So, I am really feeling a bit unsure about the new Influence checks. I know they replace the old Charisma checks but setting a defined DC and outcome feels wrong, it also isn't explained exactly what the checks can be used to do.
For instance, a hostile creature, can that be influenced to stop fighting for a round, can a party of 4 have the bard stop the dragon attacking at all for 1 round and then continue hitting it, spamming that attack every round? Can a king be influenced to give up his crown with a straight DC roll of 10 because he is friendly, and then keep giving it up?
I like the concept in the rules but I feel this needs far better wording around the rule to help players and DM's learn the restrictions and limits around it. There are some things that no player should be able to convince a creature of, but the wording of the section does not indicate that at all.
So, I am really feeling a bit unsure about the new Influence checks. I know they replace the old Charisma checks but setting a defined DC and outcome feels wrong, it also isn't explained exactly what the checks can be used to do.
The DCs aren't new, they're in the DMG and have been since 5E dropped. What's new in the UA is defining an action to attempt the DCs - the DMG doesn't get into action economy when it discusses the issue.
For instance, a hostile creature, can that be influenced to stop fighting for a round, can a party of 4 have the bard stop the dragon attacking at all for 1 round and then continue hitting it, spamming that attack every round? Can a king be influenced to give up his crown with a straight DC roll of 10 because he is friendly, and then keep giving it up?
As the rules explicitly spell out, this is up to your DM.
I like the concept in the rules but I feel this needs far better wording around the rule to help players and DM's learn the restrictions and limits around it. There are some things that no player should be able to convince a creature of, but the wording of the section does not indicate that at all.
It absolutely does indicate that, but you're also right that some things should be DC 30 or outright impossible and that the rules should offer actual examples of both.
As always, there are far too many situations to describe in detail. Advice for how to handle interactions should be in the DMG. But some of it can be figured out just from the information given.
Under Hostile, it mentions that the DM might determine that no check can sway the creature, and thus the first attempt fails automatically with no retry allowed. If a player was so naive as to attempt to persuade an ancient dragon to stop fighting while their friends were clearly planning on continuing to attack...yeah, that is a wasted action. That said, if the entire party stops fighting I would allow them to attempt to parlay with certain enemies. Note that this is the same even if the party is just fighting a group of orcs. You can't just have one successful check make all the orcs surrender. But after a round or two, if things are going poorly for the orcs, then I would allow it. Or, on the first round a player could attempt to influence one of the orcs.
In addition, every NPC (being an actual person and not, as most players seem to think, a mindless automaton) will have things they will not do. A king will not give up their crown without a good reason...a VERY good reason. Likewise, you can't expect to walk into a shop and persuade the owner to give you everything for free (something I find almost every new player attempts to do). If the owner is friendly (perhaps because the PCs saved their shop last week from attacking skeletons), then I could see it. But it wouldn't happen every time...at a certain point the owner would say, "Look...you know I am grateful to you, but I need to feed my family, pay my employees, and give tithes to the church. I can't afford to keep giving you all this stuff."
Notice also the part about "particularly irksome" requests or demands. It says that the DM can shift a creature's attitude, which will automatically shut down any absurd actions. And as an attitude shift can have lasting effects, this will also lead to natural and realistic consequences. If the DM holds to this, the other players will start shutting down absurd actions, knowing that it will make things more difficult for them.
So I feel the main issue here is the new location of the material, I had forgotten entirely it was in my DMG partly because I read it and then folded it into how I run my games. By making it a part of the PHB now however it becomes a rule that players know about. That is good in some ways, having that option available in combat to try and stop a fight helps pull away from the murder hobo aspect of the game (and accounts for what many players already do, for instance use intimidation to try and stop a fight etc).
But, by stating representative DC's it then again means the DM has to explain how they will apply the rules in there own game, it creates a tension point between some players and DM's and, does not help new DM's through the lack of proper explanation. I can see this becoming a point of "debate" between DM and the player, especially new DM's and new players.
It feels like it needs better re wording, removing the DC tables or changing them for modifiers maybe? So the DM sets a DC and then a suggestion you add 10 if the creature is hostile and subtract 10 if they are friendly, that kind of language. I think that would help DM's get a better feel while not giving players the sense of what the DC should be.
I see your point, and I hope the DMG will have good advice for new DMs regarding how to handle social interaction.
I don't think there is a need for listed DCs in the PHB, but then again, it isn't as if the DMG is top secret. Anyone can look into it, and many people both DM and play in other games as players. So ultimately it is something the players will learn.
Problem players are always something a DM needs to be able to handle. Rule 0 for DMs is being able to say, "That isn't how I am running my game. Please feel free to talk with me about it after the session, but for now let's move on." And Rule 0 for players is accepting that nothing in the PHB is set in stone...everything is a suggestion, and the DM is free to change anything and everything at any time.
I like having some basic DCs in player-facing material—with the caveat that they are just examples and not hard and fast rules—because it helps players have an idea of what kind of results are in reach. If they know that they can't expect to get any more out of a hostile creature than "leave me alone" without succeeding at a very difficult check, that saves the DM the trouble of having to reset their expectations instead.
It's also a helpful check on DM power: if the players have some benchmarks, then if the DM sets a DC that seems wildly out of whack, they have a starting place for the conversation of "Hang on, I thought we were making a simple request of an NPC who likes us, why is this DC so high?" in cases where the DM is just pulling a number out of nowhere. This might constitute a "tension point" in groups with a more adversarial stance, but IMO, any DM who sets a DC without being prepared to justify it isn't giving the matter enough thought.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I am really feeling a bit unsure about the new Influence checks. I know they replace the old Charisma checks but setting a defined DC and outcome feels wrong, it also isn't explained exactly what the checks can be used to do.
For instance, a hostile creature, can that be influenced to stop fighting for a round, can a party of 4 have the bard stop the dragon attacking at all for 1 round and then continue hitting it, spamming that attack every round? Can a king be influenced to give up his crown with a straight DC roll of 10 because he is friendly, and then keep giving it up?
I like the concept in the rules but I feel this needs far better wording around the rule to help players and DM's learn the restrictions and limits around it. There are some things that no player should be able to convince a creature of, but the wording of the section does not indicate that at all.
The DCs aren't new, they're in the DMG and have been since 5E dropped. What's new in the UA is defining an action to attempt the DCs - the DMG doesn't get into action economy when it discusses the issue.
As the rules explicitly spell out, this is up to your DM.
It absolutely does indicate that, but you're also right that some things should be DC 30 or outright impossible and that the rules should offer actual examples of both.
As always, there are far too many situations to describe in detail. Advice for how to handle interactions should be in the DMG. But some of it can be figured out just from the information given.
Under Hostile, it mentions that the DM might determine that no check can sway the creature, and thus the first attempt fails automatically with no retry allowed. If a player was so naive as to attempt to persuade an ancient dragon to stop fighting while their friends were clearly planning on continuing to attack...yeah, that is a wasted action. That said, if the entire party stops fighting I would allow them to attempt to parlay with certain enemies. Note that this is the same even if the party is just fighting a group of orcs. You can't just have one successful check make all the orcs surrender. But after a round or two, if things are going poorly for the orcs, then I would allow it. Or, on the first round a player could attempt to influence one of the orcs.
In addition, every NPC (being an actual person and not, as most players seem to think, a mindless automaton) will have things they will not do. A king will not give up their crown without a good reason...a VERY good reason. Likewise, you can't expect to walk into a shop and persuade the owner to give you everything for free (something I find almost every new player attempts to do). If the owner is friendly (perhaps because the PCs saved their shop last week from attacking skeletons), then I could see it. But it wouldn't happen every time...at a certain point the owner would say, "Look...you know I am grateful to you, but I need to feed my family, pay my employees, and give tithes to the church. I can't afford to keep giving you all this stuff."
Notice also the part about "particularly irksome" requests or demands. It says that the DM can shift a creature's attitude, which will automatically shut down any absurd actions. And as an attitude shift can have lasting effects, this will also lead to natural and realistic consequences. If the DM holds to this, the other players will start shutting down absurd actions, knowing that it will make things more difficult for them.
So I feel the main issue here is the new location of the material, I had forgotten entirely it was in my DMG partly because I read it and then folded it into how I run my games. By making it a part of the PHB now however it becomes a rule that players know about. That is good in some ways, having that option available in combat to try and stop a fight helps pull away from the murder hobo aspect of the game (and accounts for what many players already do, for instance use intimidation to try and stop a fight etc).
But, by stating representative DC's it then again means the DM has to explain how they will apply the rules in there own game, it creates a tension point between some players and DM's and, does not help new DM's through the lack of proper explanation. I can see this becoming a point of "debate" between DM and the player, especially new DM's and new players.
It feels like it needs better re wording, removing the DC tables or changing them for modifiers maybe? So the DM sets a DC and then a suggestion you add 10 if the creature is hostile and subtract 10 if they are friendly, that kind of language. I think that would help DM's get a better feel while not giving players the sense of what the DC should be.
I see your point, and I hope the DMG will have good advice for new DMs regarding how to handle social interaction.
I don't think there is a need for listed DCs in the PHB, but then again, it isn't as if the DMG is top secret. Anyone can look into it, and many people both DM and play in other games as players. So ultimately it is something the players will learn.
Problem players are always something a DM needs to be able to handle. Rule 0 for DMs is being able to say, "That isn't how I am running my game. Please feel free to talk with me about it after the session, but for now let's move on." And Rule 0 for players is accepting that nothing in the PHB is set in stone...everything is a suggestion, and the DM is free to change anything and everything at any time.
I like having some basic DCs in player-facing material—with the caveat that they are just examples and not hard and fast rules—because it helps players have an idea of what kind of results are in reach. If they know that they can't expect to get any more out of a hostile creature than "leave me alone" without succeeding at a very difficult check, that saves the DM the trouble of having to reset their expectations instead.
It's also a helpful check on DM power: if the players have some benchmarks, then if the DM sets a DC that seems wildly out of whack, they have a starting place for the conversation of "Hang on, I thought we were making a simple request of an NPC who likes us, why is this DC so high?" in cases where the DM is just pulling a number out of nowhere. This might constitute a "tension point" in groups with a more adversarial stance, but IMO, any DM who sets a DC without being prepared to justify it isn't giving the matter enough thought.