D&D (2024) Influence Action

[Scribe]

What does that have to do with your implication that you don't need a roll to.convince a person?

If its obviously in their best interest, 'hey man, here's 10 Gold, enjoy' you dont need a roll.

If there is any possible way there could be disagreement, you are just as likely to get it from someone who is misunderstanding (slow/low mental stats, whatever) as you are from someone is objectively intelligent, but has come to a different conclusion.

"What bothers me so much about having the DC be based on a stat of the person you're trying to influence, is that it assumes the smarter, wiser, etc the person is, the less likely your attempt to influence them is to work..."

This makes perfect sense, because someone who is smart (Int stat) can absolutely think themselves into a position that in their view is correct, and the path of 'whats good for them' may not make sense to them because of the position they are in now.

 

[Reynard]

If its obviously in their best interest, 'hey man, here's 10 Gold, enjoy' you dont need a roll.

If there is any possible way there could be disagreement, you are just as likely to get it from someone who is misunderstanding (slow/low mental stats, whatever) as you are from someone is objectively intelligent, but has come to a different conclusion.

"What bothers me so much about having the DC be based on a stat of the person you're trying to influence, is that it assumes the smarter, wiser, etc the person is, the less likely your attempt to influence them is to work..."

This makes perfect sense, because someone who is smart (Int stat) can absolutely think themselves into a position that in their view is correct, and the path of 'whats good for them' may not make sense to them because of the position they are in now.

You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Thus, Int doesn't make sense as a default DC.

If I were to design a system for convincing an NPC to do a thing, I would design it thus:

A) Start with a Conviction Level for the NPC's current position on the matter. This is analogous to their Starting Attitude and sets the initial DC for changing their mind.

B) Each NPC is going to have goals, flaws, beliefs and needs. PCs who utilize these can reduce the difficulty of changing the NPC's mind and/or gain advantage or suffer disadvantage on the roll.

C) The roll is a Charisma check, potentially using a skill if appropriate. It's tough to Intimidate a King but you might be able to Persuade him.

Easy peasy.

 

[Stalker0]

So it does look like the notion of a friendly and hostile attitude does still exist (they are just a a bit seperate from the influence action itself). But a hostile person gies you disadv on influence checks, friends gives adv

 

[Scribe]

You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Thus, Int doesn't make sense as a default DC.

If I were to design a system for convincing an NPC to do a thing, I would design it thus:

A) Start with a Conviction Level for the NPC's current position on the matter. This is analogous to their Starting Attitude and sets the initial DC for changing their mind.

B) Each NPC is going to have goals, flaws, beliefs and needs. PCs who utilize these can reduce the difficulty of changing the NPC's mind and/or gain advantage or suffer disadvantage on the roll.

C) The roll is a Charisma check, potentially using a skill if appropriate. It's tough to Intimidate a King but you might be able to Persuade him.

Easy peasy.

Sure, this works just as well. I cannot think of a path of discussion (outside of my obstinate son) but that works as well as anything.

Personally I dont mind this rule.

 

[Reynard]

Sure, this works just as well. I cannot think of a path of discussion (outside of my obstinate son) but that works as well as anything.

Personally I dont mind this rule.

Again, my only issue with the rule is that Int is the deciding factor. I have argued with too many people on the internet to believe intelligence is the deciding factor...

 

[Scribe]

Again, my only issue with the rule is that Int is the deciding factor. I have argued with too many people on the internet to believe intelligence is the deciding factor...

This is why I think its a dangerous path of discussion.

It is Int, its also a combination of a multitude of factors that are either going to require way more complex rules, or setting development that we just wont be getting out of D&D. This is a quick and dirty way, that even leverages my beloved Alignment, to get the job done quick, and I can appreciate that.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

It really feels like leverage should make a significant difference here. Like, what are you offering/threatening/promising, and how are you doing it. I guess DMs could apply Advantage/Disadvantage, but it seems like varied DCs should be a thing too, not just INT scores.

I see some criticisms about the PHB that don't make sense to me because the issues make more sense to be DM/NPC/Narrative/Story/Exploration/Encounter kinds of things, each of which are the purview of the DM.

Leverage and other NPC factors. The DM decides if the NPC has qualities that can be taken advantage of or are harder to overcome. That's not a Player-facing rule. Players need to know how their abilities work, not get a breakdown of the DM-controlled factors. I hope that the DMG provides insight into how the DM can grant players benefits for smart and insightful play.

Culture. Backgrounds in the Core PH shouldn't have static culture options. Halfling culture isn't the same from Greyhawk to Eberron to Dark Sun. Culture is part of individual realms and worlds. Dragonlance gave good examples of thematic backgrounds/feats that were tied to organizations/cultures. Future campaign settings can introduce more specialized backgrounds that are thematic to that setting.

Players want and wield magic items, and build their Bastions, and can have Downtime, but those aren't in the PHB. The DM chooses how they are implemented.

Now if the DMG swings and misses on these topics, that is certainly worthy of criticism.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Set DC 15 across the board on these kind of checks are going to be easy to abuse.

Again, let the DMs DM. Trust them to set the difficulty.

It is actually pretty great for players, who are able to get a solid understanding of their abilities and the goals of those abilities. to know that, in general, you are going to want a 15 to succeed on something.

No idea how it could possibly be abused.

 

[Horwath]

I also don't like the static DC. At least provide mods for hitting the NPC's bonds, ideals and flaws.

guess that recycling 3.5e skills table DCs and modifiers is back on the menu...

 

[TiQuinn]

No idea how it could possibly be abused.

Because it’s very easy to focus on getting bonuses on those checks to make a DC 15 trivial.