D&D 5E Convince. A potential skill narrowing option.

Steampunkette

Shaper of Worlds
Supporter
Was looking around Conan Exiles servers to play and I found one that uses the Roleplay Redux character sheet mod with D&D style skill use.

Only instead of Deception and Persuasion they have Convince. And I think it's a brilliant idea.

Rolling to Convince feels more natural than rolling Persuasion or Deception. It also hides whether you're telling the truth or lying. You're -just- being Convincing. Which can be helpful at the table to establish a character being convincing without tipping their hand to the rest of the party about whether they're lying or just being charming.

The whole "Do you really think we'll survive this?" "No. But I needed him to believe it." moment that you can't really get when both players know that the character rolled Deception against the NPC.

What do you think?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Yaarel

Mind Mage
Was looking around Conan Exiles servers to play and I found one that uses the Roleplay Redux character sheet mod with D&D style skill use.

Only instead of Deception and Persuasion they have Convince. And I think it's a brilliant idea.

Rolling to Convince feels more natural than rolling Persuasion or Deception. It also hides whether you're telling the truth or lying. You're -just- being Convincing. Which can be helpful at the table to establish a character being convincing without tipping their hand to the rest of the party about whether they're lying or just being charming.

The whole "Do you really think we'll survive this?" "No. But I needed him to believe it." moment that you can't really get when both players know that the character rolled Deception against the NPC.

What do you think?
I usually use Intelligence for Deception, and use it to create any kind of replica, whether for the purpose to record, entertain or to defraud. It is more like a "Simulation" check.

I would probably use Intelligece (Deception) here too in the sense of "convince".
 

"Persuasion" can be renamed "Convince". But in my opinion Deception should still be a separate skill.

Both these skills are used so much that it makes sense to split it into two skills to ensure that it's costly to be good at both. If you merge the two, then it's going to be the #1 skill to choose in any game with social encounters.

I like it that some players are natural liars or con artists, and some others are naturally good at convincing.
 

Yes, I have done this. Persuasion often involves some exaggeration and embellishments and it is annoying and pointless to try to gauge when it becomes enough a lie that we should use a different skill. These skills blur together all the time, so it is better to get rid of the distinction.
 

delericho

Legend
Convince is fine. Honestly, I think Persuasion and Deception are also fine.

The big issue, as far as I can tell, is that either the group will have a Face character proficient in all the skills (and so will always roll d20+Cha+Prof), or the Face will be proficient in only one and so will approach every interaction in the same way (so as to always roll d20+Cha+Prof). Either way isn't great.

I'm inclined to advocate therefore that instead of social skills, characters should be proficient in interacting with various groups - so the Fighter might be proficient with soldiers, the Paladin with nobles, and so on. The effect of that is that the social interactions are likely to be spread out a bit, as the best person for the job isn't always the designated Face.
 

Steampunkette

Shaper of Worlds
Supporter
Oh that is -clever-, Delericho...

That is clever indeed. Level Up/A5e has some of that in Backgrounds and Culture, but yeah... I do like the idea of character classes and heritages having impact on who they're good at talking to, independent of -how- they're trying to talk to them.

Might get a bit fiddly... but I do like that.
 

Laurefindel

Legend
Was looking around Conan Exiles servers to play and I found one that uses the Roleplay Redux character sheet mod with D&D style skill use.

Only instead of Deception and Persuasion they have Convince. And I think it's a brilliant idea.

Rolling to Convince feels more natural than rolling Persuasion or Deception. It also hides whether you're telling the truth or lying. You're -just- being Convincing. Which can be helpful at the table to establish a character being convincing without tipping their hand to the rest of the party about whether they're lying or just being charming.

The whole "Do you really think we'll survive this?" "No. But I needed him to believe it." moment that you can't really get when both players know that the character rolled Deception against the NPC.

What do you think?
Given the amount of naughty word that people use to persuade their peers; I'd buy that.
 

I'm inclined to advocate therefore that instead of social skills, characters should be proficient in interacting with various groups - so the Fighter might be proficient with soldiers, the Paladin with nobles, and so on. The effect of that is that the social interactions are likely to be spread out a bit, as the best person for the job isn't always the designated Face.
In most of these situations I would use a group check, and yes would grant advantage for the characters that leaned into their background or other justifications via story
 

Ondath

Adventurer
Convince is fine. Honestly, I think Persuasion and Deception are also fine.

The big issue, as far as I can tell, is that either the group will have a Face character proficient in all the skills (and so will always roll d20+Cha+Prof), or the Face will be proficient in only one and so will approach every interaction in the same way (so as to always roll d20+Cha+Prof). Either way isn't great.

I'm inclined to advocate therefore that instead of social skills, characters should be proficient in interacting with various groups - so the Fighter might be proficient with soldiers, the Paladin with nobles, and so on. The effect of that is that the social interactions are likely to be spread out a bit, as the best person for the job isn't always the designated Face.
Oh you just wrinkled my brain! I think the closest thing I've seen to this is some variant Cortex Prime rules where the size of the die you add to the pool changes depending on who your character is dealing with/their social context (in the Cortex-based Marvel Heroic RPG for instance, loner supers like Wolverine get a bigger die when working alone while team leaders like Cyclops get a bigger die when they're in 3+ squads), and this might be a very refreshing way of overhauling social interactions in games like D&D without referring to different rhetorical techniques (which is what the current system is based on)!

Excuse me while I homebrew some stuff...
 

Stormonu

Legend
Oh that is -clever-, Delericho...

That is clever indeed. Level Up/A5e has some of that in Backgrounds and Culture, but yeah... I do like the idea of character classes and heritages having impact on who they're good at talking to, independent of -how- they're trying to talk to them.

Might get a bit fiddly... but I do like that.
I think it can be simplified a bit - most of it works from having something in common with the person you're talking to. A base upon which to start the conversation. Advantage/Disadvantage should work here very easily; you can define groups broadly or narrowly as you see fit.

Example: A King conversing about an alliance with another king might have advantage because they both understand the nature of their position. Conversely, a peasant trying to get the king to enact a law to reign in a wealthy merchant might have disadvantage because the peasant and the king have no common ground on determining "fair prices" for one or the other.
 



Jer

Legend
Supporter
I'm inclined to advocate therefore that instead of social skills, characters should be proficient in interacting with various groups - so the Fighter might be proficient with soldiers, the Paladin with nobles, and so on. The effect of that is that the social interactions are likely to be spread out a bit, as the best person for the job isn't always the designated Face.
I like this. Especially because I've been thinking quite a bit about how broad the proficiency mechanic can be, and how you could use downtime training to train up aspects of a skill without becoming proficient in the whole skill.

I'd keep the social skills for the folks who have the Face character as a concept, but the proficiency mechanic for anyone who isn't proficient in the broad skill based on background or on downtime "training" to pick up proficiency with social interactions with a specific group (unlike tool proficiency, social training would be more like hitting up the pub to carouse with the guards or making sure to attend all of Lady Muckitymuck's parties for this social season).
 

I like it that some players are natural liars or con artists, and some others are naturally good at convincing.
The biggest issue I have with this is people skilled in Deception are good at lying, but suck at telling the truth. This leads to stupid situations where the player tries to "lie" in a way that actually tells the truth. Making them (and intimidation) the same skill makes the most sense.
 

The biggest issue I have with this is people skilled in Deception are good at lying, but suck at telling the truth. This leads to stupid situations where the player tries to "lie" in a way that actually tells the truth. Making them (and intimidation) the same skill makes the most sense.
Players describe what the PCs are trying to do, and the DM calls what skill check they roll.

If the goal of the player is to communicate a truth to an NPC, but chooses a rather creative way to do so, then it's up to the DM to handle that. Either make the player roll a Persuasion, or if the PC puts up a real show you can even call for a Performance. But probably the best way to handle that PC it is by making the NPC take the wrong things serious and actually go with a lie that isn't a lie and let the whole plan fail.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
What do you think?
We went further to a skilled called "Influence" which combined Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion. After all, with all of those skills you are just trying to get someone to do something you want them to do that they might not want to do--whether you lie/deceive them, threaten them, or convince them.

Those are just the vehicles on the road of Influence.

After all, if the designers can be so blasé about combining climbing, jumping, and swimming (three VERY different things) into "Athletics", it made sense to do the same with overblown Charisma-based skills.

I am sure you could combined many of the INT and WIS skills as well, getting each ability to just a few skills, if you wanted to.
 

Horwath

Hero
Physical: athletics, acrobatics, endurance(STR, DEX or CON)
Thievery: stealth, sleight of hand, thief tools(DEX)
Lore: arcana, history, religion(INT)
Observation: investigation, perception, insight,(WIS or INT)
Survival: nature, an. handling, survival,(WIS or INT)
Influence: deception, intimidation, persuasion,(CHA)

medicine downranked to tool proficiency with healers kit, same as perform with various instruments,

Background gives one skill proficiency out of two options:
all classes get two less skill proficiency. yes some classes get only background or possibly racial skill.
subclasses that give 2 or 3 bonus skills, get only one.
rogues and bards get one expertise where they get two.

skilled feat: +1 ASI, one skill proficiency
skill expert: +1 ASI, one expertise
 

MarkB

Legend
Persuasion and Deception are both just ways to change a person's beliefs. Deception to make someone believe that something untrue is true, Persuasion to make them believe they should take a course of action when they start out believing they shouldn't.

And applying either involves applying some of the other. There's no point in deceiving someone into believing something untrue without also persuading them to act upon that information. And persuading someone to go against their own interests will involve some overselling of the benefits and underselling of the costs.

The two are close enough that I've frequently seen a player going for what they think is one approach, only for the DM to ask them to use the other skill when making the check.

So yeah, combining them into a single skill would certainly make a degree of sense.
 

cbwjm

Legend
Pathfinder had an option which reduced all the skills down to maybe a dozen. Persuasion was the skill used for deception, diplomacy, and intimidation. You could get bonuses for either, so a circumstance bonus might apply when you use Persuasion to intimidate someone. Every now and then I look at the 3 skills and think they could have done the same in 5e.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top