D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Campbell]

I think it is important to establish what a character is actively doing so we can establish what the consequences are for success and failure. What you can glean from an Insight check is going to depend on how you are trying to find out what that character is up to.

Generally I am not a fan of passive checks at all. If you want information go after it.

 

[Oofta]

A declaration of an attack requires, at minimum, a target and a weapon. The declaration of the target communicates the goal: kill the target (or knock them out, which you would also need to specify as part of the declaration). The declaration of the weapon communicates the approach: by hitting it with the weapon. Therefore, “I Attack the orc with my longsword” is sufficient information for the DM to determine whether or not a dice roll is necessary to resolve the action - which it may or may not be! For instance, if the target is immune to damage from nonmagical weapons, I won’t bother calling for an attack roll if the attacker is using a nonmagical weapon, because there is no chance of success. If the target is incapacitated, I won’t call for an attack roll because there’s no chance of failure.


See, “studying closely, listening for pauses or lines that sound overly-rehearsed,” that sounds like an approach to me. What’s your goal? What are you trying to learn by doing this? The answer will have an impact on whether or not you need to make a check to achieve that goal with that approach. “Insight check” is neither an approach nor a goal, it is a means of task resolution.


“I make a thieves tool check” is sufficiently clear. It communicates a goal (open the lock you’re picking) and an approach (with thieves’ tools). If a player declared that as an action at my table, I would say, “sure, that’ll take 10 minutes and a successful DC X Dexterity check, with your Thieves’ Tools proficiency of course” if the lock could be picked and there was some kind of time pressure. If the lock was beyond the character’s skill to pick, I would say, “no need, you can’t pick it.” If it could be picked and there was no time pressure, I would say, “no need, you’ll eventually get it open.”


I mean, detecting lies is not the only thing Insight can be used for, and like any check it is only called for in response to an action (with a clear goal and approach) that the player announces. So, I don’t agree that any discernible pattern will emerge from when the DM dies and does not call for a Wisdom check. The only information you gain from the DM calling for a Wisdom check to resolve your action is that it is possible, but risky. to achieve that particular goal by that particular method.

While I think the "goal and approach" meme if overblown, I can easily put it in those terms.

The declaration of insight tells me that the PC has the goal of determining whether someone is being deceptive with the approach of studying their words and non-verbal clues closely.

Does anyone ever really have the following conversation?

Player: I attack the orc with my longsword.​

DM: Okay, give me an attack roll.​

Because I don't remember that conversation in hundreds (thousands?) of hours of play. It's usually some variation of "Does an 18 hit?" I don't play "mother DM may I" and would find it annoying. When it comes to creatures only being affected by magical weapons, I let the players attempt to hit. They don't know that the target is immune until they've hit and it did no visible damage.

As far as insight being useful for other things, I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation.

I wouldn’t ask them both for Insight checks unless they both announced actions with possibility of success, failure, consequences, etc. so I’m not sure what you’re driving at here.

The activity being resolved is the insight check. If the NPC is using deception, how would you ever
know to ask for an insight check unless the players indicate that they are suspicious?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Please read the post I was referring to, which was talking about a player asking about a roll is a player requiring uncertainty and cost of failure. It wasn't about approaches at all.

I like the new ENWorld software, but I do miss the nesting of responses with the comments so it's clear what is being discussed in a chain of replies.

Yes... I had followed. I expanded in a slightly different direction because it's often very related to the kind of bad play your response was assuming.

 

[Campbell]

When it comes to things like an NPC lying I have a conversation with players about how they want to handle it. The first option is I can roll a Deception check against Passive Insight behind my screen that will bear out in my description. If they fail I might say something like their eyes shift down as they speak - you are pretty sure he is lying to you. The other option is I can roll the Deception check out in the open, but if they succeed you are bound by it.

 

[Ashrym]

An attack role is not an ability check. Ability checks are what the game says the DM is the one to call for.



It is explicitly by RAW an action. It's not necessarily a combat action as combat uses the term, but it is absolutely an act by the PC to observe and understand the creature in question.

"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. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

The DM calling for an ability check when when a character attempts something other than an attack is irrelevant. That's only demonstrating ability checks are not attack rolls. DM's adjucate all actions. The only difference is there's currently an argument against usibg a game term for the sake of roleplay when the term itself is clear on what it does.

There also seems to be an argument that observing something requires an action. I can only imagine how perception and most intelligence proficiencies are being applied to needing an action for the DM to judge. There are several proficiencies that are generally passive in nature.

It only sounds that way if you assume that DMs who run the game the way Ovinamancer and I do are asking for detailed description. But what we are asking for is only reasonable specificity. It’s not the difference between “I Attack the troll” and “I [insert description of the attack here]”, it’s the difference between “I Attack the troll” and “I Attack the troll with my greataxe.”


I agree that Insight is not an action. Insight is a Proficiency, which can allow you to add your Proficiency Bonus to a check, if the action being resolved by the check involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

It's generally observing and understanding reactions. That has nothing to do with previous editions and there's clearly no requirement that a player need declare an action to make observations. Again, that would also apply to perception as a similar ability.

It sounds that way because people are arguing the need to describe an action when a game term is sufficient, or describe an action just to observe something.

There is no action required for perception either. Not using an action was so common that passive perception was given it's own spot on the character sheet. Do you make players think really hard and cross their eyes to make a history check?

Actions create checks but checks do not necessary require actions just because the first is true. That's jumping to conclusions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Throw me in on the side of not requiring the players to gussy up their language in order to tell me they want to see if they can tell if the NPC is lying. There are only so many ways you can describe looking into their eyes, looking for beads of sweat, seeing if they fidgit, etc. etc. before it becomes so overdone that a shorthand is just easier and less monotonous.

I mean, this is the whole reason the 10' pole gimmick became a thing and then became a cliche and then became something nobody even bothers with anymore. "What are you trying to do?" "I'm looking for traps on the floor!" "How are you doing this?" "I'm going to use my 10' pole to tap the floor in front of me!" "Okay, make a 'search for traps' check."

10 feet down the dungeon later...

"What are you trying to do?" "I'm looking for traps on the floor!" "How are you doing this?" "I'm going to use my 10' pole to tap the floor in front of me!" "Okay, make a 'search for traps' check."

So on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

And thus, we now no longer require players to describe this action over and over and over again. We just know that yeah, the thief is keeping his eyes out for traps, using all of his skills to do so. And then the DM will makes rolls if/when it is necessary.

And many of us now treat Insight the same way. I for one have no need or desire to hear Insight's equivelant of the "10' pole speech" over and over anymore. You want to see if you can tell the NPC's lying? Fine, make a check. It's probably not going to work anyway, but go ahead and make it if you feel better about it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Actions create checks but checks do not necessary require actions just because the first is true. That's jumping to conclusions.

No jumping needed:
"An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." DMG p237

 

[Charlaquin]

While I think the "goal and approach" meme if overblown, I can easily put it in those terms.

It’s not a meme, it’s the actual way that the people who’s DMing style you claim to be trying to understand determine how best to resolve actions.

The declaration of insight tells me that the PC has the goal of determining whether someone is being deceptive with the approach of studying their words and non-verbal clues closely.

Except that, no, it doesn’t communicate that. The Insight skill can be applied to many actions which involve “gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms” to “determine the true intentions of a creature.” So, if your goal is to determine whether or not the NPC intends to deceive you by carefully studying his body language, speech, and mannerisms, great. Tell me that, and I might tell you that you notice something in his body language, speech, or mannerisms indicate intent to deceive, or I might tell you that you don’t notice any such thing, or I might ask you to make a Wisdom check, depending on whether or not he does intend to deceive you, how he is or is not telegraphing that intent if he has it, and what might or might not happen if you fail to pick up on any telegraphs he might be giving. Asking for an Insight check is asking me to skip that process and just assume that you do have a chance of succeeding, chance of failing, and consequences for failing, and those aren’t assumptions I am comfortable making.

Does anyone ever really have the following conversation?

Player: I attack the orc with my longsword.​

DM: Okay, give me an attack roll.​

Yes. Happens at least once in pretty much every combat I run. There are certainly times when we shorthand it - if you’re within 5 feet of an orc, you have a longsword drawn, there are no other hostile creatures within 5 feet of you, and you don’t declare any movement before rolling a d20 and shouting out a number, yeah, I know what you meant. But if you’re standing there, 30 feet away from the melee, with 5 orcs all within range, and you just say “sacred flame,” I’m gonna ask who your targeting. If you’re surrounded by orcs, carrying multiple weapons, and you just say “15 on my Attack roll,” I’m going to ask you against who and with which weapon.

The activity being resolved is the insight check. If the NPC is using deception, how would you ever
know to ask for an insight check unless the players indicate that they are suspicious?

I don’t. If the NPC is lying to the PCs, I roll Deception for the NPC with the DC set by the highest passive Insight of the PCs being lied to. If he fails, I will narrate a tell, such as the NPC stammering, or sweating, or making shifty-eyes. The players are free to interpret that as they will. If any of the players want to follow up with an action, they can do so, announcing it in terms of their goal and approach, e.g. “I want to find out if he’s lying. I press him further, and watch closely for any signs he might be lying.” If they do, I will decide if this action succeeds, fails, or requires a check to resolve, and proceed accordingly.

 

[Shiroiken]

I do insight, perception, investigation, arcana, history, nature, and religion a bit differently, mostly because of the advantage of playing on Roll20. I have created 7 macros (one for each skill) that rolls against their passive scores (I convert DC to a modifier as needed). Whenever I feel that a check needs to be made, I use the macro (which only reveals the result to me) and go with the results. If a player feels the need to actively do something more (feeling doubt, wanting to search around, think about a specific topic), then they can make a check.

If I was playing an IRL game, I'd try to setup something similar on my phone or tablet.

 

[Ashrym]

No jumping needed:
"An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." DMG p237

Yes, but a task isn't necessarily an action either. Ability checks resolve actions and non-actions alike. Knowing information, noticing a change in speech patter, or noticing goblin sneaking in the bushes don't require actions but are resolved by checks.