D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Charlaquin]

So you are good with "I use my insight to see if the orc is lying?"

No. Attack is a verb. Insight is a noun. At minimum, I would need something like “I observe the orc to see if he’s lying.” Something that communicates what your character is doing in an attempt to achieve the goal of determining if the orc is lying.

 

[Ashrym]

No. Attack is a verb. Insight is a noun. At minimum, I would need something like “I observe the orc to see if he’s lying.” Something that communicates what your character is doing in an attempt to achieve the goal of determining if the orc is lying.

Use is the verb in my example. Using a noun works fine. Checking to see if the orc is lying is already more specific than attacking.

The character is already observing the orc by default. That's why character get passive perception checks while travelling in the first place. The action is travelling. Perception is just a default mode.

I'm also going to go back to my point about passive checks. A passive check is made when the DM doesn't want the player to know he's making a check. It doesn't make any sense to require an action to predicate a check for something the character doesn't know about in the first place.

Your requirement is cosmetic semantics that doesn't change the action for an active check, and doesn't address the situation of passive checks at all. The reason for those passive checks demonstrates that there's no need for an action in the first place.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would say that falls under option 1, just with different language. Like I said in another post, the goal is to determine the true intentions of the NPC, the approach is to make an insight check.

It absolutely isn't. The player isn't trying to make a check, they describe what their character is doing and that may call for a check. There's a powerful difference here that you keep missing, many times, over many threads.

Or whatever language your players would use to achieve the same result. As far as auto-success, those happen in my games at times as well; I just usually do it by making the lie blatantly obvious. Then again I don't have anyone on the autism spectrum in my game.

So, then, you make the lie obvious and if the player asks for an Insight check you do what, exactly?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Use is the verb in my example. Using a noun works fine. Checking to see if the orc is lying is already more specific than attacking.

The character is already observing the orc by default. That's why character get passive perception checks while travelling in the first place. The action is travelling. Perception is just a default mode.

I'm also going to go back to my point about passive checks. A passive check is made when the DM doesn't want the player to know he's making a check. It doesn't make any sense to require an action to predicate a check for something the character doesn't know about in the first place.

Your requirement is cosmetic semantics that doesn't change the action for an active check, and doesn't address the situation of passive checks at all. The reason for those passive checks demonstrates that there's no need for an action in the first place.

Passive checks are what the character does for repeated tasks over time. Like keeping watch while travelling -- you get a passive check to notice threats. If you follow the roles in the DMG for activities while travelling, not everyone's paying attention for threats. Some are mapping, or tracking, or foraging, and they either don't get a passive check to notice a danger or have disadvantage on their passive checks due to distraction (and DM whim). So, already, in the rules, we're in a different place than you're saying passive checks are. Passive checks are not a floor for active checks, they represent the result of a constant effort averaged over time. Actively doing something engaging a specific course of action that may or may not be uncertain -- the DM won't know until the course of action is presented to them. And, asking for a check is not a course of action, it's a tool to resolve uncertainty in a course of action.

So, yes, if you play such that NPCs make Deception rolls against players, you have options for this. If the PCs are not declaring actions to look for falsehoods, then a Deception check may be made against the passive score -- if the DM determines the outcome is uncertain to begin with. Again, the rules state the DM determines if uncertainty exists and only then may a check occur. If the players declare actions because the players have become suspicious, then an Insight check may be called for if the DM determines the specific action is uncertain and has a cost for failure.

And cost for failure is a big requirement. If there's no cost, why roll? The action can be repeated until successful because there's no cost. So, something must be a cost on a failure. I don't see what's the cost for failure for the Insight check -- is the player left uncertain if there's a lie on a fail, because that seems the same as the starting point. Are you, the DM, telling the player what their character thinks? That violates the one authority the player has in D&D -- what their character thinks and tries to do. What are you doing on a failed check that results in a cost for the action? Again, if nothing, why roll?

 

[Ashrym]

Passive checks are what the character does for repeated tasks over time. Like keeping watch while travelling -- you get a passive check to notice threats. If you follow the roles in the DMG for activities while travelling, not everyone's paying attention for threats. Some are mapping, or tracking, or foraging, and they either don't get a passive check to notice a danger or have disadvantage on their passive checks due to distraction (and DM whim). So, already, in the rules, we're in a different place than you're saying passive checks are. Passive checks are not a floor for active checks, they represent the result of a constant effort averaged over time. Actively doing something engaging a specific course of action that may or may not be uncertain -- the DM won't know until the course of action is presented to them. And, asking for a check is not a course of action, it's a tool to resolve uncertainty in a course of action.

So, yes, if you play such that NPCs make Deception rolls against players, you have options for this. If the PCs are not declaring actions to look for falsehoods, then a Deception check may be made against the passive score -- if the DM determines the outcome is uncertain to begin with. Again, the rules state the DM determines if uncertainty exists and only then may a check occur. If the players declare actions because the players have become suspicious, then an Insight check may be called for if the DM determines the specific action is uncertain and has a cost for failure.

And cost for failure is a big requirement. If there's no cost, why roll? The action can be repeated until successful because there's no cost. So, something must be a cost on a failure. I don't see what's the cost for failure for the Insight check -- is the player left uncertain if there's a lie on a fail, because that seems the same as the starting point. Are you, the DM, telling the player what their character thinks? That violates the one authority the player has in D&D -- what their character thinks and tries to do. What are you doing on a failed check that results in a cost for the action? Again, if nothing, why roll?

I quoted the appropriate section on using passive checks for when the DM doesn't want the player's to know about them earlier. The fact that they are also used for repeat checks has no relevance to what I was saying or the example of surprise checks or wilderness travel checks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Use is the verb in my example. Using a noun works fine. Checking to see if the orc is lying is already more specific than attacking.

“Use insight, unlike “attack,” is not an action the character takes. It’s a game mechanic.

The character is already observing the orc by default. That's why character get passive perception checks while travelling in the first place. The action is travelling. Perception is just a default mode.

And if the orc takes some kind of social action against you, your passive Wisdom (Insight) will set the DC. If you want to take an action of your own, you need to tell me what that action is.

I'm also going to go back to my point about passive checks. A passive check is made when the DM doesn't want the player to know he's making a check.

Here’s what the 5e rules say about passive checks:

A passive check is a Special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for Secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

So, if I want to secretly determine whether your character succeeds at noticing the orc’s shifty behavior, I will roll his Charisma (Deception) against your Passive Wisdom (Insight). You don’t have to announce anything for that. If you want to take an action to try to proactively determine something about the orc’s intentions rather than relying on passive Wisdom (Insight) alone, that is when I will require a goal and an approach to adequately adjudicate your action.

It doesn't make any sense to require an action to predicate a check for something the character doesn't know about in the first place.

Agreed, which is why, if the orc fails to beat your passive Wisdom (Insight) with his Charisma (Deception) check, I’ll telegraph the fact that he’s lying.

Your requirement is cosmetic semantics that doesn't change the action for an active check,

Again, “use Insight” is not an action. It’s a mechanical process used to resolve an action. If you want to accomplish something, tell me what and how. I’ll tell you if it succeeds, fails, or requires an ability check to determine the outcome. In the latter case, that is the point where it would be appropriate for you to suggest that your Insight proficiency might be applicable to the roll.

and doesn't address the situation of passive checks at all.

I’ve said repeatedly that if the orc does lie to you, I’ll use your passive Wisdom (Insight) to determine whether or not you notice his tell.

The reason for those passive checks demonstrates that there's no need for an action in the first place.

I don’t know what this means.

 

[jgsugden]

In my games, if there is no rush, your floor for any wisdom, charisma or intelligence check is your "passive" score: 10 + modifier. If you take specific effort at using the skill, you get a roll to improve on that floor (which often requires an action, but not always - DM's call).

If you are flustered or distracted, you don't get that "passive" floor.

This works very well, and is very easy.

Chatting with a guard and you don't tell me ou're trying to influence him, but y context you are? Passive score.

Two PCs are talking and one is lying to the other? Neither says they're trying to spot a lie or detect a lie? Who has the higher modifier. If the liar has a higher deception, then nothing is detected. If the listener has a higher insight thn that bluff, then they pick up that something is not ringing true in the statement. However, if one of them lets me know they're trying something, that passive score may be improved by a good die roll.

The PCs hear the name of a dragon and don't ask to perform a history check? I give them their passive check to see if they know about the dragon.

When you factor in the +5/-5 to passive checks for advantage/disadvantage you get even better results.

And if there is a dragon coming at them when they try anything above - well, they're distracted and need to do a roll rather than get the passive score.

 

[Ashrym]

“Use insight, unlike “attack,” is not an action the character takes. It’s a game mechanic.


And if the orc takes some kind of social action against you, your passive Wisdom (Insight) will set the DC. If you want to take an action of your own, you need to tell me what that action is.


Here’s what the 5e rules say about passive checks:

So, if I want to secretly determine whether your character succeeds at noticing the orc’s shifty behavior, I will roll his Deception against your Passive Wisdom (Insight). You don’t have to announce anything for that. If you want to take an action to try to proactively determine something about the orc’s intentions rather than relying on passive Wisdom (Insight) alone, that is when I will require a goal and an approach to adequately adjudicate your action.


Agreed, which is why, if the orc fails to beat your passive Wisdom (Insight) with his Charisma (Deception) check, I’ll telegraph the fact that he’s lying.


Again, “use Insight” is not an action. It’s a mechanical process used to resolve an action. If you want to accomplish something, tell me what and how. I’ll tell you if it succeeds, fails, or requires an ability check to determine the outcome. In the latter case, that is the point where it would be appropriate for you to suggest that your Insight proficiency might be applicable to the roll.


I’ve said repeatedly that if the orc does lie to you, I’ll use your passive Wisdom (Insight) to determine whether or not you notice his tell.


I don’t know what this means.

Using insight isn't just a game mechanic. I can say, in the real world, "I used my vast insight to debate this argument". The verb and the noun are applied correctly outside of a mechanical sense. Whether it is a mechanical sense or not, the action still hasn't changed. Therefore, it's a pointless requirement.

That last line means no specific action is required for a passive check to take place. That's because a player doesn't know he needs to take an action. If he doesn't know it he doesn't take it, and if he doesn't take it but the check is still made there was clearly no need for his action to create the check to resolve it. Needing an action was one of the things that kept cropping up in this thread.

Reposting the relevant information about passive checks that I already posted didn't change what I said. I said passive checks are made when the DM doesn't want the player to know, which is the relevant part to why a DM uses those checks for insight. The rest just leads to a red herring.

I agree there needs to be something to start an active check. I don't agree that it needs to be specifically applied by semantics.

 

[Harzel]

People playing the hooby and having fun - however it works for their table - is good. Even if they occasionally ask "Can I make an insight roll to tell if he's lying or thinks he's telling the truth?".

Sure, but for me there is significant difference between "Can I make an Insight check?" as in the OP and your "Can I make an Insight check to try to tell if he is lying?" At least with the latter I have an idea what the PC is trying to do that is more specific than "figure out something that might (in the player's view, which may not be the same as mine) be covered by an Insight check."

 

[Maxperson]

Note the "even if they aren't searching". Not searching is the lack of action to demonstrate what I have been stating. The other arguments in this thread so far are rationalizations to push forth opinions that are not part of the rules.

No actively searching is not taking no action. While walking the party is actively look at the walls as they walk by and checking for possible secret doors as they do so. It's just not an active wall search.

"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."

What was described earlier relates to active checks. Passive checks also exist for characters based on "general awareness" and "even if they aren't searching".

That general awareness, per the Passive Checks section of the PHB, either represents a task done repeatedly(action) or an opposed check made secretly.

A party can be giving even less attention while moving at a fast pace and all that does is give a penalty of 5 to the passive ability score. There is no action required to notice the threats.

Yes there is. Its an action that the party automatically does repeatedly, but because of the quick movement, suffers a penalty.

There is no action required to make perception checks as part of surprise. The default is characters are behaving in a way that they are paying attention. I can keep pulling up examples but I think I've demonstrated my point.

The bolded part is an action on the part of the party, so no you haven't demonstrated your point.

What's important is there is no specific action required of characters to make passive checks.

Most are not opposed rolls made secretly, so while there is no specific action specified, they do represent actions done over and over and over.

They are done because the DM doesn't want the players to know that they are making checks at all, and therefore are not predicated on specific player actions.

A few are, yes. Most are not of that type and represent actions on the part of the party.