D&D 5E How lawyery do you get with Zone of Truth?

[Zertull]

Last time the Cleric interrogated using Zone of Truth I started playing the Phoenix Wright theme. He gets extremely lawyery XD

 

[Thyrwyn]

Well I don't care if they decide to use their spells however they please. It doesn't bother me if they cast fireball a bunch, or cure wounds - why should I police their use of zone of truth.

Then go for it!

Second, I can tell them whatever I like. If I were to employ a zone of truth spell against the players, I would do so for the challenge it imposes on them. They would know it was cast because I would telegraph it - or outright tell them - you cannot lie.[/QUOTE]So you would run it differently if it were cast on the players? That's not how I read your original post. Sorry for misunderstanding.

I don't think my marginally OCD part would let me do that

 

[Thyrwyn]

I don't see my adjudication of the spell as rendering "moot entire array of Social skills." There is generally only one skill that applies to determining whether someone else is being truthful and that's Wisdom (Insight). So you expend a 2nd-level spell slot to remove the uncertainty from determining the truthfulness of the NPC. I see no issue with that. If the players would rather give the guy in the party with a high Insight bonus a chance to shine, then they'll let him take the lead instead of cast the spell.

What about the guy with the high Deception skill It specifically covers "misleading others through ambiguity", perfect for being caught in a ZoT

Abuse could be the DM being frequently cagey with his NPCs to hide the Big Reveal or keep his plot on track rather than give the players what they've earned by getting the NPC of note into the zone and asking the right questions....

See, this is the part that confuses me. Either I'm not communicating clearly, or you're reading intent into posts that I'm not seeing. My guess is that we strive for the same type of play experience, and are just talking past each other. I agree that both of the cases you propose are undesirable - and I certainly never meant to advocate for either.

My reading of the above scenario is that you see the challenge as "get the NPC of note into the Zone of Truth" - and at 3rd or 4th level that might be an appropriate challenge; I was imagining situations where "the NPC of note" has been clever enough to have "plausible deniability", and would be perfectly willing to sit down for a ZoT tete-a-tete, might even suggest one...

It is worth noting, too, that everyone inside the ZoT is affected by the spell, not just the bad guys

 

[iserith]

What about the guy with the high Deception skill It specifically covers "misleading others through ambiguity", perfect for being caught in a ZoT

Honestly I've been thinking about it through the lens of the PCs using the spell against NPCs as per the OP. In the unlikely event an NPC would use it against the PCs, the inability to lie would frame part of the challenge of the scene (provided the PCs had reason to lie). That's on the players to solve. Either way, this spell is still only "shutting down" one social skill at any given time. I think that's okay for a 2nd-level spell splot.

See, this is the part that confuses me. Either I'm not communicating clearly, or you're reading intent into posts that I'm not seeing. My guess is that we strive for the same type of play experience, and are just talking past each other. I agree that both of the cases you propose are undesirable - and I certainly never meant to advocate for either.

My reading of the above scenario is that you see the challenge as "get the NPC of note into the Zone of Truth" - and at 3rd or 4th level that might be an appropriate challenge; I was imagining situations where "the NPC of note" has been clever enough to have "plausible deniability", and would be perfectly willing to sit down for a ZoT tete-a-tete, might even suggest one...

It is worth noting, too, that everyone inside the ZoT is affected by the spell, not just the bad guys

You asked for examples and I gave them. I am not saying you are advocating for abuse like that.

 

[jgsugden]

Might I suggest that you look not to the DM, but to the God of the cleric casting the spell for guidance? If a cleric of Loki and a cleric of Tyr both cast the spell, I could easily see them getting different results froma Zone of Truth spell.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Well, it depends on how your players react. It's kind of like Wishes. If your players are the type to react to a Wish by creating an iron-clad contract multiple pages long, then it's probably best to go with "intent" over "lawyering".

That was my thought as well. I've pretty much done away with wishes in my games since any time one was given to the PC's, out came the legalese. I don't enjoy it, it's out of genre and I hate treasure grubbers.

If there is a facet of the game where PC's think "going lawyer" is the best bet, I usually remove that facet of the game.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Nobodies favorite part of the Alladin story is where Alladin, upon being granted a wish, excuses himself for several hours then returns with a sheaf of paper and begins, "I, Alladin, heretofore known as the party of the first part..."

 

[Uchawi]

It just depends how long you want to stall or wait to get to the next part of the story. Sandbox type adventure with little story line prepared probably suffer the most when knowledge abilities or spells come into play. If the story is pre-planned, with the general direction to the plot already determine, is it easier to deal with.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Keep in mind that while the caster knows if a subject made his saving throw on any given round, the caster has no way of proving that*. So in any vaguely methodical legal system, it's still either inadmissible or, if officers of the court are always believed, open to corruption.

*They could try swearing under zone of truth, but that gets a tad recursive.

Slightly OT: As far as the legalese-wish phenomenon, that bugs the crap out of me, too. I've dealt with it so far by leaving wishes out of my campaigns, but I think I'm going to start introducing them back in--with an in-character and real-life time limit.

 

[Mouseferatu]

In fact, come to think of it, I think the save every round mechanic for ZoT might be broken. It takes more than six seconds to answer a given question, so what if someone saves in the middle of a sentence?

Better, I think, to save per question.