D&D 5E How do you handle this? - DM edition

[iserith]

Interesting position.

To me, it's not about skill at lying vs. truth. It's telling a convincing lie or targetted omission of the truth to get what you want vs. using the right arguments/rhetoric/appeals to the heart to convince someone to get your way.

I've known quite a few people who suck at lying but are very persuasive, so that part falls flat to me.

To me, the skill check is Deception here because the player and character know that they are using a true statement in a deceptive manner. Can they sell the deception? Did the character control their body language, their eyes, their poker face, etc.

For me I'm happy just leaving this to the player to decide as I said above. I'll call for the Charisma check (if the declared action meets the requirement for calling for checks) and the player applies whichever skill proficiency he or she thinks is appropriate.

Even if the player is picking Persuasion over Deception solely because the bonus is bigger, I just can't be given to care. As @cmad1977 mentioned, it's unlikely the variance will be so great that it will make a huge difference once we factor in the swinginess of a d20. When taking that plus a general desire to move things along into consideration, I don't see any value in trying to parse whether a true statement used as a way to deceive should have its uncertainty as to outcome resolved via Deception or Persuasion. In short, I'd prefer to just get on with it than spend time on this at the table.

Assuming we have good faith on the part of the player, this approach to adjudication eliminates 2 of the 3 issues the OP raised and others no doubt that may arise in play, particularly around disagreement on which skill or tool proficiency applies to the ability check.

 

[Ashrym]

Most of the answers assuming the check is required in the first place, OC.

My answers also assume people are naturally being wary in a dangerous fantasy world. I can't be the only DM who is using passive insight because it's also on the D&D Beyond character sheets, for example.

As for group checks, it just depends how many people are trying to accomplish a task and what that task is.

 

[CleverNickName]

1. I feel that tools are under-utilized in the game, and everyone has the impression that they are lame choices for proficiencies. So I let tools trump straight ability checks or skill checks whenever possible.


2. I let the second character make the attempt, and take the higher result (effectively granting the two Advantage on the check, as if they were using the Help action). Subsequent characters that chime in to make the same check will automatically get that same result, unless they are doing it differently somehow (using a candle to check for drafts instead of just looking at a wall, for example.)

Important Side-Note: Don't let bad dice rolls derail your game. If it's mission-critical that they Find The Thing in order to move forward in the story, a failed check shouldn't mean the Thing goes unnoticed...perhaps it means it takes them a long time to find (possibly hours), or that there is another Thing that can be found elsewhere that will accomplish the same task. It's okay for the players to think they are stuck and be temporarily frustrated...but it shouldn't be a game-ender.


3. I rule that Deception is "any attempt to deceive." It doesn't matter if your words are factual; what matters is your intent. If you are using facts to deceive another creature you are using Deception. Full stop.

 

[Beleriphon]

3. Deception. Skills are not magical lie-detectors like zone of truth. The PC's linguistic cunning would be invaluable to fool a zone of truth, but the intent in telling is to mislead. However, I'm not convinced your example would even necessitate a check. In the case of a NPC/monster of average Intelligence (10), I'd have them immediately followup with "Yeah? And how much gold are we talking here? Exactly?" Whereas a low Intelligence NPC/monster (7 or less) I'd probably just have them agree to the deal – no roll necessary – if it suited the NPC/monster's personality.

I agree here with a caveat on monster types. Dragons are probably going to do what they want; while fey creatures might become friendly for being so technical if you literally have one gold coin and the rest of the wealth is in gems for example: they agreed to all of the gold, not all of the wealth.

 

[Kurotowa]

3. I rule that Deception is "any attempt to deceive." It doesn't matter if your words are factual; what matters is your intent. If you are using facts to deceive another creature you are using Deception. Full stop.

Indeed, it's often less about the specific words as the tone and attitude you say them with. In the original example, you don't want to sound eager or uncaring about giving up "all your gold" to someone. You hem and haw, you wince at the thought of giving up that much wealth, you try to bargain for a smaller amount and then wilt under their glare and hurriedly raise your offer. All that? That's what Deception is. That's what sells the unspoken lie of omission.

If you were trying to bargain honestly for a fair ransom, that would be Persuasion, as would trying to appeal to their conscience. Intimidation would come into play if you're playing the "We have powerful friends, take the money and don't force us to escalate this" card. But if you're Clever Jack trying to fool the gullible ogre with word play and misdirection? That's Deception, every time.

 

[Shiroiken]

To me, it's not about skill at lying vs. truth. It's telling a convincing lie or targetted omission of the truth to get what you want vs. using the right arguments/rhetoric/appeals to the heart to convince someone to get your way.

The problem is that there's a LOT of overlap between the two. Lies require using the right arguments/rhetoric/appeals, just as persuasion does, just not using the truth. This is why IMO the use of two different skills is pointless.

I've known quite a few people who suck at lying but are very persuasive, so that part falls flat to me.

Well, I guess both our cases are anecdotal. Of course, I personally think the number of people who suck at lying is much smaller than appears. For example, my wife is convinced I suck at lying due to a long process I've developed over the years giving her that impression; when I do lie she has no suspicion whatsoever (which is how I've managed to pull off surprise parties, which the only thing I've really ever lied to her about). I suspect that others do the same, but on a wider spectrum than just a single person.

To me, the skill check is Deception here because the player and character know that they are using a true statement in a deceptive manner. Can they sell the deception? Did the character control their body language, their eyes, their poker face, etc.

Oh, the original example would totally be a deception check. The player's intent is to deceive, and there's nothing in the RP that would likely go against that. The problem is usually when someone tries to use the deception skill, but just tells the truth during the RP (or the opposite with persuasion).

 

[Mistwell]

A couple of quick question how various DMs handle a few mechanical situations. If there is a definitive rule that I've just missed, please point it out in the book. But I think these are more open to interpretation.

1. Based on the description of what a player is doing, both a tool proficiency and a skill proficiency are integral in what they describe they are doing, and both applicable. Do you pick one, have them clarify whihc is primary, add both/grant advantage to one, do something else? Especially when the bonuses are not the same like only one proficient, or cases like expertise/magic tools/etc.

Let player choose which to roll.

2. One character examines something, gets a poor roll, calls over another who wants to roll, and then they call over more if the rolls continue to be bad. Since they are being done one at a time it's not the case of one character helping another. So effectively everyone gets a separate roll which is almost like penta-advantage for a 5 person party.

Metagaming. Unless the circumstances are such that the first PC to fail would suspect there is something they missed as a PC, I wouldn't allow further checks as that PC would have said they didn't find anything and moved on.

3. A character makes truthful statements in ways that are deceiving. Like "you can have all the gold I'm carrying if you let them go" when they have little on them. They see it as persuasion because the character is truthful they will gladly give you all they have, but since the player intent is to get off cheap, it's like they are attempting to deceive to imply they have more.

Let player choose deception or persuasion to roll.

 

[Blue]

Many people mentioned "I would not call for a risk if there was no consequence - as long as the others are willing to accept the consequence that's fine".

Often this is of the type "Do I recognize these runes" or other knowledge check. There in many cases there are no consequence to failure except you don't know the information and you can't make the check again since that's all you recall. So there is no problem with others accepting the consequences.

 

[Blue]

Metagaming. Unless the circumstances are such that the first PC to fail would suspect there is something they missed as a PC, I wouldn't allow further checks as that PC would have said they didn't find anything and moved on.

It could be, but need not be.

"Do I recognize these markings" is a legitimate History (or perhaps Arcana or Religion) knowledge, you know when you fail, and it would be reasonable question to then consult a colleague."

I would have called it out if it was a meta issue.

 

[Blue]

Thanks all!

The link to tool proficiency in XGtE was perfect. Actual rules.

Interesting on how to handle sequencial characters being called over to make a check. I should have expanded the example to mention it was something they would know they failed. And since I am calling for a check in the first place, that's already taken care of.

The deception vs. persuasion had several valid approaches with different answers. The one that seems to fit my DMing style best is to ask the intent - if it's to deceive, even with truth, then it's deception.

The thread is open to other "How do you handle this" questions as well if anyone has one - that's not hijacking, it's invited.