Personally I really liked the 2014 social interaction rules (even if most people seemed to ignore them or not even know of their existance as they where "hidden" in the DMG). They were in my opinion a good mix and made roleplaying and stats and rolls all relevant.
Looking at the new version I'm a bit underwhelmed. Yes, it's simpler now but I don't think the devs really looked at how this would work with expertise or reliable talent. In the 2014 edition even the best case was still limited by the creatures attitude towards you. Unless the DMG will expand the current rules (which it might do) it seems that this might not be the case any more and the only difference between the attitudes is if you get advantage or disadvantage instead of a normal roll.
Again, it might be that the upcoming DMG will fix this and I'm wasting my time worrying about it, but right now I AM worried about it, because this means that a halfway decent skill combined with reliable talent will be able to convince NPCs no matter their attitude. And in extreme cases (high level expertise with some attribute bonus) you wont even need reliable talent to have an auto success against all but the most intelligent creatures.
Here's to hoping that this will be adressed in the DMG...
Remember that the DM can determine that it is impossible for a NPC to be convinced to carry out the PC’s proposal. If impossible, then no roll is required.
True, but the old rules where more specific about what you cold achieve against your oponent and limited it according to his attitude. Thats where the roleplying came in, allowing you to temporarily change the attitude.
I mean, how many DM's specifically ran by the book for this kind of thing as opposed to just setting whatever DC they felt was appropriate in the moment for any given social roll?
I mean, how many DM's specifically ran by the book for this kind of thing as opposed to just setting whatever DC they felt was appropriate in the moment for any given social roll?
Personally I really liked the 2014 social interaction rules (even if most people seemed to ignore them or not even know of their existance as they where "hidden" in the DMG).
My guess would be not very many.
But that doesn't change that the old rules seem better to me then the new ones.
The Player's Handbook only contains what the players need to know. They wouldn't put the full, DM-facing social interaction rules there. The current version is better (imo) in that it makes it a lot clearer that you can't ability check your way into making an NPC do something it really don't want to.
The old rules were pretty clear about that too. Even in the best case (getting 20+ on your skillcheck) a hostile NPC would do as asked but only if no sacrifices or risks were involved. So "just letting you through to visit your granny" would not work on a hostile guard if that would put him at risk of loosing his job (or worse).
The DMG contains 0 rules that players can rely on. It's all options the DM can choose to use or ignore.
Needing the Monster Manual for the likes of Conjure X spells has always been a design flaw, which is why both PHBs had an appendix with common animal stat blocks and why the Conjure spells have been reworked.
The DMG contains 0 rules that players can rely on. It's all options the DM can choose to use or ignore.
Of course the DM can choose to ignore rules. Your group can play with whatever houserules make sense for it. But many of the rules in the DMG are (at least to my knowledge) officially not intended to be optional rules.
It’s good to be the Dungeon Master! ... Whether you’re running a D&D game already or you think it’s something you want to try, these rules are for you. ... These rules have two important companions: the Player’s Handbook, which contains the rules your players need to create characters and the rules you need to run the game, and the Monster Manual, which contains ready-to-use monsters to populate your D&D world.
The Monster Manual introduction:
This bestiary is for storytellers and world-builders. If you have ever thought about running a Dungeons & Dragons game for your friends, either a single night’s adventure or a long-running campaign, this tome contains page after page of inspiration. It’s your one-stop shop for creatures both malevolent and benign.
And here's the intro to chapter 9 of the DMG, which is where the crunchy bits are (the previous two parts of the book are more worldbuilding and campaign planning.)
As the Dungeon Master, you aren’t limited by the rules in the Player’s Handbook, the guidelines in these rules, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild. This chapter contains optional rules that you can use to customize your campaign, as well as guidelines on creating your own material, such as monsters and magic items.
...
Before you add a new rule to your campaign, ask yourself two questions:
Will the rule improve the game?
Will my players like it?
The book is still clearly addressing DMs, and all of these rules are optional.
Finally, the Conjure <Creature Type> spells have this line:
The DM has the creatures’ statistics.
Why does the DM have their statistics? Because players aren't expected to own a Monster Manual and don't have control over what creatures the DM decides to include or exclude (or make up!)
When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings , does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
...
The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.
A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.
Half the motivation for overhauling the conjure spells in 2024 was that having the player ask the DM for random monsters sucked. This is a non-existent problem if the players are expected to own a Monster Manual, but they're not, because that'd make it way more expensive to get into the game.
And here's the intro to chapter 9 of the DMG, which is where the crunchy bits are (the previous two parts of the book are more worldbuilding and campaign planning.)
As the Dungeon Master, you aren’t limited by the rules in the Player’s Handbook, the guidelines in these rules, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild. This chapter contains optional rules that you can use to customize your campaign, as well as guidelines on creating your own material, such as monsters and magic items.
...
Before you add a new rule to your campaign, ask yourself two questions:
Will the rule improve the game?
Will my players like it?
The book is still clearly addressing DMs, and all of these rules are optional.
I disagree. This book is clearly addressing DMs and all of the rules in chapter 9 are optional. But the rules for social interaction are found in chapter 8.
PS: The rest of your post concerning the conjuration spells has nothing to do with this topic at all, so please leave that to other threads.
I disagree. This book is clearly addressing DMs and all of the rules in chapter 9 are optional. But the rules for social interaction are found in chapter 8.
Not a single chapter in the DMG is aimed at players. This is literally the first sentence in chapter 8:
Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table.
"Your players." Still talking to DMs.
And this line is from the Resolving Interactions section:
This section adds to that material by providing a structured way to resolve a social interaction. Much of this structure will be invisible to your players in play and isn’t meant to be a substitute for roleplaying.
Still talking to the DM, and even explicitly saying that the players don't need to worry about these rules - the DM is handling it.
PS: The rest of your post concerning the conjuration spells has nothing to do with this topic at all, so please leave that to other threads.
If you're going to claim the DMG and MM are player-facing books, any counterexample is fair game.
I feel we are talking around each other. I'm not claiming that DMG and MM are player facing books. I'm claiming that they are rulebooks. And I'm claiming that I liked the old rules better then the ones presented now. Like I said in my original post this may be adressed in the upcoming DMG making the entire discussion moot. But until it isn't adressed, I'm worried that the new rules for social interaction are worse.
I'm not really a fan of static DCs for Social Interactions checks (same goes for Stealth checks) but the 2024 rules for that important part of the game are straightforward, clear and easy to apply. They might even help avoid some confusion at certain tables and with some players.
The new rules remind me a bit of how Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive worked in 3.5e, where some DCs were suggested based on the skill and the attitudes of others.
Anyway, for me, the rules for Social Interaction are fine, though I'll probably end up playing the way The_Ace_of_Rogues said. I also shared here how I do it a while ago.
Really, the more I look at the pieces of social interaction, the less of an issue I see. Friendly, Indifferent, and Hostile as described in the glossary just indicate how advantage and disadvantage can be applied to social situations, and Willing, Hesitant, and Unwilling just give guidance on when a check is needed as opposed to just giving an outright yes or no. The given DC for Influence is the Medium DC for 5e, as well as being the point where having profs and/or ability mods starts carrying significant weight on the check. DC 10 means a straight d20 is favored to pass over fail, whereas at 15 you've only got 30% odds on that same roll. So by the time you figure the DC is down to 10, the creature is pretty much Willing already, thus 15 makes a good baseline as a point where character features are starting to have significant sway over the results rather than it mostly being RNG. Setting more nuanced DC or contested rolls is a learned art, not a teachable science, so some quick guidance on how to eyeball a social DC is a positive for new DMs who could use the help and a non-issue for experienced DMs who already have their own approaches.
[...] so some quick guidance on how to eyeball a social DC is a positive for new DMs who could use the help and a non-issue for experienced DMs who already have their own approaches.
Wise words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Personally I really liked the 2014 social interaction rules (even if most people seemed to ignore them or not even know of their existance as they where "hidden" in the DMG). They were in my opinion a good mix and made roleplaying and stats and rolls all relevant.
Looking at the new version I'm a bit underwhelmed. Yes, it's simpler now but I don't think the devs really looked at how this would work with expertise or reliable talent. In the 2014 edition even the best case was still limited by the creatures attitude towards you. Unless the DMG will expand the current rules (which it might do) it seems that this might not be the case any more and the only difference between the attitudes is if you get advantage or disadvantage instead of a normal roll.
Again, it might be that the upcoming DMG will fix this and I'm wasting my time worrying about it, but right now I AM worried about it, because this means that a halfway decent skill combined with reliable talent will be able to convince NPCs no matter their attitude. And in extreme cases (high level expertise with some attribute bonus) you wont even need reliable talent to have an auto success against all but the most intelligent creatures.
Here's to hoping that this will be adressed in the DMG...
Remember that the DM can determine that it is impossible for a NPC to be convinced to carry out the PC’s proposal. If impossible, then no roll is required.
Unwilling. If your urging is repugnant to the monster or counter to its alignment, no ability check is necessary; it doesn’t comply.
True, but the old rules where more specific about what you cold achieve against your oponent and limited it according to his attitude. Thats where the roleplying came in, allowing you to temporarily change the attitude.
I mean, how many DM's specifically ran by the book for this kind of thing as opposed to just setting whatever DC they felt was appropriate in the moment for any given social roll?
My guess would be not very many.
But that doesn't change that the old rules seem better to me then the new ones.
The Player's Handbook only contains what the players need to know. They wouldn't put the full, DM-facing social interaction rules there. The current version is better (imo) in that it makes it a lot clearer that you can't ability check your way into making an NPC do something it really don't want to.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The old rules were pretty clear about that too. Even in the best case (getting 20+ on your skillcheck) a hostile NPC would do as asked but only if no sacrifices or risks were involved. So "just letting you through to visit your granny" would not work on a hostile guard if that would put him at risk of loosing his job (or worse).
They were not clear about that in the 2014 Player's Handbook. Players aren't expected to own or read the DMG.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I would for the most part disagree. There were essential rules In the DMG and certain classes literally require the monster manual.
The DMG contains 0 rules that players can rely on. It's all options the DM can choose to use or ignore.
Needing the Monster Manual for the likes of Conjure X spells has always been a design flaw, which is why both PHBs had an appendix with common animal stat blocks and why the Conjure spells have been reworked.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Of course the DM can choose to ignore rules. Your group can play with whatever houserules make sense for it. But many of the rules in the DMG are (at least to my knowledge) officially not intended to be optional rules.
From the DMG intro:
The Monster Manual introduction:
And here's the intro to chapter 9 of the DMG, which is where the crunchy bits are (the previous two parts of the book are more worldbuilding and campaign planning.)
The book is still clearly addressing DMs, and all of these rules are optional.
Finally, the Conjure <Creature Type> spells have this line:
Why does the DM have their statistics? Because players aren't expected to own a Monster Manual and don't have control over what creatures the DM decides to include or exclude (or make up!)
This is confirmed in Sage Advice Compendium:
Half the motivation for overhauling the conjure spells in 2024 was that having the player ask the DM for random monsters sucked. This is a non-existent problem if the players are expected to own a Monster Manual, but they're not, because that'd make it way more expensive to get into the game.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I disagree. This book is clearly addressing DMs and all of the rules in chapter 9 are optional. But the rules for social interaction are found in chapter 8.
PS: The rest of your post concerning the conjuration spells has nothing to do with this topic at all, so please leave that to other threads.
Not a single chapter in the DMG is aimed at players. This is literally the first sentence in chapter 8:
"Your players." Still talking to DMs.
And this line is from the Resolving Interactions section:
Still talking to the DM, and even explicitly saying that the players don't need to worry about these rules - the DM is handling it.
If you're going to claim the DMG and MM are player-facing books, any counterexample is fair game.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I feel we are talking around each other. I'm not claiming that DMG and MM are player facing books. I'm claiming that they are rulebooks. And I'm claiming that I liked the old rules better then the ones presented now. Like I said in my original post this may be adressed in the upcoming DMG making the entire discussion moot. But until it isn't adressed, I'm worried that the new rules for social interaction are worse.
I'm not really a fan of static DCs for Social Interactions checks (same goes for Stealth checks) but the 2024 rules for that important part of the game are straightforward, clear and easy to apply. They might even help avoid some confusion at certain tables and with some players.
The new rules remind me a bit of how Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive worked in 3.5e, where some DCs were suggested based on the skill and the attitudes of others.
Anyway, for me, the rules for Social Interaction are fine, though I'll probably end up playing the way The_Ace_of_Rogues said. I also shared here how I do it a while ago.
Really, the more I look at the pieces of social interaction, the less of an issue I see. Friendly, Indifferent, and Hostile as described in the glossary just indicate how advantage and disadvantage can be applied to social situations, and Willing, Hesitant, and Unwilling just give guidance on when a check is needed as opposed to just giving an outright yes or no. The given DC for Influence is the Medium DC for 5e, as well as being the point where having profs and/or ability mods starts carrying significant weight on the check. DC 10 means a straight d20 is favored to pass over fail, whereas at 15 you've only got 30% odds on that same roll. So by the time you figure the DC is down to 10, the creature is pretty much Willing already, thus 15 makes a good baseline as a point where character features are starting to have significant sway over the results rather than it mostly being RNG. Setting more nuanced DC or contested rolls is a learned art, not a teachable science, so some quick guidance on how to eyeball a social DC is a positive for new DMs who could use the help and a non-issue for experienced DMs who already have their own approaches.
Wise words.