If the request is something the creature would just do, no check is just succeeds
If the request is something repugnant to the creature, or against their alignment, no check it just fails. (aka no 30 persuasions to convince someone to kill for you just because you talk that good).
If they are "hesitant", its a DC 15 or Intelligence score of the target (whichever is higher). Check depends on what method you are using (intimidation, persuasion, deception, etc).
I don't like contested rolls for social interactions, so it's OK with me if the idea is to use a fixed DC or the INT score, although in my case, I was setting the DC based on the NPC's conversations with the players, behaviors, mood, attitude of the creature, etc.
Nice to see int being used for something. Though I donât see it stopping people from dumping int. In practice, it will make wizards and artificers hard to influence, and the rest of the party it will be a 15. At least, when itâs being used to influence a PC. Though I can also see that leading to fights at the table. Really want to see the DMG advice on this one.
Would you use Persuasion check against a PC? I would have thought that was better decided by role-playing.
It's like we play, at least. I don't roll Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion for NPCs. Instead, they try to lie, intimidate or persuade using my own roleplaying abilities and the characteristics of NPC (race, behaviour, appearance, background, etc.).
I prefer not to force players to act based on dice rolls.
It gives the starting DM a reference point, where something passes, where it tips the scale. Or in this sense, the player's have an idea where the decision changes.
I guess just labelling DC 10 - Easy DC 15 - Medium etc, wasn't sending the messege clear enough :v
A charisma check should never force a PC to act in a specific way.
I mean, part of me agrees with this. But then I think about making an insight check to figure out if someone is lying, rolling bad and hearing the DM say something like, seems to you like theyâre telling the truth. And then the player acts accordingly. So an influence check could be the DM saying something like, their argument seems very persuasive. And then the player acts accordingly.
A charisma check should never force a PC to act in a specific way.
I mean, part of me agrees with this. But then I think about making an insight check to figure out if someone is lying, rolling bad and hearing the DM say something like, seems to you like theyâre telling the truth. And then the player acts accordingly. So an influence check could be the DM saying something like, their argument seems very persuasive. And then the player acts accordingly.
The thing is, an insight check doesn't tell you that someone is telling the truth. It tells you that you don't think they're lying. Regardless of what the roll is you can still choose whether or not you believe what the NPC says.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A charisma check should never force a PC to act in a specific way.
I mean, part of me agrees with this. But then I think about making an insight check to figure out if someone is lying, rolling bad and hearing the DM say something like, seems to you like theyâre telling the truth. And then the player acts accordingly. So an influence check could be the DM saying something like, their argument seems very persuasive. And then the player acts accordingly.
The thing is, an insight check doesn't tell you that someone is telling the truth. It tells you that you don't think they're lying. Regardless of what the roll is you can still choose whether or not you believe what the NPC says.
To me it seems like "don't think they're lying" and "think they're telling the truth" are about the same thing. And either way, if you're going to disregard the results of the roll, then why roll at all? It's like when you go to a door which is likely trapped, and your roll to check for traps fails. Do you say, "well I still think there's a trap, so I'm not going to use the door," or do you say "my character thinks the door is clear of traps, they open it." There's already lots of metagame instances where the players know things their characters don't. To me, this is just a way of codifying this one.
That said I do realize this is a sticky subject for people, and many have reasonable arguments that it intrudes on player agency if they are told what their character should think. Which is why in my first post I said I could see it leading to arguments and do want to see what the DMG has to say about it. It just seems like if PCs can influence NPCs, then NPCs should be able to influence PCs. Like the frequently given advice in the DM threads of "tell your players that they can use that strategy, but it means the monsters can too."
A charisma check should never force a PC to act in a specific way.
I mean, part of me agrees with this. But then I think about making an insight check to figure out if someone is lying, rolling bad and hearing the DM say something like, seems to you like theyâre telling the truth. And then the player acts accordingly. So an influence check could be the DM saying something like, their argument seems very persuasive. And then the player acts accordingly.
The thing is, an insight check doesn't tell you that someone is telling the truth. It tells you that you don't think they're lying. Regardless of what the roll is you can still choose whether or not you believe what the NPC says.
To me it seems like "don't think they're lying" and "think they're telling the truth" are about the same thing. And either way, if you're going to disregard the results of the roll, then why roll at all? It's like when you go to a door which is likely trapped, and your roll to check for traps fails. Do you say, "well I still think there's a trap, so I'm not going to use the door," or do you say "my character thinks the door is clear of traps, they open it." There's already lots of metagame instances where the players know things their characters don't. To me, this is just a way of codifying this one.
That said I do realize this is a sticky subject for people, and many have reasonable arguments that it intrudes on player agency if they are told what their character should think. Which is why in my first post I said I could see it leading to arguments and do want to see what the DMG has to say about it. It just seems like if PCs can influence NPCs, then NPCs should be able to influence PCs. Like the frequently given advice in the DM threads of "tell your players that they can use that strategy, but it means the monsters can too."
I think the âit steps on player agency argumentâ is a bad one and probably is a bit overblown. This is not telling players what to think; it is telling players what they know. The player still gets to make every single decision on how their character thinks based on the information they have available.
I expect this will be a rule I ignore, continuing to use opposed checks. I think they are far more interesting and fun - and provide more dynamic gameplay for players and the DM, regardless of if they are the one performing the check or defending against it.
A charisma check should never force a PC to act in a specific way.
I mean, part of me agrees with this. But then I think about making an insight check to figure out if someone is lying, rolling bad and hearing the DM say something like, seems to you like theyâre telling the truth. And then the player acts accordingly. So an influence check could be the DM saying something like, their argument seems very persuasive. And then the player acts accordingly.
The thing is, an insight check doesn't tell you that someone is telling the truth. It tells you that you don't think they're lying. Regardless of what the roll is you can still choose whether or not you believe what the NPC says.
To me it seems like "don't think they're lying" and "think they're telling the truth" are about the same thing. And either way, if you're going to disregard the results of the roll, then why roll at all? It's like when you go to a door which is likely trapped, and your roll to check for traps fails. Do you say, "well I still think there's a trap, so I'm not going to use the door," or do you say "my character thinks the door is clear of traps, they open it." There's already lots of metagame instances where the players know things their characters don't. To me, this is just a way of codifying this one.
Okay, let me put it this way: have you ever tried buying a car? A salesperson comes up to you and gives you a big sales pitch about the car they want to sell you. This is functionally a charisma check where they're trying to make their car sound like the absolutely best thing on four wheels that's ever been built, even if it's a Cybertruck. The thing is, even if they roll high on this charisma check and beat your insight check, it's not mind control. They can make the car sound really good, but you still have the ability to say "no."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A charisma check should never force a PC to act in a specific way.
I mean, part of me agrees with this. But then I think about making an insight check to figure out if someone is lying, rolling bad and hearing the DM say something like, seems to you like theyâre telling the truth. And then the player acts accordingly. So an influence check could be the DM saying something like, their argument seems very persuasive. And then the player acts accordingly.
The thing is, an insight check doesn't tell you that someone is telling the truth. It tells you that you don't think they're lying. Regardless of what the roll is you can still choose whether or not you believe what the NPC says.
To me it seems like "don't think they're lying" and "think they're telling the truth" are about the same thing. And either way, if you're going to disregard the results of the roll, then why roll at all? It's like when you go to a door which is likely trapped, and your roll to check for traps fails. Do you say, "well I still think there's a trap, so I'm not going to use the door," or do you say "my character thinks the door is clear of traps, they open it." There's already lots of metagame instances where the players know things their characters don't. To me, this is just a way of codifying this one.
Okay, let me put it this way: have you ever tried buying a car? A salesperson comes up to you and gives you a big sales pitch about the car they want to sell you. This is functionally a charisma check where they're trying to make their car sound like the absolutely best thing on four wheels that's ever been built, even if it's a Cybertruck. The thing is, even if they roll high on this charisma check and beat your insight check, it's not mind control. They can make the car sound really good, but you still have the ability to say "no."
People routinely walk away from sales pitches with things they donât want. They might have had the ability to say no, but in the moment, they fail to do so. They are literally talked into it.
People routinely walk away from sales pitches with things they donât want. They might have had the ability to say no, but in the moment, they fail to do so. They are literally talked into it.
Some people do, but not everybody, that's the point. Because it's not mind control and it doesn't force people to behave in a specific way: even if it sounds very enticing the person can decide not to get it for some reason. If you want your characters interactions to be based purely on dice rolls, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
People routinely walk away from sales pitches with things they donât want. They might have had the ability to say no, but in the moment, they fail to do so. They are literally talked into it.
Some people do, but not everybody, that's the point. Because it's not mind control and it doesn't force people to behave in a specific way: even if it sounds very enticing the person can decide not to get it for some reason. If you want your characters interactions to be based purely on dice rolls, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a rule.
No one is really saying your characterâs actions should be based only on dice rolls - that is a straw man.
What folks are saying is that, yes. If your character was lied to, and you fail to detect the lie, you should operate using the knowledge available to your character. If you trust the used car man and have no real car knowledge, maybe you do end up buying a clunker, because they seem like a car expert and you defer to their feigned expertise. Or maybe you know a lot about cars, so you know the Cybertruck is a poorly designed injury machine, so you have other knowledge to counteract the fast talking person, even as your gut is trying to tell you to trust them. Or maybe you trust the person for other reasons - maybe they are a long time friendly NPC - you know there is evidence to suggest you are lying, but you believe them anyway because they rolled higher and your character trusts them more than they trust themselves on that issue.
That is how the real world works - sometimes lies are outcome determinative, sometimes they are not⊠and sometimes the lie is so compelling you ignore everything else and make a terrible mistake. That is how one should play their player also (that and avoiding metagaming to justify âeh, I donât want to trust my bad insight roll). In these situations, the player is still using agency for their player - they just are using agency based on the info their character actually knows⊠and what they know very well could be a lie.
People routinely walk away from sales pitches with things they donât want. They might have had the ability to say no, but in the moment, they fail to do so. They are literally talked into it.
Some people do, but not everybody, that's the point. Because it's not mind control and it doesn't force people to behave in a specific way: even if it sounds very enticing the person can decide not to get it for some reason. If you want your characters interactions to be based purely on dice rolls, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a rule.
No one is really saying your characterâs actions should be based only on dice rolls - that is a straw man.
What folks are saying is that, yes. If your character was lied to, and you fail to detect the lie, you should operate using the knowledge available to your character. If you trust the used car man and have no real car knowledge, maybe you do end up buying a clunker, because they seem like a car expert and you defer to their feigned expertise. Or maybe you know a lot about cars, so you know the Cybertruck is a poorly designed injury machine, so you have other knowledge to counteract the fast talking person, even as your gut is trying to tell you to trust them. Or maybe you trust the person for other reasons - maybe they are a long time friendly NPC - you know there is evidence to suggest you are lying, but you believe them anyway because they rolled higher and your character trusts them more than they trust themselves on that issue.
Or maybe despite their apparent sincerity, you decide not to trust them anyway for whatever reason you choose, like that car salespeople often lie to people they're trying to sell cars to. The dice tell you that the person seems trustworthy. They don't tell you that you have to trust them, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. It's like making a Perception check to try to find hidden enemies while in a dungeon: the fact that you don't detect any hidden enemies does not mean that the party concludes that there are no hidden enemies and proceeds to march into the room without caution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Or maybe despite their apparent sincerity, you decide not to trust them anyway for whatever reason you choose, like that car salespeople often lie to people they're trying to sell cars to. The dice tell you that the person seems trustworthy. They don't tell you that you have to trust them, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. It's like making a Perception check to try to find hidden enemies while in a dungeon: the fact that you don't detect any hidden enemies does not mean that the party concludes that there are no hidden enemies and proceeds to march into the room without caution.
Maybe itâs just a play style difference then. Because if my perception check says thereâs nothing there, I am going to just march into the room. The caution came into play when I made the check. My character looked around and didnât see anything, so that character will just walk in having decided itâs safe.
Similarly, if my DM tells me I donât think the NPC is lying, my character will act accordingly. Iâm not sure how influence will play out, since itâs kind of a new thing.
People routinely walk away from sales pitches with things they donât want. They might have had the ability to say no, but in the moment, they fail to do so. They are literally talked into it.
Some people do, but not everybody, that's the point. Because it's not mind control and it doesn't force people to behave in a specific way: even if it sounds very enticing the person can decide not to get it for some reason. If you want your characters interactions to be based purely on dice rolls, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a rule.
No one is really saying your characterâs actions should be based only on dice rolls - that is a straw man.
What folks are saying is that, yes. If your character was lied to, and you fail to detect the lie, you should operate using the knowledge available to your character. If you trust the used car man and have no real car knowledge, maybe you do end up buying a clunker, because they seem like a car expert and you defer to their feigned expertise. Or maybe you know a lot about cars, so you know the Cybertruck is a poorly designed injury machine, so you have other knowledge to counteract the fast talking person, even as your gut is trying to tell you to trust them. Or maybe you trust the person for other reasons - maybe they are a long time friendly NPC - you know there is evidence to suggest you are lying, but you believe them anyway because they rolled higher and your character trusts them more than they trust themselves on that issue.
Or maybe despite their apparent sincerity, you decide not to trust them anyway for whatever reason you choose, like that car salespeople often lie to people they're trying to sell cars to. The dice tell you that the person seems trustworthy. They don't tell you that you have to trust them, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. It's like making a Perception check to try to find hidden enemies while in a dungeon: the fact that you don't detect any hidden enemies does not mean that the party concludes that there are no hidden enemies and proceeds to march into the room without caution.
Thank you for agreeing with me - that is, after all, literally a point I made in the very post you are responding to. I just also acknowledge the reality that people often do fall for fast talkers⊠or get betrayed by friends they thought they can trust completely. A good player is not going to only rely on dice rolls, and they are not always going to look for excuses to ignore the role - they are going to come up with an organic response to the check based on their characterâs knowledge.
Your insistence on only looking at the âwhole pictureâ ignores the simple reality that lies do sometimes trump other evidence. To be perfectly frank, that reality is so well documented, and such an unfortunate and inevitable part of the human experience, if someone never deferred to the dice and always said âwell, they sound trustworthy, so Iâll just ignore the bad dice roll and come up with some reason why I doâ, I would assume they are metagaming. In my experience, that assumption would be correct every single time.
I think that forcing this to be formal action removes needed flexibility in combat. While speech may be a free action, having that speech have an effect is now an action. In combat, calling for surrender, bargaining, or offering quarter now needs a combatant to sacrifice their action if it has a chance of being effective; that will likely be a bridge too far. Combats ate more likely to drag on to the bitter end.
I think that forcing this to be formal action removes needed flexibility in combat. While speech may be a free action, having that speech have an effect is now an action. In combat, calling for surrender, bargaining, or offering quarter now needs a combatant to sacrifice their action if it has a chance of being effective; that will likely be a bridge too far. Combats ate more likely to drag on to the bitter end.
Not necessarily: the Influence action is there to be used when the outcome of the interaction is in doubt and the character is concentrating on influencing the NPC. Shouting âSurrender!â at the remaining enemies as you knock out their buddy might still achieve your goal if surrendering seems like the overwhelmingly sensible option. Alternatively, the DM might respond that they look hesitant but are still brandishing their weapons; the next character might then choose to use an Influence action to intimidate them into surrender.
Another scenario might be the presence of bystanders who could assist you in combat. A shout of âHelp!â might bring them into the fight if they are Friendly and not facing a foe that seriously outmatches them. If theyâre Indifferent (or Friendly but with reasons that make them hesitant to pitch in), then an Influence action to persuade them to help you might be necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This Action is one of my obsessions in the revised rules đ because social interactions are very important in my games.
According to this thread on EN World, this is how Influence Action will work:
I don't like contested rolls for social interactions, so it's OK with me if the idea is to use a fixed DC or the INT score, although in my case, I was setting the DC based on the NPC's conversations with the players, behaviors, mood, attitude of the creature, etc.
Nice to see int being used for something. Though I donât see it stopping people from dumping int. In practice, it will make wizards and artificers hard to influence, and the rest of the party it will be a 15. At least, when itâs being used to influence a PC. Though I can also see that leading to fights at the table. Really want to see the DMG advice on this one.
Would you use Persuasion check against a PC? I would have thought that was better decided by role-playing.
A charisma check should never force a PC to act in a specific way.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It's like we play, at least. I don't roll Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion for NPCs. Instead, they try to lie, intimidate or persuade using my own roleplaying abilities and the characteristics of NPC (race, behaviour, appearance, background, etc.).
I prefer not to force players to act based on dice rolls.
Same opinion! â€ïž
Static DC's? I like em.
It gives the starting DM a reference point, where something passes, where it tips the scale. Or in this sense, the player's have an idea where the decision changes.
I guess just labelling
DC 10 - Easy
DC 15 - Medium
etc, wasn't sending the messege clear enough :v
I mean, part of me agrees with this. But then I think about making an insight check to figure out if someone is lying, rolling bad and hearing the DM say something like, seems to you like theyâre telling the truth. And then the player acts accordingly.
So an influence check could be the DM saying something like, their argument seems very persuasive. And then the player acts accordingly.
The thing is, an insight check doesn't tell you that someone is telling the truth. It tells you that you don't think they're lying. Regardless of what the roll is you can still choose whether or not you believe what the NPC says.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To me it seems like "don't think they're lying" and "think they're telling the truth" are about the same thing. And either way, if you're going to disregard the results of the roll, then why roll at all? It's like when you go to a door which is likely trapped, and your roll to check for traps fails. Do you say, "well I still think there's a trap, so I'm not going to use the door," or do you say "my character thinks the door is clear of traps, they open it." There's already lots of metagame instances where the players know things their characters don't. To me, this is just a way of codifying this one.
That said I do realize this is a sticky subject for people, and many have reasonable arguments that it intrudes on player agency if they are told what their character should think. Which is why in my first post I said I could see it leading to arguments and do want to see what the DMG has to say about it. It just seems like if PCs can influence NPCs, then NPCs should be able to influence PCs. Like the frequently given advice in the DM threads of "tell your players that they can use that strategy, but it means the monsters can too."
I think the âit steps on player agency argumentâ is a bad one and probably is a bit overblown. This is not telling players what to think; it is telling players what they know. The player still gets to make every single decision on how their character thinks based on the information they have available.
I expect this will be a rule I ignore, continuing to use opposed checks. I think they are far more interesting and fun - and provide more dynamic gameplay for players and the DM, regardless of if they are the one performing the check or defending against it.
Okay, let me put it this way: have you ever tried buying a car? A salesperson comes up to you and gives you a big sales pitch about the car they want to sell you. This is functionally a charisma check where they're trying to make their car sound like the absolutely best thing on four wheels that's ever been built, even if it's a Cybertruck. The thing is, even if they roll high on this charisma check and beat your insight check, it's not mind control. They can make the car sound really good, but you still have the ability to say "no."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
People routinely walk away from sales pitches with things they donât want. They might have had the ability to say no, but in the moment, they fail to do so. They are literally talked into it.
Some people do, but not everybody, that's the point. Because it's not mind control and it doesn't force people to behave in a specific way: even if it sounds very enticing the person can decide not to get it for some reason. If you want your characters interactions to be based purely on dice rolls, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a rule.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No one is really saying your characterâs actions should be based only on dice rolls - that is a straw man.
What folks are saying is that, yes. If your character was lied to, and you fail to detect the lie, you should operate using the knowledge available to your character. If you trust the used car man and have no real car knowledge, maybe you do end up buying a clunker, because they seem like a car expert and you defer to their feigned expertise. Or maybe you know a lot about cars, so you know the Cybertruck is a poorly designed injury machine, so you have other knowledge to counteract the fast talking person, even as your gut is trying to tell you to trust them. Or maybe you trust the person for other reasons - maybe they are a long time friendly NPC - you know there is evidence to suggest you are lying, but you believe them anyway because they rolled higher and your character trusts them more than they trust themselves on that issue.
That is how the real world works - sometimes lies are outcome determinative, sometimes they are not⊠and sometimes the lie is so compelling you ignore everything else and make a terrible mistake. That is how one should play their player also (that and avoiding metagaming to justify âeh, I donât want to trust my bad insight roll). In these situations, the player is still using agency for their player - they just are using agency based on the info their character actually knows⊠and what they know very well could be a lie.
Or maybe despite their apparent sincerity, you decide not to trust them anyway for whatever reason you choose, like that car salespeople often lie to people they're trying to sell cars to. The dice tell you that the person seems trustworthy. They don't tell you that you have to trust them, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. It's like making a Perception check to try to find hidden enemies while in a dungeon: the fact that you don't detect any hidden enemies does not mean that the party concludes that there are no hidden enemies and proceeds to march into the room without caution.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Maybe itâs just a play style difference then. Because if my perception check says thereâs nothing there, I am going to just march into the room. The caution came into play when I made the check. My character looked around and didnât see anything, so that character will just walk in having decided itâs safe.
Similarly, if my DM tells me I donât think the NPC is lying, my character will act accordingly. Iâm not sure how influence will play out, since itâs kind of a new thing.
Thank you for agreeing with me - that is, after all, literally a point I made in the very post you are responding to. I just also acknowledge the reality that people often do fall for fast talkers⊠or get betrayed by friends they thought they can trust completely. A good player is not going to only rely on dice rolls, and they are not always going to look for excuses to ignore the role - they are going to come up with an organic response to the check based on their characterâs knowledge.
Your insistence on only looking at the âwhole pictureâ ignores the simple reality that lies do sometimes trump other evidence. To be perfectly frank, that reality is so well documented, and such an unfortunate and inevitable part of the human experience, if someone never deferred to the dice and always said âwell, they sound trustworthy, so Iâll just ignore the bad dice roll and come up with some reason why I doâ, I would assume they are metagaming. In my experience, that assumption would be correct every single time.
I think that forcing this to be formal action removes needed flexibility in combat. While speech may be a free action, having that speech have an effect is now an action. In combat, calling for surrender, bargaining, or offering quarter now needs a combatant to sacrifice their action if it has a chance of being effective; that will likely be a bridge too far. Combats ate more likely to drag on to the bitter end.
Not necessarily: the Influence action is there to be used when the outcome of the interaction is in doubt and the character is concentrating on influencing the NPC. Shouting âSurrender!â at the remaining enemies as you knock out their buddy might still achieve your goal if surrendering seems like the overwhelmingly sensible option. Alternatively, the DM might respond that they look hesitant but are still brandishing their weapons; the next character might then choose to use an Influence action to intimidate them into surrender.
Another scenario might be the presence of bystanders who could assist you in combat. A shout of âHelp!â might bring them into the fight if they are Friendly and not facing a foe that seriously outmatches them. If theyâre Indifferent (or Friendly but with reasons that make them hesitant to pitch in), then an Influence action to persuade them to help you might be necessary.