Mentioning adding a creature's Insight score to the DC of a check is something I never even considered, and I will definitely be thinking about that next time I use a pre-determined stat block for creatures in a social setting.
I've always considered the friendly/neutral/hostile scale as a scale specifically for characters still willing to engage in the kind of social interaction that could involve attitude-swaying at all. Like, a monster that attacks on sight would be too far beyond even the "hostile" category to stop and chat with unless they're given an extremely good reason. Meanwhile, a bartender who is distrustful of strangers at first would be filed under "hostile", but it's still possible to earn his trust.
Wild Beasts and low int monstrosities are good candidates for Hostile and likely to attack out of fear, defense of territory or young, or thinking the party is Prey. A good CHA animal handling check to "GO ON, GIT!" as an Intimidation tactic could end a fight before it breaks out. Had a party avoid a fight with 3 wolves who were prepared to defend their kill. They tossed them some meat and rolled total of 23 on the check, wolves shifted to Indifferent and let them pass as they realized the party had no interest in their delicious big snake.
I think it was 3.5, but they used 5 categories that kind of filled what you're describing: Hostile: immediately attack unfriendly: "get off my lawn you darn kids" neutral: most people friendly: an old ally devoted: close friends so that successfully influencing the bandits might mean that they just say "be on your way "after taking a smaller fee
The d20 test as presented in the first playtest packet can only apply for DCs between 5-30 and succeeds automatically on a 20, but that's not the case in the playtest packet with the influence rules. If the final rules lay out the following: - A D20 Test can only be performed on things with a DC between 5-30 - The DM is the one who calls for a D20 Test Then there is no problem, the players can't magically auto-succeed on a skill check they should never have been allowed to make in the first place. Instead of making an influence check to try and get half the laird's land, Bardy McFly *may* be able to make a check to soften the laird's attitude towards the party, which might lead to more conversations and eventually getting a small parcel of land for a future task. My biggest problem with OneD&D right now is the way they are releasing playtest material in piecemeal which means you have no wider context to how the rules will play out or interact, because you're using them alongside the existing 5e rules, and those aren't the rules they will actually be alongside. WotC should have released a whole playtest ruleset and allowed people to play it in context from now until late 2023 and make changes based on real feedback.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
@@BobWorldBuilder if the nat 20 rule makes it through that would prove that they aren't actually listening to feedback. Indifference was the most positive reaction that rule received and that was the vast minority.
I think that last statement misses one of the points WotC made in the 2nd playtest release video. They have multiple iterations of rules they want to test such as players getting inspiration of natural 20s vs on natural 1s vs other means. If only have a single playtest release, they only really can get good feedback on one of those options; and if they then start doing smaller additional releases, then why not just do what they're already doing now? I agreed that it would be nice to have the whole ruleset for context, but asking players to parse through a whole new set of rules and provide feedback on all of it all at once is a lot. I think it's much more manageable for us and for WotC to get feedback on smaller elements before they start trying to assemble those pieces and get feedback on the ruleset as a bigger picture. I'm guessing we may see a playtest a bit further down the road that combines some of these earlier playtest elements into a more complete package.
Wizards of the Coast are using the Games Workshop method of releasing information out of context so players play a massively interactive game without the full context of new rules.
Yes, if they keep the 20 auto-succeed rule, they HAVE to make clear the DM calls for the roll. (Also, there is a danger of players spamming checks to get a nat 1 or 20 to get Inspiration, the way these UAs have been worded!)
I definitely think the word hostile should be changed to something like "Antagonistic" because it still carries the implication that the NPC doesn't like you or want to work with you in any way, and hell might even be opposed to you, but doesn't carry the implications that "Hostile" does, because to me I see hostile and I think that they're spoiling for a fight. That and it would make things a little more clear on the "Hey, this creature is Hostile towards you. They cannot be negotiated with" versus "At the DM's discretion, they may be impossible to convince."
I agree. Because parties that are antagonistic towards each other end up working together all the time. From Batman intimidating a thug to tell him a piece of information, to a thief bribing a guard to look the other way, to a con man convincing am enemy soldier that his forged identity his real.
That a great change. Even "unfriendly" would work because it creates a natural opposite but still suggests that, yeah, maybe they would help you out with something small if it didn't inconvenience them. Hostile sounds too aggressive
This is probably the legacy of older editions having 5 or 6 NPC Attitudes (so there was a step between Indifferent and Hostile) but post-3e D&D really trying to simplify every system. But I definitely agree "Antagonistic" is a lot more inclusive of the reasons why an NPC doesn't like the PCs beyond "I want to kill you" than "Hostile" is.
The influence action sounds a lot like the charm spell 🤔 It also gives a "DM vs Players" feel, like they want to set up the concept that the players have to trump the DM in order to "win" D&D.
i like to use the alignment chart with this, depending on the circumstances. i also use the pathfinder 5 relation steps helpful, friendly, neutral, unfriendly, hostile. its mostly for the chaotic good bard who really wants to pick up chicks. if he power thrust towards the lawful good maiden he has to roll with disadvantage and he will only go to friendly on the first interaction. he has to find another chaotic good to go up the two steps to helpful on the first night. but then there also the chance she is chaotic evil, or lawful evil and will actively try to harm him. also fun for the bard to try and charm the dragon with disadvantage and make him friendly to even helpful. with the of chance they could just utterly piss off the dragon.
I think the general idea is that it's modelling the use of a character's persuasion skills to persuade someone. It's not meant to be a charm spell much like a warrior hitting someone isn't casting Cause Light Wounds. The way it's currently implemented may be slanted, but making a persuasion roll to persuade a DM-controlled character isn't really any more DM vs Player than making a hit-with-sword roll to hit a DM-controlled monster with a sword.
In early editions of DND, it is actually beneficial to work with sentient monsters while in the dungeon. There was a monster reaction roll that the referee would do when PCs encountered monsters. If the roll was high, the monsters could be indifferent or helpful towards the players.
In earlier editions, you couldn't aim a Bow against anyone specific in the room. It just hit a random person somewhere in the room. Nevermind the 15 different "instant death, no save" effects and items. Early editions aren't all they are cracked up to be.
@@KnightRighteous Interesting, maybe. Not neat. If the decision between being able to: 1. Social encounter your way through a dungeon 2. Having to fight your way through ever single rat abd mimic of a dungeon Is made by a dice roll, the results become way too random and volatile. I would expect a pre-written adventure to select fixed attitudes for monsters, to at least remove that Randomness.
@@christopherg2347 Your view on this is far too narrow as this is more complex than youre making it seem. The randomness/odds is/are determined by the dm as he determines the DC and the monsters attitude/disposition. Its not just black and white with just rp'ing your way through the dungeon or killing everything. You could just as an example convince a Goblin to turn against its camp in exchange for a reward. Or if you successfully convince the gobling that what the camp is doing is wrong etcetera.
2 роки тому+2
I saw a great solution for situations like this. The King believes you think that you are now the ruler of half the country and therefore sends you to a mental institution where you will get the best help that money can buy to get over your delusions of grandeur.
I may regret it later, but I recently provided the social interaction rules from the DMG directly to my players ahead of our next campaign. While the DCs are not a perfect guide, the general framework is helpful to drive consistency in my rulings, and the players should know how to interact with the world to get what they want. The PHB doesn’t do a great job of quantifying how a social encounter unfolds from a mechanical standpoint; it basically just tells them to have a conversation and sometimes your DM will ask for a check. I realize it’s intended to give the DM more freedom to determine their own rulings, but I found that because the players didn’t understand how to approach a roleplaying scenario to get what they want, they defaulted to relying on a single skills check to do it for them, rather than actually trying to persuade the NPC.
Heya BG. Remember, you are the GM, so it is up to you to guide the players (especially new players) on how your personal world works. Not all GMs imagine their worlds through the same rules lens. Example, one of my players is a warlock with very high social skills and charisma. At the beginning of the campaign he was trying to use these like a magic spell. Tried to get kobolds to turn on their dragon whelp and the dragon to turn on his servants. I explained that his skills would allow him to turn diplomatic or tense situations to his advantage, but just convincing NPC to do what he wants because he has high skills isnt how it works. Also to use the skills he has to come up with a framework for the attempt. Now obviously a player does not have the same skill as a character with +7 to persuasion, but I want them to at least have an idea. And finally I said that if that's how the skills work, then I would give all NPCs the same power. He now still uses his skills a lot, but with much more roleplay and in more relevant situations.
Yeah it's all about understanding your players needs and trying to accommodate them. I tried to make it clear in the video that only a small subset of players will turn this into a problem. It's probably fine for your group
"the players should know how to interact with the world to get what they want." I think that's an extremely important point that I believe they are trying to address with this
As a new DM (with not even that much player experience) I just want to thank you. Your videos about (one)D&D are really helping me figure out how to tweak the system so it works best for me and my players
In the new One DnD rules, they seem to want clear success / fail rolls with a fixed DC, and rules clarity. I definitely like the success gradient for persuasion rolls, DM judgement and rules fudginess.
Chris from Treantmonk's Temple recently posted an open letter to Jeremy Crawford that was extremely thoughtful. One of the many points he made is that the play test material is still too incomplete for us to truly weigh in with our survey data. The murky language issue you're bringing forward right now is absolutely valid, and speaks to a greater air of confusion regarding how much our input to WoTC actually affects things, and how much of the present language is experimental. I really do hope his well-made letter, and your video here, makes it to those with the power to address these concerns.
Yeah, I'm starting to think that we kinda just need the new "Basic Rules" version of the 2024 PHB to truly playtest the game for a long period. Then feedback, and repeat. The piecemeal chunks of playtest content are already showing cracks
9:09 Bro! Yes! So well said! This is why I like you, Bob. You are honest in such a chill way (also your content is really good, but that's not the point here). This got an audible verbal reaction from me, haha. And I also agree with the other stuff too. But this statement just made my day.
I feel like indifferent people might be willing to take very minor risks to help a stranger. You wouldn't leap in front of a speeding coach to save them, but you might yell "Look out!". It depends on how you define minor and significant risks (and maybe those definitions are partly based on the potential "ally's" attitude).
General rule for when to allow any roll. Only allow a roll if all outcomes of the roll are acceptable at the table. Either redefine success and failure or declare success or failure. If a professional athlete needs to jump a 6 foot gap just narrate that they clear the gap. If a bookworm wants to freeclimb an ice sheet, say they slip off the wall before even gain a foot. If a player demands half the King's land, if successful have the king find the joke funny and up a reward slightly. On a failure, withhold the some of the reward and have them escorted out.
I feel like the main purpose of influence is simply to place it firmly into the action economy. This way in a similar way to rogues using hide or disengage as a bonus action bards might potentially gain similar abilities towards influencing while in combat. Until now its kind of just been on the DM to say if you trying to talk down or threaten an enemy is an full action, a free action or a bonus. It still can be but now its got clear rules for those who want to go by the book
@@CodyEthanJordan Depends on the group, depends on the characters. A lot of parties might want to offer a miniboss a chance to surrender after the party has taken out most of their men. See if their self preservation instincts kick in. They get to live you get to save some spell slots, you might even gain an ally. That's a persuasion or intimidation check. It could even be deception if you want to bluff how little damage you've taken. You can't talk your way out of every situation but there's reason persuasion is in the game
@@CodyEthanJordan all the time. VERY FEW CREATURES want to die. My groups regularly force opposition to yield and give up information, grant passage, or "you go first" to make them reveal or trigger Traps, or to use them as hostages etc.
When a player rolls a natural 20 in my games it gives them the best possible outcome. That doesn't mean they get what they want automatically. For example, if they try to seduce a red dragon and roll a nat 20, the dragon might just find them amusing enough to let them leave without being scorched to death.
Sounds good. Natural 20s (and 1s) are memeworthy for a reason, but in many cases it's _possible_ to find a logical consequence to describe the outcome by.
The automatic success rule is not part of the current playtest document and is not mentioned in either the "D20 Tests" section or the "Ability Check" section of the Expert Classes UA. As per the statements by Perkins, they thus don't apply for folks right now. Still, the combo of automatic successes and the Influence action, if the former is reintroduced while the latter still exists, would be problematic, yes. And also thank you for pointing out that attitude existed in the DMG beforehand, so many folks have stated incorrectly that it is an entirely new concept to 5e.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see, and I probably should have clarified that it's not currently the case
@@BobWorldBuilder I’m pretty sure they added a statement retracting the change in for ability checks. Namely on page 30 of the new UA. Namely “Do not use the rules glossary of any other Unearthed Arcana” in the new rules glossary for the newer UA.
And even if the natural 20 rule did come back, the rule in black and white clearly states: "however, the DM might determine that the Hostile creature is so ill-disposed toward the characters that no Charisma Check can sway it, in which case the first check fails automatically and no further Influence attempts can be made on the creature unless its Attitude shifts" This catch clearly calls out that a Nat 20 wouldn't be a success. A player might try to haggle that a Nat 20 could shift the target attitude, but that would then be a DM ruling outside of RAW and even then doesn't guarantee another roll.
@@samuelcornett1307 That's only for hostile creatures, though. Doesn't apply to any random monarch, dragon or diety that a bard would surely attempt to seduce if a nat 20 always succeeds. Or, heck, why stop with bards? Any worlock, sorcerer, or other charisma class. Or super-duper-heck, why stop at charisma based characters? A nat 20 is a nat 20 so your stat and skill wouldn't actually matter.
I appreciate 5e's explicit encouragement for DMs to choose how they want to handle influence (anywhere on the spectrum from 100% roleplay to 100% dice). While it's always possible to homebrew, emphasizing that there's a choice to be made makes it more likely that a group will try to find an approach that suits them, rather than being shepherded into a “one size fits few” solution.
Imagine you’re fighting an orc and he has you on the ropes, then a dragon rolls up. It might be reasonable to convince the orc to cut and run so you can finish later. That’s a favor to you, it’s hostile, but it serves its purposes to avoid fighting a dragon. Alternatively “help fight the dragon for glory” could also find purchase as an argument. So convincing hostile creatures should be circumstantial possible. But I’ll keep running things my own way.
I honestly didn’t think anything of it when I first read it, but after hearing your critique of it, I now see why you and others have concerns about it and its wording. Thank you for that.
I will say, I completely agree with the issues this could easily cause, but in the Expert Classes UA they did remove the 'natural 20 always succeeds' and it now says that it uses the rules found in the 2014 PHB for critical hits.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
@@Birdman_LIVE thank you! I do have a second channel (Bob’s RPG Radio!) that airs episodes of my dnd podcast with my wife after they go up on my Patreon :)
Hey Bob, big fan from Finland here. I value your insight as a DM and videos like this are great for seeing dnd rules from another point of view. That said, the thing that stuck in my mind about this video (when I first saw it a few weeks ago) was the Established Titles promo. I was seriously thinking about getting my cat a title after watching this video, since there was a huge sale on the site and it seemed to be for a good cause. Luckily I forgot about it, since today I stumbled upon videos by @TheVileEye and @ScottShaferBusiness, which states that the company is most likely a scam. I don't know if you read every comment but I'm hoping to bring this to your attention in case you have not already heard about it. EDIT: And yes I know it's a gag gift and something not to take seriously, but what irks me is false advertisement. Especially when said advertisement might line the pockets of scammers instead of charities.
Bob, I love your videos. I learn so much. Scenarios and situations I wouldn’t think about until I was already at the table and then pull my hair out trying to not let things devolve into well you said it
I don't believe you were playing back when the 5e playtest was going on, but it had a ton of stuff that was cut out. I wouldn't be terribly worried yet about it so long as enough people feel the same way.
The Introduction of the Player's Handbook has a section: Specific Beats General. That is a specific rule will take precedence over a general rule; so the general rule of a Nat 20 always succeeding would be overruled by the specific Influence rule that says a hostile NPC can be so antagonistic towards the PC that any Charisma check will fail until the NPC's attitude is shifted. This makes the Influence rule a lot less game-breakable.
I think you've hit the nail on the head before you go into detail. "The DM is in control of the game." Period. If you don't like a rule, you can not use it or modify it. However, as you stated, it can be difficult for new DM's with little or no experience. It's good that you cover these topics so everyone can make their own decisions on what rules they choose to follow. All of that said, I think it's awesome that they're fielding these changes to people for feedback and videos like this should give them pause on some changes. Love your energy. Keep making vids!
As always, great insightful video. I actually had an argument with one of my players on similar lines as was discussed in this video but for that argument it was over the spell suggestion. My players were robbing a museum and he cast suggestion on a guard. Well he wanted the guard to go take the object they were stealing from a pedestal that was already trapped. I argued, that suggestion would put the guard in danger and was against his nature. He continued to fight, but I had to break down all the ways that action would impact the guard's life. Eventually he capitulated but in order to find reason, it took some hard arguing to get there. I hope WotC changes these rules so DM's don't get steam rolled.
I absolutely have had players who would spend an entire session arguing about Repugnant. As soon as they said that in the video I knew immediately that it means, "I as the DM, don't want them to do that"
Hi, Scotland here, the titles ad: Plus side - Lovely bit of paper. Good for roleplay, or as a novelty item. Note: No legal standing in Scots Law. It is just a piece of paper, confering no actual title. Mainly sold to those overseas.
I feel like the intention is that if you spend a lot of time trying to talk some NPC into something, then you should be taking your action for that. Right now players are tempted to try to persuade NPCs while swinging their swords around, which actually doesn't make sense if you think about it. I feel like it could be better worded though.
@@Alpha_Digamma Under what rule does using a skill use an action already? With Influence, Search, and Study, it codifies using various skills as actions by default, mentioning the GM can have it use other actions as the situation calls for it. To my knowledge these were previously just "the GM decides what's what."
@@huttj509 uhm...the basic rules for Ability checks? As far as I understand it skill checks are a sub category of Ability checks and for ability checks the wording is as follows: "The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an Action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." Why would an Action not use up the Action of a character? It may be just a house rule my people have been using for decades at this point, but the wording always was pretty clear for me.
@@Alpha_Digamma "action" not "Action." From the Basic Rules on DnD Beyond: " The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." This is one of the times when DnD's use of natural language gets confusing, where it seems to me to be using "attempts an action" as "does a thing" not "uses a specific Action"
My group is mostly writing tutors, so I like to break convos/arguments down into ethos, pathos, logos and kairos (my favorite), and base their success on which of those elements of rhetoric they've worked on most
Consistently good videos and with well thought out topics. I appreciate the work you do. I’ve been DMing for like 20 years and it’s nice to see someone that can help me in my games. Most videos are just opinion pieces on D&D.
This is why in my homebrew rules specifically state that I will not allow rolls for things that are impossible. No halfling rolling str to lift a horse. No cha check to convince the king to give them his kingdom. If they roll on their own, I'll play out a scenario where the king DOES give them his kingdom. They rename it and become a tyrant with everything they always wanted. Then I tell them they shake their head and realize they daydreamed the whole thing and the king is staring at them like a lunatic.
Yeah and I think that DM power is more clear in the 2014 core books. It just needs to stay clear in the 2024 books, and so far it's not in the playtest material
I could imagine DMing this. “Your words reach the death knight’s heart, earning his respect. He tells you that he will make your deaths quick and painless.”
One thing to note about crits is that the second playtest packet rolled back the "only PCs can crit" change. So those PCs that got saved would be back on the chopping block.
Very good opportunity to use the weapon quality homebrew he came up with a while back! Level 1 PC's fighting goblins with mostly ruined weapons would never even deal with damage dice on crits! ua-cam.com/video/MbBnoBHe248/v-deo.html
Good! PCs are already powerful enough as it is. Not allowing them to be critically hit the same way they can do to others was just overt handholding and making them even more powerful.
@@nephalos666 PC power is entirely subjective. If things are too easy/hard for them, the DM can change literally anything about future fights. I like the idea of having crits available to enemies in fights, but taking crits away from the ancient red dragon you drop on a level 3 party would never be considered hand-holding. It's all just using the tools you have.
Always great videos! I appreciate the calm and thoughtful content. It's funny. Until OneDnD I never knew I was doing crits differently. I have always had every nat 20 auto succeed. Player or monster.
The DC 20 check for hostile creatures is generally the check needed to have the players convinced the hostile creatures not kill them/get more enemies to kill them etc. That is the small favor with minimal risk most would ask. Basically it's a check to pause hostility which should be a prescribed mechanical thing. If a creature is intelligent and it has its own agenda there should always be a chance for the plays to convince it to not kill them this can be by pleading for their lives willing to do tasks for them etc.
Yeah, that's similar to how I've always read it. If it's in combat, you're not asking it for a favor, you're asking if it will parley or something similar, and it will only consider it if you are 1) very persuasive, 2) taking a moment to parley poses no risk to the creature or its goals. Why this ignores the stat blocks is because motivations are not a 'stat'. And it does not guarantee that the combat ends - you'd still have to come to some sort of terms the creature finds preferable to continued combat, which will depend on how the combat was going and the creature's moral/worldview, not the creature's stats. Hostile can also be non-combat. You might be meeting a villain or their henchmen in a social setting, such as a diplomatic summit (but there's probably infinite variety where this comes up) where the two sides recognize they're enemies, but are not a state of conflict. Mabe you want to strike up a conversation about family and home life with one of the ambassador's guards... he knows he shouldn't be talking to you, but the topic SEEMS innocuous enough... but you're the foe, and he really shouldn't entertain you at all...
Exactly Bob. I'm a DM first and I train newer DMs. Already i must put my foot down and reign in players who tug at the RAW vs RAI arguments. It wastes time and frankly is not enjoyable as a DM to micromanage even more....sigh.
They said the Crit! mechanic in the first playtest was thrown out for the 2014 rules with the inspiration being on 1s now so a 20 for a skill check means nothing again than just a 20.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent, but I expect them to keep both rules in the future
The issue is with the broad definition of Hostile. Their are many levels to hostility in reality. The idea works for things that are hostile because they are just not inclined to want to help but not for things that would actively want to harm you or your goals. That's why it says you decide if the roll is possible.
Oh boy, if this has you worried you should look into the mess that was diplomacy in 3.5. The Jumplomancer build cranks up their jump skill to the moon then uses a class feature to use jump to make diplomacy checks then performs a leap so gallant that, on a nat 1, it instantly turns any hostile creature fanatic, meaning they'd die for you, and there's nothing the DM can do about it. It's one of several builds that will get you instakicked from a table if the DM knows what you're trying to do.
I'd totally have the Lard give them the land. It's up to them to see why they'd give them the land. And trust me, they'll be wanting to get rid of the land as well.
Lard (Thinking) Well there IS that old haunted castle that I think is the home base of a clan of vampires who worship Vecna.... "Here's the deed to your new lands and castle."
Thaaaaank you for the entire beginning of this video. Also, I understand and agree with you for the rest. On another note: To me, that Influence action and social interaction rule looked like something you write after digging deep into the bowels of D&D Reddit and reading a couple of horror stories. To me it felt like it was targeting a very specific crowd who abuses their power as a DM and/or tend to be a rules lawyer for their own benefit. Hopefully more people will come up with better options and write them on the feedback.
I appreciate that! Yeah these rules seem like they're trying to balance helping new DMs and hindering jerk players, and it's a difficult task to handle
Combining rules glossaries across playtest documents is the first thing they say in the videos and it is even written in the playtest that you shouldn't do. But also the rest of the video is fine and I like most of the points, the influence action should have a caveat that the DM can decide to change any of it the DC's, order who can and can't do it what skills and what ability score those checks are tied to.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
Yep so it’s most likely not going to be an issue in your groups. And I don’t think it’ll be a problem for most groups either, but it’ll affect even fewer if we talk about how to work with/around it!
"Then I play tested it with level 1 characters and it totally saved them" Yeah, it's harder to not kill level 1 characters. For the entire rest of the campaign after baby's first adventure, they should be able to handle themselves. Just because level 1 characters die easily doesn't mean DMs should give up crits.
What's often overlooked in that discussion (and what we haven't seen in these playtests yet) is that they intend to give monsters more Cooldown abilities to compensate, essentially moving the "shit got real" button into the hands of the DM, rather than the dice deciding every time.
In general, I wish they would remove the hard number DCs, and make it more as guidelines of the "easy, difficult, very difficult..." kind, with a "these are general examples of what DC you should set for them" in another part of the book. Goes both for this and for stealth checks. However, I am actually glad to see some sort of guideline for social interactions in the PHB, because I have seen too many examples of roleplay from players that DO lean into the mind control side of things. Most of the problems with this specific thing will be solved by fixing the d20 crits-automatically-succeed rule (which has several problems anyway) and underlining that the DM decides what a reasonable response will be in a social interaction.
When running interactions, my NPCs have a planned attitude, motives, and reactions prior to the encounter, tied to the arch of the story. I never allow die rolls of any kind to sway a change in the NPC stance. The only way it can be altered is by clever and tactful interaction and negotiation through roleplay. This new influence ability will, very likely, not be a part of our game. BTW I agree that a hostile creature could never be swayed to do favours for PC's. That idea is absurd. If using a skill check, a DC20 should result in the creature backing down and walking away from a fight, at best. DM crits should be allowed. I understand that it may keep low level PC's "safe", but that is just not the game we play. 5E is already far too easy for PC's that's why we play with altered rules; there should always be a high risk of death. Tension makes for the best of games. Another great video; thanks!
I mean, these types of attitude rules are pretty common in other editions of the game and pathfinder and it's not the end of the world there either. Personally I like how these rules make things a bit more defined and help set expectations.
As is stated in the playtest material, you are not meant to combine rules glossaries between these documents and the newer always entirely supersedes the older. You're not meant to play with both the "all nat20s succeed" rule and the Influence action at the same time. In a future document we might see both be used at the same time but so far they are supposed to be entirely separate.
All nat 20's succeed is just a silly rule anyway. My 8 strength sorcerer tries to throw a spear to the moon. 5% chance of what? He succeeds and hits the moon? He merely succeeds in throwing it as high as he can, like a handful of feet up? Without auto success you can just make the DC impossible and let the role tell you how close you got based on your chances
@@kamikeserpentail3778 One of the guiding principles outlined in the 5e DMG is that if a task is outright impossible, the PCs shouldn't roll for it; they should just fail. There should only be a roll if there is a chance of success. That's honestly part of what makes an Influence Action potentially scary. Any Action defined as part of the PHB is a thing the PC can say "I take the Influence Action." This RAW grants them a roll to perform the action, and with an automatic success, they succeed. If the rule is to be kept, it needs reasonably strong guidelines about what can and cannot be accomplished by an Influence Action. RAI, an automatic success is "best possible outcome."
What the auto success rule tells me is: if something has less than a 5% chance of success, you don’t get to try a roll as it will then be impossible and since no dc has a guaranteed rate of failure you get no roll.
Right now I just call for charisma checks whenever the players have done enough to have a chance at influencing an NPC's actions. Whenever I feel like I'm wavering but not won over just yet. If the players do do or say something that I immediately know how my NPC would respond to, I don't usually call for a check. Maybe one day I'll learn more robust social interaction rules but I find this is a good balance between "I roll persuasion on the angry dragon until it becomes my mount" and "I said the exact things right to convince this person but the dice said a 1 so no deal".
Thank you for the video. This elephant in the room went virtually unnoticed. It's not the only "dangerus" rule for me, in D&D one. Albeit not so overtly problematic, the wording og the search/study action skews heavily from a "dm says when to roll" to a "player decide when to roll" paradigm. My main concern with it is not the loss of DM control, but the fact that it teaches new player to interact wiht the game environment through the rules rather than through the fiction. I admit that my personal preferences (I have strong OSR-Freeform sensibilities) colour my perception of the changes, but I really don't like the direction D&D is going (contrary to most people, I really don't like the new "better defined" rules for hiding, invisibilities and the like). Curiously, in my disliking of the rules, I menage to completely disagree with the comment you showed from the user also disliking the rules: a)I still think that there are far worse social rules (3th edition was a worse offender, but in my view 3d edition is a worse offender about everything) b) I'm quite sure that "no rule at all" is simple the best possible rules for social interaction
The insight check as part of a social interaction is a nice touch and I think I try to incorporate some flavor of that in the future. The interesting thing is the insight check could be a good way to modify the NPC going in attitude based on the intention of the player and assuming the NPC can determine those intentions. The example you give of the King and the players asking for half the kingdom. The King could go from being friendly to hostile real fast should he gain insight that players have ill intentions. This could give some interesting consequences to players actions. Also it seems like there should be 4 categories Friendly, Neutral, Wary and Hostile. Where a Hostile NPC will never help you, and potentially harm you if the opportunity presents itself. Thanks again for your insights, Bob.
@@BobWorldBuilder I'd be interested in your thoughts on "rivals" working against the player (spreading rumors, downtime complications, maybe competing on adventures). Would you envision the rivial(s) as "unfriendly" or "hostile". When you say "ready for a fight" in your mind is that (roll of initiative) combat only or would working against the parties interest count too? Thanks
Great points and it seemed to go from honestly a pretty ok(Needed balancing) rule to an over simplistic one... Which let me solve the whole argument issue with one line... "Be kind and considerate at the table as you are all building a story togather."
The auto succeed rule was reverted in the second UA which is were the influence rule was added your point of scepticism was doing fine without adding that on. Please make sure not to mix these up, you are influential to the community and we want to limit how many people get mad at the UA just because of confusion.
Thanks for your concern and I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
The influence action depending on reception is actually pretty likely to not make it into print. I think it was Mike Mearls who talked about the 80% approval thing but basically for the most part, most playtest material needs an 80% or higher approval rate to make it into print unless it's already supposed to be in a soon-ish book release. They might try and rework it a few times to try and get it up to 80% but if it continues to get bad feedback they're likely to just axe it.
Personally, adding that rule of using different ability scores a core rule would be great, it opens the Influence action to low Cha PCs to make use of their abilities, like convincing someone showing how good you are maneuvering a sword, lifting a heavy object or creature, and even the classic putting a hole on the wall, and adding Insight or just Wis mod on the DC would be great
Honestly, they could fully delete all of the "social" skills and I think the game would be better for it. When I DM, I set the expectation right out the gate that if they are just trying to small-talk-charm someone or modify their disposition, that is persuasion, but otherwise they should roleplay using past experience, even making them up on the spot, or describe leveraging a different skill instead. Depending on the nature of the depth of their "social leverage" I'll give them proficiency, expertise, or even let them use a wholly different ability score modifier.
@@Kizok5150 unforutnately this emans sTR, DEX and CON RULE the game, and tkaing high INt, WIS and CHARISMA mena nothing... players take advantag eof their scores in combat, but player swho have high interaction social skills dont get that same advantage?.. if a 100 pound weakling plays a fighter iwth an 18 STr it works as writtne, but when a socially challenged perons plays a high charisma character but is expected to ROLEPLAY it WELL to get the advantage? thats bad GAMING.
@@badmojo0777 I get what you mean, but you can make the same argument to Int, Wis and Cha, as casters, and even some subclasses, can use those for combat while still having better social advantage. A warlock can Eldritch Blast and be social, a fighter, however, needs to pick one: good combat skills or good social skills, or maybe try and make it both mediocre, but the warlock still have advantage.
Hey Bob, I love your videos! I just wanted to point out that the action being cut completely is more possible than you might expect. I am a game designer and can tell you from experience that there are plenty of features that make it to the testing phase but never past that. The Influence action could very well stick around as you said, but we can't assume that it's guaranteed to stay just because it made it into a playtest document. We should all be mindful that they are feeling everything out and continue to give our best feedback. :)
Worth noting; while the influence action does have some flaws, the discussion around the rolling a 20/dm can’t crit against a player isn’t explicitly relevant to this play test document. At the beginning of the play test doc, it states that if you are using it with any previously released play test, use only the rules glossary in this one. This therefore removes the ability for players to crit succeed on a social interaction and reinstates DMs being able to crit against players. Excellent points on the action itself, especially regarding problem players. If I were dealing with a player disagreeing with what an NPC should find repugnant, I would state that they do not know the NPCs drives and backstory so cannot comment on their predetermined limits of interaction. Realistically, past this, a problem player is a problem player and that is less likely to change. There are always ways to break the game and sometimes people will actively search them out.
While I acknowledge that there is a possibility for someone to misuse this rule against a new DM, I think that is... true for most rules. And I think the current problem with the social interaction rules, much like a lot of the other honestly pretty fine rules in the DMG is that the players don't know they exist, so they don't know to use them, so no culture on how to use them develops at the table, which is a problem because right now the players are dramatically undereducated on what verbs they have available to them outside of combat.
That's a really good point! And yes, I think this would only be an issue for a small proportion of groups, but the expectations need to be clearer in my opinion, so those new players and DMs know how it should really play out
I agree, this helps especially new RP wary players have a concrete way to grasp what they have to do to accomplish something. I agree that it could use some tweaking and I would add a clause explaining that players should respect the DM’s ruling on what is considered untenable and maybe use some different language to include things that just don’t make sense for the creature. Maybe something along the lines that there should be something to balance out the risk or cost to the NPC, which would prevent just rolling a die to convince a lord to give up land or funds. I don’t let my players just “convince” people of things but treat things as almost transactional. Players need to provide a genuine motivation for the desired action the NPC would take. Want a portion of a lord’s land? You need leverage for your rolls to work with. Threaten to release sensitive information, etc. if it’s a major ask there has to be an actual reason beyond “I’m so persuasive!”
Hey Bob, love your videos. But I just haven't given One D&D a single bit of attention, and thus not watched any content on it. Would love to see more of your thoughts on 5E mechanics
Tinkering with a system, myself - making social interactions opposed rolls, and making success/failure a matter of degrees similar to the scale in Pathfinder 2... and giving the "defender" (usually NPC) some pretty obscene bonuses to their roll based on their power base. Basically, even a friendly king can be negotiated with, but if you try to make the king abdicate, even with a nat 20, he'll still have something like a triple-digit bonus to his roll...
Just coming up with ideas, you could also not roll but add multiple bonuses to the DC by adding relevant knowledge skills as well as insight and save bonuses vs deception, physical skills & saves and perception vs intimidation, and investigation and intelligence vs persuasion. (Depending on the persuasion, you might alternatively decide that high intelligence actually lowers the DC, if the players are suggesting something sensible and in line with the target's interests)
@@KalonOrdona2 Yeah, the system I'm tinkering with is based on opposed rolls, though - and negotiating for *reasonable* concessions will be quite a bit easier than something as preposterous as abdicating while at the peak of power and security.
@@BobWorldBuilder Still working on fine-tuning the core roll, mind - but I have a fairly solid mechanical concept for it all. I'm doing my best to avoid having four or five different roll mechanics in place for different things - all opposed rolls, unless it's straight up man vs. environment.
Just a heads up, I read a fair criticism that has stuck with me for a while, that opposed rolls are inherently more swingy. It can lead to wonky situations, like where a giant rolls poorly and loses a wrestling contest to a gnome. My guess is that is why we've seen more playtest replacing opposed rolls with a set DC 15. The only other solution is huge triple digit modifiers like you're speculating, which then also run against the idea of bounded accuracy
"it is unlikely that they will take out this new rule entirely" - true, except the designers of One D&D in the 2nd section of the playtest removed the "no crits for DM" completely and went back to the current rule where both players and DMs crit. So, if people are upset about this new Influence action, they may remove it completely in the future. The point is, a dice roll shouldn't overrule a good bit of Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation from a PC. It's probably that they are seeking to help new or inexperienced DMs who are worried about adjudicating the results of a conversation without a roll
Well... I just started a dm'ing a new campaign and denied my crits for level 1. But on level 2 it was crit time and almost killed a player cause I got 2 crits against her back to back. Fun times.
@@BobWorldBuilder Agreed. A section on rolling should clarify that rolls are not needed when: a) Character is proficient, not under pressure or danger, can alway try again if they happen to fail and the task is typical. b) The DM deems a successful outcome impossible. c) The DM deems failure impossible. Roll needed: a) Whenever engaged in combat. b) Not proficient and task is atypical, even if not under pressure. c) Proficient, but task atypical, exceptional and/or under pressure/duress.
I think the wording confuses the situation a little. I don't think "hostile" here means in combat or about to engage in combat, more likely it's supposed to mean "dislikes the player and doesn't want to help, or even might wish for them not to succeed in some endeavors". As it is not mind control, if the hostile creature knows how the favor asked of them helps in the aspect they might wish the player to fail, it is reasonable to assume that they would not help (ie. allow a roll/autofail). The only problem here is the D20 Test ruling not being clear enough that a Nat 20 is not autosuccess on anything, but best result possible given the circumstances.
Yeah I'm not going as far to say a hostile creature should necessarily attack the party, just that it's weird for them to do the party a favor, even on a high CHA roll
Doesn't having a hostile party member or someone helping that party that is hostile toward them, open up a world of options a helpful npc would never do? Like maybe he helps, but when he realizes there is something to be gained, maybe they turn on the party or try to steal from them?
Totally, but then I'd say that's the hostile person helping the party to actually help themself, so it gets a little convoluted as to what the roll should be and whether or not that NPC is deceiving the party. And only convoluted if you are relying on this system
So, not to be all "well, actually" here, but at 6:40 or so when you say that you don't think a hostile creature would ever help the party even with no risk to themselves...that's literally why you roll the skills. If there is a guard who hates the adventuring party (so is hostile) who is barring entry into the town just because they're being an a-hole, passing a DC20 Intimidation or a persuasion check (for a bribe) would make them back down and let the party in (maybe with a "but I've got my eye on you" threat). If the same guard is _under_ _orders_ not to let the players in, now the DC 20 check wouldn't' work because letting the players in involves taking a risk to the guard by getting in trouble with his boss. The important part is the risk the target would be taking for "helping" the adventurers, if something is of zero risk it is entirely conceivable for hostile creatures to help the party indirectly or directly. Another common trope would be the local thieves guild is shaking down the players who are just about to go into the dungeon "I don't have your money now but if you give me until tomorrow I'll pay you double! I just need you to give me one more day!" Stuff like that happens all the time.
Yeah good point about this type of interaction. I guess I'm considering the wording of "does as asked" to be more active. In both of these cases, the hostile NPC doesn't have to actually do something. It's easier for the guard to just let them pass than harass them all day, and it's easier for the thief to let them go than to fight. I'm realizing now that it's way more dependent on that second half of the text "as long as no risk or sacrifice is involved"
Please make more Dungeon Crawl Classics content! I'd love to hear your opinions on new DCC content. I see that sailors on the starless sea foil cover and Stefan Poag Core rulebook! That screams love for DCC ❤
I wasn’t around for any of the other edition changes but I fully intend to pick and choose which mechanics changes I use or don’t out of OneDnD. my games will probably be mostly feel like a 5e game with a little bit of the new rules from OneDnD and a fair share of homebrew.
My table currently plays 3.5, and when I'm DMing it's definitely 3.5 with some of my favorite aspects of 5e with a healthy dash of "this really annoys me when I'm a player, so I'm changing it"
While you may be correct that some of the wording needs a look over, you may have overlooked that they removed the natural 20s always succeed rule from the UA with the introduction of the Expert Classes UA. They discussed how they removed it in the promotional video and if you look at the d20 Test section, you will notice it isn't there.
Even with current rules in 5e, i think that social interaction checks are too much on rails. It either needs to be a more nuanced set of rules or just be followed less closely (with more common sense) 1. Persuasion : personal charisma might be helpful, but it's not the only factor and could even be a problem depending on what form of "charisma" you have and the situation (if you are the classic charismatic actor archetype, you aren't the best person to speak to the introverted accountant). Making a personal connection is more important. It makes sense to roleplay the barbarian talking to the travelling group of bare knuckle fighters that come from his village. And that should matter to the roll. And not just a matter of giving advantage, that kind of connection is not a bonus, its the central part of the interaction. 2. Intimidation. Again, Intimidation may sometimes be a matter of pure front: just looking important and powerful and getting someone to back down bit usually, at least how it b is rollplayed its about - you having a plausible way to harm someone - you convincing them that you are willing to do that thing - they would rather acquiesce then face that potent harm
Mentioning adding a creature's Insight score to the DC of a check is something I never even considered, and I will definitely be thinking about that next time I use a pre-determined stat block for creatures in a social setting.
Glad that helped!
I'd probably want to make lying to someone a contested check of deception vs insight.
I usually do contested rolls which works pretty well for me
@@Captaincory1 I was under the impression that opposed rolls was how 5e always handled it?
@@procrastinatinggamer yeah, but it seems like it might be different in one dnd
I've always considered the friendly/neutral/hostile scale as a scale specifically for characters still willing to engage in the kind of social interaction that could involve attitude-swaying at all. Like, a monster that attacks on sight would be too far beyond even the "hostile" category to stop and chat with unless they're given an extremely good reason. Meanwhile, a bartender who is distrustful of strangers at first would be filed under "hostile", but it's still possible to earn his trust.
Wild Beasts and low int monstrosities are good candidates for Hostile and likely to attack out of fear, defense of territory or young, or thinking the party is Prey.
A good CHA animal handling check to "GO ON, GIT!" as an Intimidation tactic could end a fight before it breaks out.
Had a party avoid a fight with 3 wolves who were prepared to defend their kill. They tossed them some meat and rolled total of 23 on the check, wolves shifted to Indifferent and let them pass as they realized the party had no interest in their delicious big snake.
I think it was 3.5, but they used 5 categories that kind of filled what you're describing:
Hostile: immediately attack
unfriendly: "get off my lawn you darn kids"
neutral: most people
friendly: an old ally
devoted: close friends
so that successfully influencing the bandits might mean that they just say "be on your way "after taking a smaller fee
@@calebvonmaydell4253 Yeah, that makes a bunch more sense to me
"I find any non-violent interaction utterly repugnant!"
Hostile should be replaced with a different term, like unfriendly or distrustful. If the character is already attacking it is too late to talk.
The d20 test as presented in the first playtest packet can only apply for DCs between 5-30 and succeeds automatically on a 20, but that's not the case in the playtest packet with the influence rules.
If the final rules lay out the following:
- A D20 Test can only be performed on things with a DC between 5-30
- The DM is the one who calls for a D20 Test
Then there is no problem, the players can't magically auto-succeed on a skill check they should never have been allowed to make in the first place. Instead of making an influence check to try and get half the laird's land, Bardy McFly *may* be able to make a check to soften the laird's attitude towards the party, which might lead to more conversations and eventually getting a small parcel of land for a future task.
My biggest problem with OneD&D right now is the way they are releasing playtest material in piecemeal which means you have no wider context to how the rules will play out or interact, because you're using them alongside the existing 5e rules, and those aren't the rules they will actually be alongside.
WotC should have released a whole playtest ruleset and allowed people to play it in context from now until late 2023 and make changes based on real feedback.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
@@BobWorldBuilder if the nat 20 rule makes it through that would prove that they aren't actually listening to feedback. Indifference was the most positive reaction that rule received and that was the vast minority.
I think that last statement misses one of the points WotC made in the 2nd playtest release video. They have multiple iterations of rules they want to test such as players getting inspiration of natural 20s vs on natural 1s vs other means. If only have a single playtest release, they only really can get good feedback on one of those options; and if they then start doing smaller additional releases, then why not just do what they're already doing now?
I agreed that it would be nice to have the whole ruleset for context, but asking players to parse through a whole new set of rules and provide feedback on all of it all at once is a lot. I think it's much more manageable for us and for WotC to get feedback on smaller elements before they start trying to assemble those pieces and get feedback on the ruleset as a bigger picture. I'm guessing we may see a playtest a bit further down the road that combines some of these earlier playtest elements into a more complete package.
Wizards of the Coast are using the Games Workshop method of releasing information out of context so players play a massively interactive game without the full context of new rules.
Yes, if they keep the 20 auto-succeed rule, they HAVE to make clear the DM calls for the roll.
(Also, there is a danger of players spamming checks to get a nat 1 or 20 to get Inspiration, the way these UAs have been worded!)
I definitely think the word hostile should be changed to something like "Antagonistic" because it still carries the implication that the NPC doesn't like you or want to work with you in any way, and hell might even be opposed to you, but doesn't carry the implications that "Hostile" does, because to me I see hostile and I think that they're spoiling for a fight. That and it would make things a little more clear on the "Hey, this creature is Hostile towards you. They cannot be negotiated with" versus "At the DM's discretion, they may be impossible to convince."
I agree. Because parties that are antagonistic towards each other end up working together all the time. From Batman intimidating a thug to tell him a piece of information, to a thief bribing a guard to look the other way, to a con man convincing am enemy soldier that his forged identity his real.
That a great change. Even "unfriendly" would work because it creates a natural opposite but still suggests that, yeah, maybe they would help you out with something small if it didn't inconvenience them. Hostile sounds too aggressive
This is probably the legacy of older editions having 5 or 6 NPC Attitudes (so there was a step between Indifferent and Hostile) but post-3e D&D really trying to simplify every system. But I definitely agree "Antagonistic" is a lot more inclusive of the reasons why an NPC doesn't like the PCs beyond "I want to kill you" than "Hostile" is.
Hostile to me means actively violent.
I think three levels is just not enough. If you're going to have levels, i think there should be five: friendly, polite, neutral, unfriendly, hostile.
The influence action sounds a lot like the charm spell 🤔
It also gives a "DM vs Players" feel, like they want to set up the concept that the players have to trump the DM in order to "win" D&D.
This is similar though to the outcome of a charisma check
i like to use the alignment chart with this, depending on the circumstances. i also use the pathfinder 5 relation steps helpful, friendly, neutral, unfriendly, hostile. its mostly for the chaotic good bard who really wants to pick up chicks. if he power thrust towards the lawful good maiden he has to roll with disadvantage and he will only go to friendly on the first interaction. he has to find another chaotic good to go up the two steps to helpful on the first night. but then there also the chance she is chaotic evil, or lawful evil and will actively try to harm him. also fun for the bard to try and charm the dragon with disadvantage and make him friendly to even helpful. with the of chance they could just utterly piss off the dragon.
I think the general idea is that it's modelling the use of a character's persuasion skills to persuade someone. It's not meant to be a charm spell much like a warrior hitting someone isn't casting Cause Light Wounds.
The way it's currently implemented may be slanted, but making a persuasion roll to persuade a DM-controlled character isn't really any more DM vs Player than making a hit-with-sword roll to hit a DM-controlled monster with a sword.
I feel this type of construction makes a lot of sense if, as I've come to feel/fear it, they're focusing on their new AI DM for the VTTs.
4:45 Starting attitude? I choose friendly! Thank you for making this video!
In early editions of DND, it is actually beneficial to work with sentient monsters while in the dungeon. There was a monster reaction roll that the referee would do when PCs encountered monsters. If the roll was high, the monsters could be indifferent or helpful towards the players.
In earlier editions, you couldn't aim a Bow against anyone specific in the room. It just hit a random person somewhere in the room.
Nevermind the 15 different "instant death, no save" effects and items.
Early editions aren't all they are cracked up to be.
That sounds helpful!
@@christopherg2347 My man, hes simply pointing out a neat rule in a previous edition. Chill out.
@@KnightRighteous Interesting, maybe. Not neat.
If the decision between being able to:
1. Social encounter your way through a dungeon
2. Having to fight your way through ever single rat abd mimic of a dungeon
Is made by a dice roll, the results become way too random and volatile.
I would expect a pre-written adventure to select fixed attitudes for monsters, to at least remove that Randomness.
@@christopherg2347 Your view on this is far too narrow as this is more complex than youre making it seem. The randomness/odds is/are determined by the dm as he determines the DC and the monsters attitude/disposition. Its not just black and white with just rp'ing your way through the dungeon or killing everything. You could just as an example convince a Goblin to turn against its camp in exchange for a reward. Or if you successfully convince the gobling that what the camp is doing is wrong etcetera.
I saw a great solution for situations like this. The King believes you think that you are now the ruler of half the country and therefore sends you to a mental institution where you will get the best help that money can buy to get over your delusions of grandeur.
Haha, or maybe just send the player :P
I may regret it later, but I recently provided the social interaction rules from the DMG directly to my players ahead of our next campaign. While the DCs are not a perfect guide, the general framework is helpful to drive consistency in my rulings, and the players should know how to interact with the world to get what they want. The PHB doesn’t do a great job of quantifying how a social encounter unfolds from a mechanical standpoint; it basically just tells them to have a conversation and sometimes your DM will ask for a check. I realize it’s intended to give the DM more freedom to determine their own rulings, but I found that because the players didn’t understand how to approach a roleplaying scenario to get what they want, they defaulted to relying on a single skills check to do it for them, rather than actually trying to persuade the NPC.
Heya BG. Remember, you are the GM, so it is up to you to guide the players (especially new players) on how your personal world works. Not all GMs imagine their worlds through the same rules lens. Example, one of my players is a warlock with very high social skills and charisma. At the beginning of the campaign he was trying to use these like a magic spell. Tried to get kobolds to turn on their dragon whelp and the dragon to turn on his servants.
I explained that his skills would allow him to turn diplomatic or tense situations to his advantage, but just convincing NPC to do what he wants because he has high skills isnt how it works. Also to use the skills he has to come up with a framework for the attempt. Now obviously a player does not have the same skill as a character with +7 to persuasion, but I want them to at least have an idea. And finally I said that if that's how the skills work, then I would give all NPCs the same power.
He now still uses his skills a lot, but with much more roleplay and in more relevant situations.
Yeah it's all about understanding your players needs and trying to accommodate them. I tried to make it clear in the video that only a small subset of players will turn this into a problem. It's probably fine for your group
"the players should know how to interact with the world to get what they want." I think that's an extremely important point that I believe they are trying to address with this
As a new DM (with not even that much player experience) I just want to thank you. Your videos about (one)D&D are really helping me figure out how to tweak the system so it works best for me and my players
Happy to help!
In the new One DnD rules, they seem to want clear success / fail rolls with a fixed DC, and rules clarity. I definitely like the success gradient for persuasion rolls, DM judgement and rules fudginess.
Chris from Treantmonk's Temple recently posted an open letter to Jeremy Crawford that was extremely thoughtful. One of the many points he made is that the play test material is still too incomplete for us to truly weigh in with our survey data. The murky language issue you're bringing forward right now is absolutely valid, and speaks to a greater air of confusion regarding how much our input to WoTC actually affects things, and how much of the present language is experimental. I really do hope his well-made letter, and your video here, makes it to those with the power to address these concerns.
Yeah, I'm starting to think that we kinda just need the new "Basic Rules" version of the 2024 PHB to truly playtest the game for a long period. Then feedback, and repeat. The piecemeal chunks of playtest content are already showing cracks
9:09 Bro! Yes! So well said! This is why I like you, Bob. You are honest in such a chill way (also your content is really good, but that's not the point here). This got an audible verbal reaction from me, haha. And I also agree with the other stuff too. But this statement just made my day.
I feel like indifferent people might be willing to take very minor risks to help a stranger. You wouldn't leap in front of a speeding coach to save them, but you might yell "Look out!". It depends on how you define minor and significant risks (and maybe those definitions are partly based on the potential "ally's" attitude).
General rule for when to allow any roll. Only allow a roll if all outcomes of the roll are acceptable at the table. Either redefine success and failure or declare success or failure.
If a professional athlete needs to jump a 6 foot gap just narrate that they clear the gap. If a bookworm wants to freeclimb an ice sheet, say they slip off the wall before even gain a foot.
If a player demands half the King's land, if successful have the king find the joke funny and up a reward slightly. On a failure, withhold the some of the reward and have them escorted out.
I feel like the main purpose of influence is simply to place it firmly into the action economy. This way in a similar way to rogues using hide or disengage as a bonus action bards might potentially gain similar abilities towards influencing while in combat. Until now its kind of just been on the DM to say if you trying to talk down or threaten an enemy is an full action, a free action or a bonus. It still can be but now its got clear rules for those who want to go by the book
how often are groups trying to convince someone to help them while fireballs are flying around?
@@CodyEthanJordan Depends on the group, depends on the characters. A lot of parties might want to offer a miniboss a chance to surrender after the party has taken out most of their men. See if their self preservation instincts kick in. They get to live you get to save some spell slots, you might even gain an ally. That's a persuasion or intimidation check. It could even be deception if you want to bluff how little damage you've taken.
You can't talk your way out of every situation but there's reason persuasion is in the game
@@CodyEthanJordan all the time. VERY FEW CREATURES want to die.
My groups regularly force opposition to yield and give up information, grant passage, or "you go first" to make them reveal or trigger Traps, or to use them as hostages etc.
@@CodyEthanJordan even if it isnt often, its still an option which is nice
True
When a player rolls a natural 20 in my games it gives them the best possible outcome. That doesn't mean they get what they want automatically. For example, if they try to seduce a red dragon and roll a nat 20, the dragon might just find them amusing enough to let them leave without being scorched to death.
Nice!
yeah I also do this, it's also really handy for getting your players out of the holes that they're digging
Nat 20 on bluff: you have convinced the NPC that YOU believe it. They are now very concerned.
Sounds good. Natural 20s (and 1s) are memeworthy for a reason, but in many cases it's _possible_ to find a logical consequence to describe the outcome by.
"Instead of throwing you to the oubliette, the king makes you the court jester"
The automatic success rule is not part of the current playtest document and is not mentioned in either the "D20 Tests" section or the "Ability Check" section of the Expert Classes UA. As per the statements by Perkins, they thus don't apply for folks right now.
Still, the combo of automatic successes and the Influence action, if the former is reintroduced while the latter still exists, would be problematic, yes.
And also thank you for pointing out that attitude existed in the DMG beforehand, so many folks have stated incorrectly that it is an entirely new concept to 5e.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see, and I probably should have clarified that it's not currently the case
@@BobWorldBuilder I’m pretty sure they added a statement retracting the change in for ability checks. Namely on page 30 of the new UA. Namely “Do not use the rules glossary of any other Unearthed Arcana” in the new rules glossary for the newer UA.
The automatic success on a 20 is not going to continue. It’s already been changed and they won’t go back because of the outcry against it.
And even if the natural 20 rule did come back, the rule in black and white clearly states:
"however, the DM might determine that the Hostile creature is so ill-disposed toward the characters that no Charisma Check can sway it, in which case the first check fails automatically and no further Influence attempts can be made on the creature unless its Attitude shifts"
This catch clearly calls out that a Nat 20 wouldn't be a success. A player might try to haggle that a Nat 20 could shift the target attitude, but that would then be a DM ruling outside of RAW and even then doesn't guarantee another roll.
@@samuelcornett1307 That's only for hostile creatures, though. Doesn't apply to any random monarch, dragon or diety that a bard would surely attempt to seduce if a nat 20 always succeeds. Or, heck, why stop with bards? Any worlock, sorcerer, or other charisma class. Or super-duper-heck, why stop at charisma based characters? A nat 20 is a nat 20 so your stat and skill wouldn't actually matter.
I appreciate 5e's explicit encouragement for DMs to choose how they want to handle influence (anywhere on the spectrum from 100% roleplay to 100% dice). While it's always possible to homebrew, emphasizing that there's a choice to be made makes it more likely that a group will try to find an approach that suits them, rather than being shepherded into a “one size fits few” solution.
Imagine you’re fighting an orc and he has you on the ropes, then a dragon rolls up. It might be reasonable to convince the orc to cut and run so you can finish later. That’s a favor to you, it’s hostile, but it serves its purposes to avoid fighting a dragon. Alternatively “help fight the dragon for glory” could also find purchase as an argument.
So convincing hostile creatures should be circumstantial possible. But I’ll keep running things my own way.
This.
I honestly didn’t think anything of it when I first read it, but after hearing your critique of it, I now see why you and others have concerns about it and its wording. Thank you for that.
I will say, I completely agree with the issues this could easily cause, but in the Expert Classes UA they did remove the 'natural 20 always succeeds' and it now says that it uses the rules found in the 2014 PHB for critical hits.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
Wait, I can be granted lordship in TWO holds!?
Amazing video Bob. Very well articulated. Appreciate yours videos. I wish you made more of them. PLEASE!!!! 😁😭😁
Do you have a podcast?
@@Birdman_LIVE thank you! I do have a second channel (Bob’s RPG Radio!) that airs episodes of my dnd podcast with my wife after they go up on my Patreon :)
Hey Bob, big fan from Finland here. I value your insight as a DM and videos like this are great for seeing dnd rules from another point of view.
That said, the thing that stuck in my mind about this video (when I first saw it a few weeks ago) was the Established Titles promo. I was seriously thinking about getting my cat a title after watching this video, since there was a huge sale on the site and it seemed to be for a good cause. Luckily I forgot about it, since today I stumbled upon videos by @TheVileEye and @ScottShaferBusiness, which states that the company is most likely a scam. I don't know if you read every comment but I'm hoping to bring this to your attention in case you have not already heard about it.
EDIT: And yes I know it's a gag gift and something not to take seriously, but what irks me is false advertisement. Especially when said advertisement might line the pockets of scammers instead of charities.
Bob, I love your videos. I learn so much. Scenarios and situations I wouldn’t think about until I was already at the table and then pull my hair out trying to not let things devolve into well you said it
I don't believe you were playing back when the 5e playtest was going on, but it had a ton of stuff that was cut out. I wouldn't be terribly worried yet about it so long as enough people feel the same way.
I wasn't! That's a good sign then
I'm glad you noted that this is playtest material, and subject to change.
I mean, I want to see the power floor raised not the power ceiling lowered, but in general I agree
Yeah it's all a matter of taste
The Introduction of the Player's Handbook has a section: Specific Beats General. That is a specific rule will take precedence over a general rule; so the general rule of a Nat 20 always succeeding would be overruled by the specific Influence rule that says a hostile NPC can be so antagonistic towards the PC that any Charisma check will fail until the NPC's attitude is shifted. This makes the Influence rule a lot less game-breakable.
Bob, you are the best. I wish I had your patience, presentation, and attitude! :)
You are correct... many, many adults act with much, much less decorum than a twelve year old.
I think you've hit the nail on the head before you go into detail. "The DM is in control of the game." Period. If you don't like a rule, you can not use it or modify it. However, as you stated, it can be difficult for new DM's with little or no experience. It's good that you cover these topics so everyone can make their own decisions on what rules they choose to follow. All of that said, I think it's awesome that they're fielding these changes to people for feedback and videos like this should give them pause on some changes. Love your energy. Keep making vids!
As always, great insightful video. I actually had an argument with one of my players on similar lines as was discussed in this video but for that argument it was over the spell suggestion. My players were robbing a museum and he cast suggestion on a guard. Well he wanted the guard to go take the object they were stealing from a pedestal that was already trapped. I argued, that suggestion would put the guard in danger and was against his nature. He continued to fight, but I had to break down all the ways that action would impact the guard's life. Eventually he capitulated but in order to find reason, it took some hard arguing to get there. I hope WotC changes these rules so DM's don't get steam rolled.
I absolutely have had players who would spend an entire session arguing about Repugnant. As soon as they said that in the video I knew immediately that it means, "I as the DM, don't want them to do that"
"Lard hand over that land" XD
Great transition to the sponsor spot! That actually made me laugh!
Glad you liked it! :)
Hi, Scotland here, the titles ad:
Plus side - Lovely bit of paper. Good for roleplay, or as a novelty item.
Note: No legal standing in Scots Law. It is just a piece of paper, confering no actual title. Mainly sold to those overseas.
I feel like the intention is that if you spend a lot of time trying to talk some NPC into something, then you should be taking your action for that. Right now players are tempted to try to persuade NPCs while swinging their swords around, which actually doesn't make sense if you think about it. I feel like it could be better worded though.
But doesn't the use of a skill use up an action already? That would count for Intimidate or Diplomacy or Bluff too.
@@Alpha_Digamma Under what rule does using a skill use an action already?
With Influence, Search, and Study, it codifies using various skills as actions by default, mentioning the GM can have it use other actions as the situation calls for it. To my knowledge these were previously just "the GM decides what's what."
@@huttj509 uhm...the basic rules for Ability checks? As far as I understand it skill checks are a sub category of Ability checks and for ability checks the wording is as follows:
"The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an Action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."
Why would an Action not use up the Action of a character?
It may be just a house rule my people have been using for decades at this point, but the wording always was pretty clear for me.
@@Alpha_Digamma "action" not "Action." From the Basic Rules on DnD Beyond: " The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."
This is one of the times when DnD's use of natural language gets confusing, where it seems to me to be using "attempts an action" as "does a thing" not "uses a specific Action"
@@huttj509 joke's on me then. Normally I use German rulebooks...in German it's the same word and spelling for both.
I thought the next version of dnd was getting rid of alignments.
The GM's word is law. What the GM says, happens. That is all, period.
My group is mostly writing tutors, so I like to break convos/arguments down into ethos, pathos, logos and kairos (my favorite), and base their success on which of those elements of rhetoric they've worked on most
Consistently good videos and with well thought out topics. I appreciate the work you do. I’ve been DMing for like 20 years and it’s nice to see someone that can help me in my games. Most videos are just opinion pieces on D&D.
I really appreciate that!
@@BobWorldBuilder :) :) :)
This is why in my homebrew rules specifically state that I will not allow rolls for things that are impossible. No halfling rolling str to lift a horse. No cha check to convince the king to give them his kingdom. If they roll on their own, I'll play out a scenario where the king DOES give them his kingdom. They rename it and become a tyrant with everything they always wanted. Then I tell them they shake their head and realize they daydreamed the whole thing and the king is staring at them like a lunatic.
Yeah and I think that DM power is more clear in the 2014 core books. It just needs to stay clear in the 2024 books, and so far it's not in the playtest material
@@BobWorldBuilder agreed
As a Scotsman I welcome your cat to my land.
Haha we appreciate your blessing!
Keep doing what you're doing Bob. I love it. Great video as always. I'm glad you're looking out for newer DMs.
I appreciate that!
I like your deep-dive observational breakdown videos.
Thanks!
I could imagine DMing this.
“Your words reach the death knight’s heart, earning his respect. He tells you that he will make your deaths quick and painless.”
One thing to note about crits is that the second playtest packet rolled back the "only PCs can crit" change. So those PCs that got saved would be back on the chopping block.
Very good opportunity to use the weapon quality homebrew he came up with a while back! Level 1 PC's fighting goblins with mostly ruined weapons would never even deal with damage dice on crits! ua-cam.com/video/MbBnoBHe248/v-deo.html
Good! PCs are already powerful enough as it is. Not allowing them to be critically hit the same way they can do to others was just overt handholding and making them even more powerful.
@@nephalos666 PC power is entirely subjective. If things are too easy/hard for them, the DM can change literally anything about future fights. I like the idea of having crits available to enemies in fights, but taking crits away from the ancient red dragon you drop on a level 3 party would never be considered hand-holding. It's all just using the tools you have.
Always great videos! I appreciate the calm and thoughtful content. It's funny. Until OneDnD I never knew I was doing crits differently. I have always had every nat 20 auto succeed. Player or monster.
Thanks! None of these One D&D rules are set in stone, but it does seem like for crits, they are shaping the new rules around what most people do
The DC 20 check for hostile creatures is generally the check needed to have the players convinced the hostile creatures not kill them/get more enemies to kill them etc. That is the small favor with minimal risk most would ask. Basically it's a check to pause hostility which should be a prescribed mechanical thing. If a creature is intelligent and it has its own agenda there should always be a chance for the plays to convince it to not kill them this can be by pleading for their lives willing to do tasks for them etc.
That's a good take!
Yeah, that's similar to how I've always read it. If it's in combat, you're not asking it for a favor, you're asking if it will parley or something similar, and it will only consider it if you are 1) very persuasive, 2) taking a moment to parley poses no risk to the creature or its goals. Why this ignores the stat blocks is because motivations are not a 'stat'. And it does not guarantee that the combat ends - you'd still have to come to some sort of terms the creature finds preferable to continued combat, which will depend on how the combat was going and the creature's moral/worldview, not the creature's stats.
Hostile can also be non-combat. You might be meeting a villain or their henchmen in a social setting, such as a diplomatic summit (but there's probably infinite variety where this comes up) where the two sides recognize they're enemies, but are not a state of conflict. Mabe you want to strike up a conversation about family and home life with one of the ambassador's guards... he knows he shouldn't be talking to you, but the topic SEEMS innocuous enough... but you're the foe, and he really shouldn't entertain you at all...
Exactly Bob. I'm a DM first and I train newer DMs. Already i must put my foot down and reign in players who tug at the RAW vs RAI arguments. It wastes time and frankly is not enjoyable as a DM to micromanage even more....sigh.
They said the Crit! mechanic in the first playtest was thrown out for the 2014 rules with the inspiration being on 1s now so a 20 for a skill check means nothing again than just a 20.
Honestly, I think the inspiration on 1 really clashes with awarding inspiration for especially heroic moments.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent, but I expect them to keep both rules in the future
@@skippy9273 sometimes, people get inspired by failure to do better in the future. And sometimes people get inspired by heroic actions
@@AZDfox I personally think you should get a inspiration on a 1 and give someone within 30’ of you that can see you inspiration on a 20.
@@AZDfox yeah, but you could make the same argument for getting inspiration on a massive roleplay faux pas.
I agree the DM is being hung out in a lot of the new One D&D.
Some bad changes in this play test I think
The issue is with the broad definition of Hostile. Their are many levels to hostility in reality. The idea works for things that are hostile because they are just not inclined to want to help but not for things that would actively want to harm you or your goals. That's why it says you decide if the roll is possible.
Oh boy, if this has you worried you should look into the mess that was diplomacy in 3.5. The Jumplomancer build cranks up their jump skill to the moon then uses a class feature to use jump to make diplomacy checks then performs a leap so gallant that, on a nat 1, it instantly turns any hostile creature fanatic, meaning they'd die for you, and there's nothing the DM can do about it.
It's one of several builds that will get you instakicked from a table if the DM knows what you're trying to do.
I'd totally have the Lard give them the land. It's up to them to see why they'd give them the land. And trust me, they'll be wanting to get rid of the land as well.
Lard (Thinking) Well there IS that old haunted castle that I think is the home base of a clan of vampires who worship Vecna.... "Here's the deed to your new lands and castle."
Thaaaaank you for the entire beginning of this video. Also, I understand and agree with you for the rest.
On another note:
To me, that Influence action and social interaction rule looked like something you write after digging deep into the bowels of D&D Reddit and reading a couple of horror stories. To me it felt like it was targeting a very specific crowd who abuses their power as a DM and/or tend to be a rules lawyer for their own benefit.
Hopefully more people will come up with better options and write them on the feedback.
The PT Influence rules are pulled almost completely from the existing 5e DMG.
I appreciate that! Yeah these rules seem like they're trying to balance helping new DMs and hindering jerk players, and it's a difficult task to handle
Combining rules glossaries across playtest documents is the first thing they say in the videos and it is even written in the playtest that you shouldn't do.
But also the rest of the video is fine and I like most of the points, the influence action should have a caveat that the DM can decide to change any of it the DC's, order who can and can't do it what skills and what ability score those checks are tied to.
Yeah I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
Yeah I love the influence action, but as you said it requires respect. I’ve been dming with the same 1-3 groups since I was 14. So yeah.
Yep so it’s most likely not going to be an issue in your groups. And I don’t think it’ll be a problem for most groups either, but it’ll affect even fewer if we talk about how to work with/around it!
@@BobWorldBuilder you are so positive! I love your attitude and approach to dnd.
"Then I play tested it with level 1 characters and it totally saved them"
Yeah, it's harder to not kill level 1 characters. For the entire rest of the campaign after baby's first adventure, they should be able to handle themselves. Just because level 1 characters die easily doesn't mean DMs should give up crits.
Yeah I think just lv 1 characters being immune to crits is fine, but then the DM should get their crits back :P
@@BobWorldBuilder I would say the occasional first level character dying is also ok. Just make a character funnel.
Kill level 1's! They have it coming! It what they get for not being a higher level
@@johnnygreenface More like sometimes it will happen and you should maybe have a contingecy plan arround the idea.
What's often overlooked in that discussion (and what we haven't seen in these playtests yet) is that they intend to give monsters more Cooldown abilities to compensate, essentially moving the "shit got real" button into the hands of the DM, rather than the dice deciding every time.
In general, I wish they would remove the hard number DCs, and make it more as guidelines of the "easy, difficult, very difficult..." kind, with a "these are general examples of what DC you should set for them" in another part of the book. Goes both for this and for stealth checks.
However, I am actually glad to see some sort of guideline for social interactions in the PHB, because I have seen too many examples of roleplay from players that DO lean into the mind control side of things. Most of the problems with this specific thing will be solved by fixing the d20 crits-automatically-succeed rule (which has several problems anyway) and underlining that the DM decides what a reasonable response will be in a social interaction.
When running interactions, my NPCs have a planned attitude, motives, and reactions prior to the encounter, tied to the arch of the story. I never allow die rolls of any kind to sway a change in the NPC stance. The only way it can be altered is by clever and tactful interaction and negotiation through roleplay. This new influence ability will, very likely, not be a part of our game.
BTW I agree that a hostile creature could never be swayed to do favours for PC's. That idea is absurd. If using a skill check, a DC20 should result in the creature backing down and walking away from a fight, at best.
DM crits should be allowed. I understand that it may keep low level PC's "safe", but that is just not the game we play. 5E is already far too easy for PC's that's why we play with altered rules; there should always be a high risk of death. Tension makes for the best of games.
Another great video; thanks!
Yeah full roleplay negotiations is a fun way to play if your group is comfortable with it. It makes them get better at roleplay really fast haha
I mean, these types of attitude rules are pretty common in other editions of the game and pathfinder and it's not the end of the world there either. Personally I like how these rules make things a bit more defined and help set expectations.
Yeah this is only going to be a problem among the small subset of rude players who want to dominate the table
As is stated in the playtest material, you are not meant to combine rules glossaries between these documents and the newer always entirely supersedes the older. You're not meant to play with both the "all nat20s succeed" rule and the Influence action at the same time. In a future document we might see both be used at the same time but so far they are supposed to be entirely separate.
All nat 20's succeed is just a silly rule anyway.
My 8 strength sorcerer tries to throw a spear to the moon.
5% chance of what?
He succeeds and hits the moon?
He merely succeeds in throwing it as high as he can, like a handful of feet up?
Without auto success you can just make the DC impossible and let the role tell you how close you got based on your chances
@@kamikeserpentail3778 Ye and that's probably why it's no longer included in the newest document.
@@kamikeserpentail3778 One of the guiding principles outlined in the 5e DMG is that if a task is outright impossible, the PCs shouldn't roll for it; they should just fail. There should only be a roll if there is a chance of success.
That's honestly part of what makes an Influence Action potentially scary. Any Action defined as part of the PHB is a thing the PC can say "I take the Influence Action." This RAW grants them a roll to perform the action, and with an automatic success, they succeed.
If the rule is to be kept, it needs reasonably strong guidelines about what can and cannot be accomplished by an Influence Action.
RAI, an automatic success is "best possible outcome."
The automatic success on a 20 is not included in the second pdf. You only use one Rules Glossary at a time, not both.
What the auto success rule tells me is: if something has less than a 5% chance of success, you don’t get to try a roll as it will then be impossible and since no dc has a guaranteed rate of failure you get no roll.
Right now I just call for charisma checks whenever the players have done enough to have a chance at influencing an NPC's actions. Whenever I feel like I'm wavering but not won over just yet. If the players do do or say something that I immediately know how my NPC would respond to, I don't usually call for a check. Maybe one day I'll learn more robust social interaction rules but I find this is a good balance between "I roll persuasion on the angry dragon until it becomes my mount" and "I said the exact things right to convince this person but the dice said a 1 so no deal".
Thank you for the video. This elephant in the room went virtually unnoticed. It's not the only "dangerus" rule for me, in D&D one. Albeit not so overtly problematic, the wording og the search/study action skews heavily from a "dm says when to roll" to a "player decide when to roll" paradigm. My main concern with it is not the loss of DM control, but the fact that it teaches new player to interact wiht the game environment through the rules rather than through the fiction. I admit that my personal preferences (I have strong OSR-Freeform sensibilities) colour my perception of the changes, but I really don't like the direction D&D is going (contrary to most people, I really don't like the new "better defined" rules for hiding, invisibilities and the like). Curiously, in my disliking of the rules, I menage to completely disagree with the comment you showed from the user also disliking the rules: a)I still think that there are far worse social rules (3th edition was a worse offender, but in my view 3d edition is a worse offender about everything) b) I'm quite sure that "no rule at all" is simple the best possible rules for social interaction
The insight check as part of a social interaction is a nice touch and I think I try to incorporate some flavor of that in the future.
The interesting thing is the insight check could be a good way to modify the NPC going in attitude based on the intention of the player and assuming the NPC can determine those intentions. The example you give of the King and the players asking for half the kingdom. The King could go from being friendly to hostile real fast should he gain insight that players have ill intentions. This could give some interesting consequences to players actions.
Also it seems like there should be 4 categories Friendly, Neutral, Wary and Hostile. Where a Hostile NPC will never help you, and potentially harm you if the opportunity presents itself. Thanks again for your insights, Bob.
Thanks! And yeah, I'd prefer friendly, neutral, unfriendly for a simple scale. Then hostile means they're literally ready for a fight!
@@BobWorldBuilder I'd be interested in your thoughts on "rivals" working against the player (spreading rumors, downtime complications, maybe competing on adventures). Would you envision the rivial(s) as "unfriendly" or "hostile". When you say "ready for a fight" in your mind is that (roll of initiative) combat only or would working against the parties interest count too? Thanks
Great points and it seemed to go from honestly a pretty ok(Needed balancing) rule to an over simplistic one... Which let me solve the whole argument issue with one line... "Be kind and considerate at the table as you are all building a story togather."
Bingo!
what Wizards are doing right is opening the playtest so your critiques like this will be listened to in one way or another
Bingo
The auto succeed rule was reverted in the second UA which is were the influence rule was added your point of scepticism was doing fine without adding that on. Please make sure not to mix these up, you are influential to the community and we want to limit how many people get mad at the UA just because of confusion.
Came here to say this.
Thanks for your concern and I understand that during the playtest period, only the most recent UA rules glossary takes precedent. I expect them to keep both rules in the future, but we'll see
The influence action depending on reception is actually pretty likely to not make it into print. I think it was Mike Mearls who talked about the 80% approval thing but basically for the most part, most playtest material needs an 80% or higher approval rate to make it into print unless it's already supposed to be in a soon-ish book release. They might try and rework it a few times to try and get it up to 80% but if it continues to get bad feedback they're likely to just axe it.
Personally, adding that rule of using different ability scores a core rule would be great, it opens the Influence action to low Cha PCs to make use of their abilities, like convincing someone showing how good you are maneuvering a sword, lifting a heavy object or creature, and even the classic putting a hole on the wall, and adding Insight or just Wis mod on the DC would be great
Honestly, they could fully delete all of the "social" skills and I think the game would be better for it. When I DM, I set the expectation right out the gate that if they are just trying to small-talk-charm someone or modify their disposition, that is persuasion, but otherwise they should roleplay using past experience, even making them up on the spot, or describe leveraging a different skill instead. Depending on the nature of the depth of their "social leverage" I'll give them proficiency, expertise, or even let them use a wholly different ability score modifier.
@@Kizok5150 unforutnately this emans sTR, DEX and CON RULE the game, and tkaing high INt, WIS and CHARISMA mena nothing... players take advantag eof their scores in combat, but player swho have high interaction social skills dont get that same advantage?.. if a 100 pound weakling plays a fighter iwth an 18 STr it works as writtne, but when a socially challenged perons plays a high charisma character but is expected to ROLEPLAY it WELL to get the advantage? thats bad GAMING.
or using intelligence to plan a cunning argument for why you should get what you want
@@badmojo0777 I get what you mean, but you can make the same argument to Int, Wis and Cha, as casters, and even some subclasses, can use those for combat while still having better social advantage. A warlock can Eldritch Blast and be social, a fighter, however, needs to pick one: good combat skills or good social skills, or maybe try and make it both mediocre, but the warlock still have advantage.
There is one rule, that fix everything. If you like it - use it, if don't like it - don't use it.
Always love how positive you are. Even with dumb stuff like this haha. Keep up the good work dude and thanks for the vids yo
"This video isn't an invitation for anyone to demonize One DnD"
Me: "Your too late. I've ready begun the summoning ritual in front of WotC HQ"!
Hey Bob, I love your videos! I just wanted to point out that the action being cut completely is more possible than you might expect. I am a game designer and can tell you from experience that there are plenty of features that make it to the testing phase but never past that. The Influence action could very well stick around as you said, but we can't assume that it's guaranteed to stay just because it made it into a playtest document. We should all be mindful that they are feeling everything out and continue to give our best feedback. :)
Thanks! That’s promising haha
@@BobWorldBuilder I was gonna say a lot of stuff has died in UA, psionic class for example
Worth noting; while the influence action does have some flaws, the discussion around the rolling a 20/dm can’t crit against a player isn’t explicitly relevant to this play test document. At the beginning of the play test doc, it states that if you are using it with any previously released play test, use only the rules glossary in this one.
This therefore removes the ability for players to crit succeed on a social interaction and reinstates DMs being able to crit against players.
Excellent points on the action itself, especially regarding problem players. If I were dealing with a player disagreeing with what an NPC should find repugnant, I would state that they do not know the NPCs drives and backstory so cannot comment on their predetermined limits of interaction. Realistically, past this, a problem player is a problem player and that is less likely to change. There are always ways to break the game and sometimes people will actively search them out.
While I acknowledge that there is a possibility for someone to misuse this rule against a new DM, I think that is... true for most rules. And I think the current problem with the social interaction rules, much like a lot of the other honestly pretty fine rules in the DMG is that the players don't know they exist, so they don't know to use them, so no culture on how to use them develops at the table, which is a problem because right now the players are dramatically undereducated on what verbs they have available to them outside of combat.
That's a really good point! And yes, I think this would only be an issue for a small proportion of groups, but the expectations need to be clearer in my opinion, so those new players and DMs know how it should really play out
I agree, this helps especially new RP wary players have a concrete way to grasp what they have to do to accomplish something. I agree that it could use some tweaking and I would add a clause explaining that players should respect the DM’s ruling on what is considered untenable and maybe use some different language to include things that just don’t make sense for the creature. Maybe something along the lines that there should be something to balance out the risk or cost to the NPC, which would prevent just rolling a die to convince a lord to give up land or funds. I don’t let my players just “convince” people of things but treat things as almost transactional. Players need to provide a genuine motivation for the desired action the NPC would take. Want a portion of a lord’s land? You need leverage for your rolls to work with. Threaten to release sensitive information, etc. if it’s a major ask there has to be an actual reason beyond “I’m so persuasive!”
That is why it is in the playtest material - so people can give feedback about obvious issues like that.
Hey Bob, love your videos. But I just haven't given One D&D a single bit of attention, and thus not watched any content on it. Would love to see more of your thoughts on 5E mechanics
Got a 5e coming next week! :)
Great video!
Tinkering with a system, myself - making social interactions opposed rolls, and making success/failure a matter of degrees similar to the scale in Pathfinder 2... and giving the "defender" (usually NPC) some pretty obscene bonuses to their roll based on their power base. Basically, even a friendly king can be negotiated with, but if you try to make the king abdicate, even with a nat 20, he'll still have something like a triple-digit bonus to his roll...
Just coming up with ideas, you could also not roll but add multiple bonuses to the DC by adding relevant knowledge skills as well as insight and save bonuses vs deception, physical skills & saves and perception vs intimidation, and investigation and intelligence vs persuasion. (Depending on the persuasion, you might alternatively decide that high intelligence actually lowers the DC, if the players are suggesting something sensible and in line with the target's interests)
And that sounds like it solves the problem!
@@KalonOrdona2 Yeah, the system I'm tinkering with is based on opposed rolls, though - and negotiating for *reasonable* concessions will be quite a bit easier than something as preposterous as abdicating while at the peak of power and security.
@@BobWorldBuilder Still working on fine-tuning the core roll, mind - but I have a fairly solid mechanical concept for it all. I'm doing my best to avoid having four or five different roll mechanics in place for different things - all opposed rolls, unless it's straight up man vs. environment.
Just a heads up, I read a fair criticism that has stuck with me for a while, that opposed rolls are inherently more swingy. It can lead to wonky situations, like where a giant rolls poorly and loses a wrestling contest to a gnome. My guess is that is why we've seen more playtest replacing opposed rolls with a set DC 15. The only other solution is huge triple digit modifiers like you're speculating, which then also run against the idea of bounded accuracy
"it is unlikely that they will take out this new rule entirely" - true, except the designers of One D&D in the 2nd section of the playtest removed the "no crits for DM" completely and went back to the current rule where both players and DMs crit. So, if people are upset about this new Influence action, they may remove it completely in the future. The point is, a dice roll shouldn't overrule a good bit of Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation from a PC. It's probably that they are seeking to help new or inexperienced DMs who are worried about adjudicating the results of a conversation without a roll
Well... I just started a dm'ing a new campaign and denied my crits for level 1. But on level 2 it was crit time and almost killed a player cause I got 2 crits against her back to back. Fun times.
Yeah I think just having lv 1 characters being immune to crits will usually work out
They can only succeed automatically if you allow them to roll.
Totally! But new players and DMs won't always be familiar with that common ttrpg etiquette. That needs to be clarified as well for these new players
@@BobWorldBuilder Agreed. A section on rolling should clarify that rolls are not needed when:
a) Character is proficient, not under pressure or danger, can alway try again if they happen to fail and the task is typical.
b) The DM deems a successful outcome impossible.
c) The DM deems failure impossible.
Roll needed:
a) Whenever engaged in combat.
b) Not proficient and task is atypical, even if not under pressure.
c) Proficient, but task atypical, exceptional and/or under pressure/duress.
I think the wording confuses the situation a little. I don't think "hostile" here means in combat or about to engage in combat, more likely it's supposed to mean "dislikes the player and doesn't want to help, or even might wish for them not to succeed in some endeavors". As it is not mind control, if the hostile creature knows how the favor asked of them helps in the aspect they might wish the player to fail, it is reasonable to assume that they would not help (ie. allow a roll/autofail). The only problem here is the D20 Test ruling not being clear enough that a Nat 20 is not autosuccess on anything, but best result possible given the circumstances.
Yeah I'm not going as far to say a hostile creature should necessarily attack the party, just that it's weird for them to do the party a favor, even on a high CHA roll
I'm with you. It's a role playing game, so I don't give any PC a check/roll without earning it through role play [period].
Doesn't having a hostile party member or someone helping that party that is hostile toward them, open up a world of options a helpful npc would never do? Like maybe he helps, but when he realizes there is something to be gained, maybe they turn on the party or try to steal from them?
Totally, but then I'd say that's the hostile person helping the party to actually help themself, so it gets a little convoluted as to what the roll should be and whether or not that NPC is deceiving the party. And only convoluted if you are relying on this system
Another insightful video
So, not to be all "well, actually" here, but at 6:40 or so when you say that you don't think a hostile creature would ever help the party even with no risk to themselves...that's literally why you roll the skills. If there is a guard who hates the adventuring party (so is hostile) who is barring entry into the town just because they're being an a-hole, passing a DC20 Intimidation or a persuasion check (for a bribe) would make them back down and let the party in (maybe with a "but I've got my eye on you" threat). If the same guard is _under_ _orders_ not to let the players in, now the DC 20 check wouldn't' work because letting the players in involves taking a risk to the guard by getting in trouble with his boss. The important part is the risk the target would be taking for "helping" the adventurers, if something is of zero risk it is entirely conceivable for hostile creatures to help the party indirectly or directly.
Another common trope would be the local thieves guild is shaking down the players who are just about to go into the dungeon "I don't have your money now but if you give me until tomorrow I'll pay you double! I just need you to give me one more day!" Stuff like that happens all the time.
Yeah good point about this type of interaction. I guess I'm considering the wording of "does as asked" to be more active. In both of these cases, the hostile NPC doesn't have to actually do something. It's easier for the guard to just let them pass than harass them all day, and it's easier for the thief to let them go than to fight. I'm realizing now that it's way more dependent on that second half of the text "as long as no risk or sacrifice is involved"
Please make more Dungeon Crawl Classics content! I'd love to hear your opinions on new DCC content. I see that sailors on the starless sea foil cover and Stefan Poag Core rulebook! That screams love for DCC ❤
I wasn’t around for any of the other edition changes but I fully intend to pick and choose which mechanics changes I use or don’t out of OneDnD. my games will probably be mostly feel like a 5e game with a little bit of the new rules from OneDnD and a fair share of homebrew.
My table currently plays 3.5, and when I'm DMing it's definitely 3.5 with some of my favorite aspects of 5e with a healthy dash of "this really annoys me when I'm a player, so I'm changing it"
This is the right approach! Gotta do what's fun for your group!
While you may be correct that some of the wording needs a look over, you may have overlooked that they removed the natural 20s always succeed rule from the UA with the introduction of the Expert Classes UA. They discussed how they removed it in the promotional video and if you look at the d20 Test section, you will notice it isn't there.
Even with current rules in 5e, i think that social interaction checks are too much on rails. It either needs to be a more nuanced set of rules or just be followed less closely (with more common sense)
1. Persuasion : personal charisma might be helpful, but it's not the only factor and could even be a problem depending on what form of "charisma" you have and the situation (if you are the classic charismatic actor archetype, you aren't the best person to speak to the introverted accountant). Making a personal connection is more important. It makes sense to roleplay the barbarian talking to the travelling group of bare knuckle fighters that come from his village. And that should matter to the roll. And not just a matter of giving advantage, that kind of connection is not a bonus, its the central part of the interaction.
2. Intimidation. Again, Intimidation may sometimes be a matter of pure front: just looking important and powerful and getting someone to back down bit usually, at least how it b is rollplayed its about
- you having a plausible way to harm someone
- you convincing them that you are willing to do that thing
- they would rather acquiesce then face that potent harm
Love my players!
100% i would end up in an arguement if they should in fact find it repugnant
Great stuff friend 👏 👍
Thank you!
0:17 Just because people are bad at math, doesn't mean we should nerf sneak attack (or GWM).