D&D (2024) Influence Action

[Micah Sweet]

I want gameplay where the fiction actually matters. I don't want gameplay where the player clicks "influence button" to roll against a static odds regardless of who they're trying to persuade about what by which argument.

That's the problem. I'm not convinced that WotC actually wants this for the game any longer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. 4E. The edition of D&D that was designed in many ways to be "DM-proof". We already know this. You've said it many times before.

But D&D 5E isn't D&D 4E. So what you are looking for isn't part of this particular game. So while I understand your wish for 5E to be more like 4E... it usually ain't going to be. Especially when it comes down to DM creativity and adjudication-- 5E is anything BUT "DM-proof". It's always been right there-- "Rulings, Not Rules". That's what 5E is. And if you don't like it because you don't think most DMs are "fair"... well...

5.5 looks to be more like 4e than 5.0, actually. Stricter rules and mechanics over fiction look to be the trend, from my perspective.

 

[DEFCON 1]

5.5 looks to be more like 4e than 5.0, actually. Stricter rules and mechanics over fiction look to be the trend, from my perspective.

Given the disdain most fans of 4E have towards 5E and the supposition that the game was meant to evoke all the past editions... if I had to guess, I'd say most of them would probably disagree with your take on this. While 5E24 did add a few things that are reminiscent of 4E-like things (Weapon Masteries being kinda sorta Martial at-will powers for example)... I personally don't think they went nearly far enough down the 5E to 4E number line to shift the edition that way.

But then again... none of us have played 5E24 yet, so maybe in a year or two after we've really run through the gamut of the system will we find that perhaps you're more correct? We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, I can change the rules and run it how I like. And I will. But this is Oberoni Fallacy stuff. I wish the game actually taught new GMs to how to set DCs and adjudicate situation by taking the fiction into account.

No fallacy.

The book tells the GM that they can call for the check, not the player.
The book tells the GM that the check can auto-pass or auto-fail based on the attitude and personality of the target.
The book tells the GM that they can swap the DC 15 for the target's intelligence score.

What within any of that, tells the GM that the game fiction does not matter? What, within any of that, tells the GM or the player that they can "click the influence button" to roll against a static DC regardless of who it is, or what the argument is?

The players are trying to argue to the Good King that starving the peasants to feed the army is what is neccessary? Well, that check may auto fail because the attitude and personality of the king would cause that to auto fail. Accounting for the game fiction, the argument and the target. Exactly what you called for.

All it does NOT do is, explicitly, in the player facing rules, tell the DM that they can +/- 3 to the DC without relying on the target's intelligence score. But that very well might be a thing that is listed somewhere else as a general skill rule, rather than a specific influence rule.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's the problem. I'm not convinced that WotC actually wants this for the game any longer.

What part of WoTC explicitly telling GMs that the attitude and personality of the target, and nature of the argument being made affecting whether or not a roll is needed has convinced you that WoTC does not want the attitude and personality of the target, and nature of the argument to matter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What within any of that, tells the GM that the game fiction does not matter?

The fixed DC. Options are either autopass, autofail or fixed DC. Anything that is possible is equally possible.
That cannot take the fiction into account.

All it does NOT do is, explicitly, in the player facing rules, tell the DM that they can +/- 3 to the DC without relying on the target's intelligence score. But that very well might be a thing that is listed somewhere else as a general skill rule, rather than a specific influence rule.

Perhaps. And if it is, then fine. But we're talking about what we've seen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The fixed DC. Options are either autopass, autofail or fixed DC. Anything that is possible is equally possible.
That cannot take the fiction into account.

Except using their intelligence modifier as a DC, which isn't the fixed DC.

And they never stated anywhere that no other DC is possible, or that no other modifiers can be added or subtracted.

Perhaps. And if it is, then fine. But we're talking about what we've seen.

You are pointing at a rule that FINALLY gives us some concrete things to work with, and declaring that WoTC wants a death to all creative play because it didn't explicitly state that the DM who can change any rule in the book, and is constantly told they can change any rule in the book, can change the number of the DC.

And I am just looking back in the old 2014 PHB, and seeing every single place where they were vague with this stuff in the past. Like the Jumping rules that let you jump "further" with an athletics check. How much further? What DC? They never told us. And we complained about these things and asked for these DCs constantly.

Now they are telling us these things. DC 15 is the standard DC for most checks. And that is a problem for you, because despite the fact you will never once let that stop you from doing whatever you want, you are declaring that it is now impossible for anyone to ever have thought or nuance about these options. And if they hadn't given a DC? If they had just stated "you can use the persuasion skill to influence someone. Full DM discretion on the DC" you would likely be EQUALLY fervent in how lazy they are in putting all the work on the DM and not providing any DCs for us to base things on.

Do they seriously need to state, next to every single rule in the entire book "unless your DM decides otherwise"?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except using their intelligence modifier as a DC, which isn't the fixed DC.

It is "fixed" in a sense that it doesn't take the circumstances into account.

And they never stated anywhere that no other DC is possible, or that no other modifiers can be added or subtracted.



You are pointing at a rule that FINALLY gives us some concrete things to work with, and declaring that WoTC wants a death to all creative play because it didn't explicitly state that the DM who can change any rule in the book, and is constantly told they can change any rule in the book, can change the number of the DC.

And I am just looking back in the old 2014 PHB, and seeing every single place where they were vague with this stuff in the past. Like the Jumping rules that let you jump "further" with an athletics check. How much further? What DC? They never told us. And we complained about these things and asked for these DCs constantly.

Now they are telling us these things. DC 15 is the standard DC for most checks. And that is a problem for you, because despite the fact you will never once let that stop you from doing whatever you want, you are declaring that it is now impossible for anyone to ever have thought or nuance about these options. And if they hadn't given a DC? If they had just stated "you can use the persuasion skill to influence someone. Full DM discretion on the DC" you would likely be EQUALLY fervent in how lazy they are in putting all the work on the DM and not providing any DCs for us to base things on.

Do they seriously need to state, next to every single rule in the entire book "unless your DM decides otherwise"?

Well, they need to explain somewhere how the DCs are set. Perhaps it is in DMG, in 2014 version in depth handling of social situations is there. But then the player facing rules should at least hint to it, so that they understand what to expect.

And I am not against rules stating how to handle different situations and what the DCs are, I have asked for that for years. But fixed DCs is the worst and laziest way to do to that. We have six step DC chart, what the rules should do is to advice on how to set proper DC, not to just give up.

 

[Nefermandias]

How does that track? Not all actions are combat actions.

When they say "Action" it usually implies that you can do that thing during combat, within a six seconds time window. I always found it absurd to be able to persuade someone's behavior or open a complex lock in such a short time and under pressure, to be honest.

That said, I don't see the need to track things as "Actions" outside combat. Performing such tasks should take as long as it makes sense in real life. I would love to see the ten minutes exploration turn on the new DMG though, since it's a way more useful method to track time outside the combat pillar.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I want gameplay where the fiction actually matters. I don't want gameplay where the player clicks "influence button" to roll against a static odds regardless of who they're trying to persuade about what by which argument.

Great! I want gameplay where strategy and effort actually matter. I don't want "gameplay" (if you can even call it such) that can be entirely summed up with "manipulate the DM into agreement."

Both of us can be happy here, so long as we can accept that limiting the game rules to literally nothing whatever except "DM says" is not a viable path forward.

Given the disdain most fans of 4E have towards 5E and the supposition that the game was meant to evoke all the past editions... if I had to guess, I'd say most of them would probably disagree with your take on this.

Yes, 100%. 5.0 went out of its way to actively piss on 4e ideas, content, and playstyle. The "big tent" did not in any way extend to 4e. 5.5e has done nothing to change this.

While 5E24 did add a few things that are reminiscent of 4E-like things (Weapon Masteries being kinda sorta Martial at-will powers for example)... I personally don't think they went nearly far enough down the 5E to 4E number line to shift the edition that way.

Weapon masteries would be much closer to weapon properties from 4e, seeing as how several (most?) of them are passive effects, like Graze (damage on a miss), Sap (impose attack disadvantage), Push (no-save forced movement), etc. They aren't the worst thing ever, but it's definitely a day late and a dollar short, if you catch my meaning.

But then again... none of us have played 5E24 yet, so maybe in a year or two after we've really run through the gamut of the system will we find that perhaps you're more correct? We'll have to wait and see.

Nah. I heard this exact same excuse during and after the D&D Next playtest. First I wasn't allowed to form an opinion because all the classes weren't out yet. Then I wasn't allowed to form an opinion because the "tactical combat module" hadn't come out yet. Then I wasn't allowed to form an opinion because the final packet hadn't come out yet. Then I wasn't allowed to form an opinion because the books weren't out yet. Then I wasn't allowed to form an opinion for 1-2 years after the books had released.

I refuse to be told I can't evaluate things as they stand now and make an informed, reasonable opinion. Especially since all the people (numerous people) who told me the above swore I'd change my mind about 5e if I just waited for the newest moved goalpost. Not only did I not do so, I simply saw things get worse and worse.

5.5e is 5.0 with some class tweaks and the tiniest of concessions to help make martial characters suck less. It is an edition revision extremely comparable to 3.0→3.5, and WotC refusing to accept that as such is simply a marketing plot to avoid saying true things that upset fans when spoken aloud. It is not, in any way, bringing 4e into the big tent.

Call me when they actually add skill challenges or a real Warlord, rather than the $#!†-awful, cadaverous caricatures they've paraded before us in a grotesque pantomime.