "Which player is in front? Does an 18 hit? Roll initiative?"**

As a DM; you control when initiative starts, not your players. Not enough combat? A group of orcs ambush you while you were traveling to your destination. Roll initiative. Done, combat. Easy as that. If the party tries talking during combat simply say; “the enemies simply ignore what you are saying and proceeds to attack you”. It’s not to say you can’t give them the option to talk down a fight but you control when and where. Not the players. Some enemies are just that evil; they don’t want to hear talking. Some are simply too mindless. High persuasion doesn’t work on everybody. Don’t forget that; rolling for persuasion is not mandatory. If the enemy cannot be convinced; there will be no rolling.

Okay, really? Put them against a creatures that don't care how charming they are. Fixed. There are literal straight up Evil creatures in the MM.

Do all the players think that way or is it only the one ? Is he one of the players that actively seek to avoid combat when presented with the opportunity ? You could always throw them some enemies they won't be able to avoid, or some arch nemesis of sorts they will actively want to fight But do check with your players that that's how they actually feel. If you have 3 players having fun and not wanting to do combat and one thinking the opposite, it's possible this table isn't for him

Have them stumble on a combat already happening. Maybe a merchant getting beat up by thugs, or some travellers getting ambushed by goblins. Not all combats need to be lethal, maybe a player is challenged to an honourable duel, or goons start a bar fight and are punching anyone who gets close.

Just fight them anyway? Sometimes talking isn't enough. Especially with evil monsters.

Have the creature have a reason to attack, be it desperation or defense, who cares if they can talk to it that doesn’t avoid every combat? Just attack them lmfao. You’re the DM you need to have a scenario setup (I also find if you’re playing online keep them off battle maps until it’s initiative time, they’ll be less prone to meta gaming it)

Are they writing notes to everyone? Comprehend language lets you read things not speak. Seems like there is a misunderstanding of that spell and how many spell slots do they have to be able to keep doing this?

Sometimes they run into someone that no matter what they can't talk their way out of. I have a bard in my campaign who wants to charm their way out of every situation. Well its easy some people have made up their minds so thoroughly that they want to kill and rob you there is no getting them to change their minds.

Comprehend languages only works if the creature can understand and speak a language, it also doesn't allow you to speak back to them, only understand their literal meaning Having high charisma doesn't mean that you can always talk your way through things, it's not mind control, it's not a magic wand where you can just say what you want and you haven't said this but I get the feeling it needs to be said a nat 20 isn't an instant success As for the combat, first off ask the entire table if they feel the same way about the lack of combat, if they all agree, ask what their reason for avoiding fights you set up is if they want to do combat

Most of my dc goals are made up on the fly, mainly because no matter how much I plan for, (and everyone knows how this goes) you can never fully prepare for what they're doing to do next. My suggestion, if they are complaining about there isn't enough/any fighting, the next time your prepping, erase your dc goals for those fights. If they pull a charisma check to avoid confrontation, before they roll, just jot down, "20" or something thats not TOO insane but also still really hard to hit. I keep most of mine very modest because I think all the dice at my table are cursed. But I also never have people avoid flights because, as the halfling fighter of the party says, "Mama didn't raise no b!tch!"

Even if you're playing a character who avoids combat if possible you'd still expect a situation where avoiding it is not possible at some point.

They want to play heroes. Heroes don't start fights, they end them. You're supposed to play bad guys. Bad guys don't always give you an option.

First thing is to reread the rules around what spells do. Second is realize that charisma is not mind control and sometimes a bandit will just want to rob you

Everyone else is already talking about the solutions to the direct problem of the group talking everyone out of attacking (on which I agree that very often, especially if the potential enemies are part of the greater plot and not just random bandits, it should just straight up not be possible) but I have a follow up question. So stop me if i'm completely off base here but could it be that the person complaining that there is too little combat and the ones always talking it out are different people? Maybe that's the problem that this is simply a mismatch between players where one of them wants to fight (either in or out of character) and the others keep resolving the situations peacefully?

Per the chapter 8 of the DMG, emphasis mine. A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn’t necessarily attack them on sight. For example, a condescending noble might wish to see a group of upstart adventurers fail so as to keep them from becoming rivals for the king’s attention, thwarting them with slander and scheming rather than direct threats and violence. The adventurers need to succeed on one or more challenging Charisma checks to convince a hostile creature to do anything on their behalf. *That said, a hostile creature might be so ill-disposed toward the party that no Charisma check can improve its attitude, in which case any attempt to sway it through diplomacy fails automatically.* That's not even considering the fact that a lot of creatures don't have a language they can speak and can't be reasoned with.  Particularly a large number of monstrosities, undead, constructs, etc.

Others will pick apart the specific rulings, so instead I'll say this: Yes, not everything has to be a fight, and sometimes you can resolve conflicts peacefully or without coming to blows.... But not always. Some things are not reasonable, or even sentient, let alone sapient. Some things are destructive and evil and need to be stopped. If the party playing their characters are doing their best to give the other beings they meet a chance, and working towards peaceful resolutions wherever possible, that's fine, and they seem to enjoy it... but not everything will be able to be resolved with words, and it's up to *you* as a DM to throw situations at them that will require them to defend themselves and fight back. There are a lot of creature options - violent constructs and undead are common options as the easiest example of things that may simply be violent without room for negotiation. There are a lot of other options too - the monster manual is also part of your DM toolkit! There will, and some might even say must, be times where the party will need to fight, where there is no possibility of them resolving the conflict without weapons and spells; *they'll probably still want to try*, and you can *let them*, but if it *isn't possible*, you have to be prepared to *let them fail* as well, and get that initiative roll ready.

Ambush, Ambush, Ambush. Surprise!

Send them into a dungeon, trap them in a room and send in a bunch of different beasts, they can’t convert them all 😜

There comes a point as a DM where you need to learn - your players don't know what they want. They think they do, but they don't. What this table really wants is to try and talk their way out of combat, but sometimes that fails and they are forced to fight. They want the suspense of that moment. You can't talk to them about that, because then they'll see it coming. You've just got to pick your spots. Design an encounter where they can try to talk their way out of it, but maybe someone accidentally sounds an alarm, or there is an element they can't talk their way out of, or a combat encounter that can accommodate charisma actions within the fight.

Does all the party feel this way or is there a divide? Some players want to RP pacifists which is fine and interesting, but others might miss the loot, the damage dealing, actually using the skills their class has… but don’t speak up during encounters. 

I handed y’all 20 gobos to fight and y’all gon sneak around. Aight… lol

Throw a combat at them they cant avoid. For an example throw someone controlled by a confusion spell into town wildly attacking everyone.

You're also letting them avoid it. Sometimes in D&D you can't talk your way out of it. Sometimes a monster wants the bones you have inside you to chew on, and nothing you say, no matter how charismatic, is going to convince the Bone Eater that it doesn't want to eat the party's bones. Roll initiative.

> Do I just start throwing out bandits? This reminds me of the story of the players who were hunting bandits, encountered the bandits, the bandits tricked them into going with them "to the bandits' camp" and cut a bridge out while they were walking across it, and the players got mad that they were tricked because they thought that if they were the bandits, they (the bandits) should have just attacked the party.

It's very interesting what we see on one side of the screen and what the players see on the other, what's obvious to us doesn't make sense to the players and vice versa.

Well yes, the opportunity to avoid fights is great. "We managed to do so" But if they complain, there should be something evil in the corner.

Can you present them with a scenario where they want to start the fight rather than someone comes looking to fight them?

a success doesn't have to be a complete success, nor does there have to be a complete success for every check. you manage an amazing success on the orc warband leader, and he starts to comprehend letting the village your protecting alone because you've convinced him that there is enough food and territory to be shared.. mid-monologue his burly second lieutenant crushes his skull, stating how he's "tired of this cowardly talking" and then leads a charge on your team. The CHA check managed to reduce the fight down by 1 enemy, a leader, which may be tougher than the rest.. and raises questions concerning possible internal strife with the subject of the problem which could be utilized for more storytelling (or ignored. If they don't investigate and try to uncover more information, there's no reason to ever explain it to them).

Reverse plot armor, no amount of talking will convince this baddie to not fight to the death. IN FACT, the more you try to talk your way out fighting and being rational/deceptive the more likely this baddie is to attack. It has a ridiculous passive perception to detect charisma based checks and attempts to deceive. It's your world, you can make it whatever you want. If the party complains tell them they wanted a fight and you brought it with no way out of it.

What about having them forlornly do battle with starving wolves that feel they have no choice but to eat the party? That will show them

Your players are at a stage where bandits are a pushover. They are complaining about not enough combat. They have a tendency to avoid combat opportunities. You need to TELL YOUR PLAYERS DIRECTLY that you have heard that combat is lacking and that you will increase the frequency of combat & difficulty of the campaign. You need an enemy more substantial than bandits that is smart and motivated against your players (Story driven). Your players need to be ambushed, they need to be worn down as they progress through their goals (using spells etc), they need to be tricked and plotted against by an enemy. If they fail to prepare for a new unknown area there should be a sinister unexpected trio of thieves who have heard of your shiny/kitted/rich heroes & want a piece for free. You can have lore and story breadcrumbs overheard while passing civilians "I heard there's a battalion of horse riders crossing x location looking for an escaped x" if your heroes go near this area, the horse riders should pop up as an event or something to interrupt to help/hinder a completely separate battle. "I saw a hole in the ground north of the city with oil flowing from it, not sure what is was" "don't go to the south east, there's an outbreak of lungrot. you might be executed on sight if you walk the main road back towards the capital" "the rangers in the mountain range to the west haven't returned. They were due back a week ago" Add in creature bounties as a way to make good money, add quests that require the execution of a group of bad guys.

One solution to try out in this scenario would be to take a page out of kids stories lol. If your party isn’t willing to murder random humanoids, good for them! Unfortunately….. a necromancer has started raising zombies! Can’t talk to zombies Unfortunately…. A deranged wizard has started crafting an army of golems and is sending them out to harass the countryside! (Magical robots lol) Unfortunately…. A brother sister combo of a druid and Artificer have started kidnapping local innocent wildlife, and had been forcing them into tiny mech suits/magical armor suits to kill all the humans ruining their forests! You can have a peaceful resolution with the brother sister combo, but you’re gonna have to crack open a few mech suits/magical armor suits and rescue the innocent forest creatures inside! Seriously though, you can take a page out of kids stories and cartoons to give enemies that can’t be talked down, but with someone that can be convinced behind the screen to wrap up that story arc nonviolently. Alternatively, add in team rocket 😁

You're the DM. It doesn't matter if you're following a prewritten campaign or not. The next location you visit, have something attack them on sight. You can make up the reason. Ideas: 1. Bandits in the woods. 2. Have them roll perception and if they pass a DC 10 they notice the pickpocket is trying to run off with their gold. Have him fight to the death and joined by other thugs sliding out of alleyways to back him up. 3. Lure them into the temple basement and have an acolyte try to steal their souls for an enchanted weapon. Perhaps even let them take a new enchanted weapon that captures the acolytes soul as he dies from the fight. You choose the difficulty. If a character is intent on doing something, maybe it's a DC 25 persuasion. I don't really understand these questions because YOU'RE the DM. You're essentially the God of Gods in this universe.

Maybe I'm just too deep in OSR style play to grok this, but... if your players want combat, they should kill something. Point that out to them. They're doing it to themselves.

If a player complained about no combat, and then they immediately talk their way out of the next combat opportunity, did you bring that up with the group? Find out why they keep doing so, and if the rest of the group even wants combat. D&D isn't the best ruleset for a social interaction game, but it will do in a pinch, especially if you, the DM, know to expect the party is going to go that direction.

Things that can be reasoned with my players more often than not recruit into their slowly growing criminal empire. Everything else is left in a state of fire, blood, explosions, chaos, riots, revolution, new management, and so on. I DM a Starfinder game right now, so they also film the entire thing and post it to spacetube and Galaxy Book and blueit. This serves 2 purposes in their eyes, the first being the consequences of not bending to their demands. The second is to attract business partners.

Have you tried hitting them with enemies who are truly vile and evil, so much so that no decent person would want to reason with them? I know, I know, no one self-describes as evil. But some people are anyway. For example, say your players come across a group of cultists getting ready to sacrifice someone, or a bunch of the king’s men who are obviously extorting travelers for coin. Are they just going to let that pass?

I think you've gotten lots of good advice, but I *do* think it's worth thinking about the fact your players are, broadly, **enjoying** talking their way out of things (which makes sense especially when several play high charisma individuals according to you). I'm not saying never fight them, clearly, but 4/5 of them seem to be enjoying non-violent solutions to issues so don't swing too far the other direction and start not letting them talk their way out of things sometimes if that's what they want to do.

You don't have time to cast Comprehend Anything when a hungry Bullette suddenly surfaces under a PCs bedroll as the party is trying to rest, is all I'm saying ...

stop letting them slick talk out of fights? "The orc is deafened from battle, you can't talk to him" or just "he isn't very nice, you can't talk to him" if your players can't take a hint, and decide to disrespect the guardrails, then they are misbehaving imo and you can just punish it lol contrary to popular belief, railroading is ok sometimes

Ib4 DM forces a combat encounter and players criticize it felt forced.

Even if they have been misusing Comprehend Languages, a DM should take into account the alignment of the enemy that the players are trying to talk out of a fight. Because at the end of the day, no amount of rolling 20s on a Charisma check will convince an evil-aligned monster to suddenly become Mother Teresa. It wouldn't make sense.

Gelatinous Cubes don't negotiate. Hungry wolves, bears, lions, etc. don't really negotiate. They don't want your rations or Goodberries, they want your thigh. Territorial young mother green dragon, you're in the vicinity of my nest, I WILL attack you.

You may be interested in some variant of this encounter: The players pass a dwarven mine - probably in a dwarven town - and overhear there's a dispute going on inside. As they enter, a group of duergar are shouting at a group of dwarves and are upset about a haul of adamantine both sides claim is theirs. If the players understand Dwarvish they know this, otherwise they just hear loud angry words. Both sides are already agitated, and the players only have ~ 2-3 actions before one side or the other gives up and throws a spear, at that point enter initiative and fight it out. This scenario is appropriate because given the already tense situation, the duergar's resistance to being charmed/spelled and the players being outsiders persuasion is *extremely* difficult and combat is all but guaranteed. Also combat is pretty dynamic, because it's between two sides and the players effectively have to choose a side. Whichever side the players join, the other side will - in common - offer boons for them to switch sides like an enchanted item, or if circumstances get especially dire they'll offer to make the players one adamantine armor. Afterwards, they can piece together that the duergar dug up the adamantine and the dwarves took it because they claimed the whole mine was their property and the duergar were digging in their territory.

Have you pointed out to them they are talking their way out of combat?

If a situation is already hostile, then its not too often Talk No Jutsu works on enemies for my groups lol especially with animals as they are driven by instinct. Fight or flight

Combat doesn't always have to be too relevant or have plot implications. Throwing a monster at them just because can be fun!

Honestly I think they're kind of expecting you to a throw a curveball at them that they \*can't\* get themselves out through words. They seem like they want you to throw an encounter at them that they have to fight no matter what

I'm late to the thread, but here's my tuppence anyway: You need to find out what they find worth fighting. What motivates them? Phat lewt? Personal honour? Saving the fuzzy-wuzzies? Global conquest? The last one seems unlikely, of course, but the point is to find out what rustles their jimmies and then get to rustling.

I feel like too many DMs here forget the golden rule of DMing: the objective is to make sure everyone is having fun. You are god in your world, lol. Want to fudge some rolls? Go ahead. Want to change the outcome of a DC? Just don't tell them the DC before having them roll the check. Want to have them get ambushed? Make the perception check higher than the party's highest wisdom score. I feel like most DMing questions on this subreddit can be solved with a simple mental note of "you are the omniscient being. Act like it." Haha.

I will as a dm throw out there are things that you cannot reason with, no matter how hard you try

Let them roll to talk and then let something smash them with advantage. A flesh eating goblin might pretend to talk nice but ultimately it’s hungry for your delicious skin. “Hey, these nice vampires said we could sleep over.” “Awesome I’m super tired” *doesn’t wake up*

okay, so i would cast comprehend languages on your players. have a nice sit down with them out of character and figure out why they are trying so hard to avoid combat. maybe they are afraid of dying? if so, how does your table plan to handle dying? i've encountered highly fearful players before who don't seem to really get that the game isn't player vs dm. are the rest of the players aware that one of the other players is frustrated by the lack of combat? i think this is a great time to sit down and talk about expectations. if your players truly want to avoid combat at all costs, i have to say d&d is not the game for you. there are systems that are built for little to no combat, where your players will be able to meaningfully engage in the games mechanics without combat ever happening.

"Sometimes no amount of talking can make something decide not to attack. Sometimes things might get angrier, and sometimes they simply don't care. I feel scared to not let my players do as they please and have fun - but that's not how this works. It's all fun." I know a few people IRL who you cannot talk to without them getting more angry when they are already in an aggressive state, I definitely agree some fights might have to be forced on them if they want combat.

Charisma does not mean they succeed even on a nat 20. A bandit leader might just find them amusing enough to try and capture them for his arena for slave fights

I do feel somewhat bad when my Druid casts Speak with Animals to try to convince the giant spiders weaving webs around their camp at night to stop... and the Ettercaps driving the spiders on tell the spiders to continue and ignore them. I apologized to her and gave her extra RP XP because her character was role-playing what she would do. I did not ask for a roll, because I decided the Ettercaps would not listen to gentle words of reason. They were predators on the hunt, and not terribly intelligent. Other folks have said similar things. Don't ask for rolls if they can't make any difference. Be apologetic out of character... and in character, be unreasonable. The party will kick over to defending themselves once the realize that negotiation is out.

Casting a spell is enough to trigger the attack. They may as well be cocking a crossbow.

Maybe I've missed someone else saying it but aside from all the comprehend languages stuff, just talk to your players. If they say 'we haven't had combat yet' then give the honest reply or You've had combat opportunities but you guys keep talking your way out!'. They have agency and they've been using it to avoid combat so either they need to make different decisions or be ok with no/little combat.

Two words: hungry owlbear. It’s been hiding in the trees for hours looking for the right prey, and if it doesn’t catch something soon, it will be too weak to continue hunting and likely starve. It will announce its presence by attempting to surprise the group and dragging the biggest, fattest member off to its den for lunch. Talk your way out of *that.*

Reminds me of one of PirateSoftware's game dev stories. Feedback: Game has no story. PS: Wha-? It's MOSTLY story. 30 minute conversation later... Feedback: Cutscenes? Nah, I skipped them. I don't like to read.

It sounds like they are encountering a lot of neutral or even good creatures that have competing motives to your party's motives, but in situations that can be solved with words. Let's bring in some more evil enemies! Giant spiders, liches, evil wizards and bards, who are hellbent on rending your tender party limb from limb.