D&D (2024) Influence Action

[Epic Meepo]

I'm not sure I understand the argument that these rules don't take the fiction into account and don't require strategy. The rules literally say you can't convince someone to do something against their alignment. To convince someone to do something, you have to suss out their alignment and then strategically present your argument in a way that doesn't contradict the tenets of that alignment.

Not only does this rule require investigation and strategy to employ to full effect, but it actually gives alignments a meaningful mechanical purpose in the game.

Also, Advantage and Disadvantage both exist, so the DM already has at least one well-defined tool for adjusting skill checks with flat DCs based on extenuating circumstances.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Well, good thing I never stopped you then. My comments were in response to Micah.

You can say whatever you want about 5E not being like 4E. No skin off my nose. Of course, as you already know the gap between the two games... I personally don't know why you still bother sticking around complaining about 5E, as it seems ultimately like a waste of your time. But that's ultimately your choice, so you do what you do. Maybe it's just that you enjoy venting your irritation here on the boards... which of course is cool! I do it all the time! Nothing wrong with venting-- so long as one is then comfortable receiving comments back telling them why they think they're wrong.

That's the lesson I think a lot of people around here keep forgetting... if someone wants to praise or denigrate the game and/or WotC, they are free to do so. It's an open forum! But that doesn't mean they can do so without getting hammered back by the other side. No one gets free reign around here to make their declarations without receiving comment. And if a person can't handle others showing up to tell them why they think their opinion is crap... hanging around here on the boards ain't the best place for them. LOL!

 

[Stalker0]

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.

I think the idea of the new action is that the roleplay indicates whether a check is even used in the first place.

The rules basically say unless you find some course of action the other part might agree to, than its an autofailure. So you can't just go "hey you give me all your money....roll persuasion".

The idea is that the players have to either figure out what the person wants and how they are, or perhaps roleplay with them to start coming to the center. And then once they cross the threshold of "hell no" to "hmm.....maybe I could consider that", then the check is used to see whether the person agrees or if the negotiation might continue.

Now you could still argue you want more control over how much the roleplay adjusts the DC, and you can counter argue that its likely a bit arbitrary anyway. But I think for most people this is a reasonable approach.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, good thing I never stopped you then. My comments were in response to Micah.

You can say whatever you want about 5E not being like 4E. No skin off my nose. Of course, as you already know the gap between the two games... I personally don't know why you still bother sticking around complaining about 5E, as it seems ultimately like a waste of your time. But that's ultimately your choice, so you do what you do. Maybe it's just that you enjoy venting your irritation here on the boards... which of course is cool! I do it all the time! Nothing wrong with venting-- so long as one is then comfortable receiving comments back telling them why they think they're wrong.

Because literally over a year of searching for a game resulted in absolutely, positively nothing. No games. Period. Despite scouring four different forums, multiple VTTs, Discord, Reddit, the works. Zero games.

It feels a lot more productive to make noise about something that is unlikely but not impossible to change than to keep beating my head against a wall of absolute, total silence.

That's the lesson I think a lot of people around here keep forgetting... if someone wants to praise or denigrate the game and/or WotC, they are free to do so. It's an open forum! But that doesn't mean they can do so without getting hammered back by the other side. No one gets free reign around here to make their declarations without receiving comment. And if a person can't handle others showing up to tell them why they think their opinion is crap... hanging around here on the boards ain't the best place for them. LOL!

Not from my perspective. There are plenty of acceptable targets, and 4e is one of them. Pick a part; I'm sure you'll find people to this day spouting outrightly false things about it. Or forgetting it ever existed. Both happen quite a bit.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now you could still argue you want more control over how much the roleplay adjusts the DC, and you can counter argue that its likely a bit arbitrary anyway. But I think for most people this is a reasonable approach.

Of course it's arbitrary. The gameplay extends no farther than "DM says." By definition, this is arbitrary--and even the best DMs stumble with such zero-guidance rules, which 5.0 was absolutely stuffed full of. Unless and until they start showing us a massively improved DMG, I have zero faith that they will pick up the slack elsewhere if things are so barebones here.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Wasnt most of that just marketing spin, and a decade+ old at this point?

I seem to think every time a feature is added that has a hint of '4e did this first' a few people come out of the wood work to crow about it. Clearly, just as we all have some Neanderthal DNA, 5e also has some strands of 4e.

Is it enough for folks who liked 4e? Probably not, because the style of 4e and the style of older editions are oil and water.

I'm just over here smug that Alignment is cemented into the ongoing 'evergreen' edition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wasnt most of that just marketing spin, and a decade+ old at this point?

Explicitly rejecting the Warlord as a class solely because of "shouting arms back on" and "that's a Bard"? No, I don't think so.

I seem to think every time a feature is added that has a hint of '4e did this first' a few people come out of the wood work to crow about it. Clearly, just as we all have some Neanderthal DNA, 5e also has some strands of 4e.

I mean, of course it does. But I have already said how the vast majority of such things are merely wearing the flayed skin of 4e, rather than actually incorporating it. HD vs Surges, Cantrips vs At-Wills, all sorts of things have the thinnest superficial skin of 4e and then diametrically opposite use and design. Hell, 4e came up with the idea of "Combat Advantage"! And then 5e turned it into the crutch for nearly every "you're a bit better" mechanic ever, diluting its utility into near-uselessness for many characters.

Is it enough for folks who liked 4e? Probably not, because the style of 4e and the style of older editions are oil and water.

Only because WotC forces them to be. And remember, mayonnaise is oil and water, as is alfredo sauce (well, oil, protein, and water).

I'm just over here smug that Alignment is cemented into the ongoing 'evergreen' edition.

Congratulations? Honestly not really sure why you'd care.

 

[Scribe]

Congratulations? Honestly not really sure why you'd care.

Because I believe it speaks to the fabric, or legacy of D&D and should always be part of it. I mean you seem to care about a great many things regarding 4e, and the inclusion or rejection of those things within 5e or 5.5. Neither of us are incorporated into the Big Tent, for very different reasons, but I dont know that what you want out of D&D, and what D&D seems to be trying to be, are compatible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because I believe it speaks to the fabric, or legacy of D&D and should always be part of it. I mean you seem to care about a great many things regarding 4e, and the inclusion or rejection of those things within 5e or 5.5. Neither of us are incorporated into the Big Tent, for very different reasons, but I dont know that what you want out of D&D, and what D&D seems to be trying to be, are compatible.

Having seen other approaches to the same concept, I fear I can't really be compelled by traditionalism alone. Alignment so, so, so often devolves into a horrible straightjacket, a problem that the mechanic has suffered literally since the earliest days. Even 5e, where it is essentially fluff, it still manages to wedge in some straightjacket-y stuff. (I blame the lingering malign influence of how crap-awful 3.X handled it.)

Alignment has changed many times over the years. Some would say that the now-ten-point alignment (L/N/C x G/N/E, Unaligned) is a betrayal of the old one-axis (L/N/C) system, for instance. Some would say that 3.X/PF1e's mega emphasis on alignment--to the point of having "axiomatic" and "anarchic" weapon enchantments--was the only acceptable form and that "unaligned" is a meaningless concept. Etc. I fully expect it to evolve yet further. "Cemented" is a bit of an excessive term for that, wouldn't you say?

 

[Scribe]

"Cemented" is a bit of an excessive term for that, wouldn't you say?

Not at all, its right there, and they have even decided to put behavior descriptors in a table, and (as in the OP) make mention to it for a minor minor rule. Regardless, its in the evergreen edition again, Monsters are carrying an Alignment as they should be, and I'll be chuckling over it for another decade.