D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Charlaquin]

This is one of those places this debate gets stupidly pedantic. Why would a player ever ask for a chance to fail? They don't.

They literally do. Checks have a chance to fail. They’re asking for a check. I’m not going to give it to them if there isn’t a reasonable chance of their action failing. But I also can’t determine that without knowing what their action is.

They're asking for a check because that's their unartful way of asking apply one of their abilities. Inferring anything more than that would strike me as a problematic "gotcha" DM issue.

This is why I have a particular order of operations. First the player announces an action. Then I determine whether or not that action can succeed, can fail, and has consequences for failure. If and only if it has all three of those things, I will ask them to make a check, and then, once a possibility of failure and stakes have been established, is a good time for the player to ask to apply one of their Proficiencies.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Outside of combat, spend the time for a 20 check guarantees a hard task for almost anyone and very hard task for almost anyone with training and natural talent even at low levels.

Here is a good example of a disconnect in the discussion. There is no concept of “taking 20” in 5e. You are applying a rule from a past edition. You are certainly not alone - I think this happens reasonably often in the forums here, even though we are many years deep into 5e.

The same is true of players initiating rolls.

Not to say you can’t have fun using these rules variations, they just happen to be holdovers from past editions.

If something is not working at your table, though, you may first want to examine if you are following 5e rules or using assumptions based on other games.

If fun is had by all at your table, then carry on. That’s the real bottom line for any of us.

 

[Ashrym]

Here is a good example of a disconnect in the discussion. There is no concept of “taking 20” in 5e. You are applying a rule from a past edition. You are certainly not alone - I think this happens reasonably often in the forums here, even though we are many years deep into 5e.

The same is true of players initiating rolls.

Not to say you can’t have fun using these rules variations, they just happen to be holdovers from past editions.

If something is not working at your table, though, you may first want to examine if you are following 5e rules or using assumptions based on other games.

If fun is had by all at your table, then carry on. That’s the real bottom line for any of us.

No, I'm referring to the 5e DM topic on repeat throws and auto-success. Maybe you should read it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here is a good example of a disconnect in the discussion. There is no concept of “taking 20” in 5e. You are applying a rule from a past edition. You are certainly not alone - I think this happens reasonably often in the forums here, even though we are many years deep into 5e.

The same is true of players initiating rolls.

Not to say you can’t have fun using these rules variations, they just happen to be holdovers from past editions.

If something is not working at your table, though, you may first want to examine if you are following 5e rules or using assumptions based on other games.

If fun is had by all at your table, then carry on. That’s the real bottom line for any of us.

I will say that, while taking 20 isn’t a part of the 5e rules per se, I do find that 20 + Mod + Proficiency/Expertise is a good metric for determining if certain actions have a chance of succeeding.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think one of the issues here is that some are treating Insight as a special firm of perception (I look for tells), while others are treating it as an interaction skill like persuasion (ie, you have to interact to use it). The former leads to 'press the button' applications (I look at him and Insight if he's lying), the latter to more approach drvien play. The two methods are largely incompatible.

I don’t think they’re incompatible at all. I allow Insight proficiency to apply to checks made to resolve actions of either variety.

If a player announces a perceptive action like observing the NPC’s body language for signs of nervousness, and I determine that it should be resolved with a check, I would most likely call for a Wisdom check. If the player then suggests that their Insight proficiency might be applicable, I would certainly allow it. If the player announces an interactive action like pressing the NPC on a subject he seems cagey about to see if she can catch him in a contradiction*, and I determined that it should be resolved with a check, I would probably call for a Charisma check. If the player then suggests that their Insight proficiency might be applicable, I would most likely allow that too.

*Oh my god, I’m describing Phoenix Wright, aren’t I?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No, I'm referring to the 5e DM topic on repeat throws and auto-success. Maybe you should read it.

Sorry if I touched a nerve. Not my intent. I know p237 of the DMG well, but do not recall reading the phrase “20 check”. And it doesn’t differentiate between proficient and non-proficient PCs... so perhaps you are thinking of a rule from a prior edition.

 

[Ashrym]

Sorry if I touched a nerve. Not my intent. I know p237 of the DMG well, but do not recall reading the phrase “20 check”. And it doesn’t differentiate between proficient and non-proficient PCs... so perhaps you are thinking of a rule from a prior edition.

Naw, if I sound snarky it's meant to be good natured. I don't get mad over internet discussions, lol. My last remark was meant as mild ribbing but it's hard to convey sometimes.

 

[Ashrym]

For reference, this is the passage I mean when I say "take 20".

Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.

It's under "Multiple Ability Checks" on page 237 of the DMG. I do refer to the old label of "take 20" regarding the current guidelines on it so I can see that leading to confusion. The reason for that is I interpret 20 as the highest roll possible, so 20 plus bonuses is the highest possible result. If the DC is 25 and the best possible is 24 then spending 10 times normal time won't succeed.

 

[Maxperson]

I attack the guard with my sword.
Dm, "can you be more specific? Do You attack high or low, have you study you tallopher?"
Oh please. I have role players and roll players in my group. There is no difference between Bob asking about body language, and the other bob asking for an insight check. The only time I have a problem with roll players is when they toss the dice and announce the result and what skill check they are using before I call for a roll.

Yes there is a difference. As @Charlaquin said, the more specific you are with how you go about your task, the more likely it will be that you will have an auto success. "I want to make an insight check." has very little chance of being automatically successful.

 

[robus]

Naw, if I sound snarky it's meant to be good natured. I don't get mad over internet discussions, lol. My last remark was meant as mild ribbing but it's hard to convey sometimes.

If only there were some method had been developed to communicate emotion in text....