D&D 5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[Dausuul]

Deception is the easiest to handle; PCs get an Insight check opposed by Deception to determine if the target is lying (both rolled in secret by the DM, so players don't know how well they rolled). If the PC wins, the DM announces truthfully whether the target is lying or not. If the PC loses, the DM announces whatever the target wants the PC to believe--usually, but not always, that the target is telling the truth. The player can then act on this information, or ignore it, as he or she wishes.

(If the NPC were the one trying to determine the PC's truthfulness, I'd do the same thing, but apply a modifier to the NPC's Insight based on how plausible the PC's claim is. If the PC wins, the NPC believes the lie. When the PC is the one being lied to, the player's skepticism takes the place of the Insight modifier.)

Intimidate and Persuasion are trickier. I don't usually use those against PCs.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Insight is an information gathering skill; Deception is its counter. If a player tries to use Insight on another PC, I'd ask the target player to send me a note saying if their character is lying and what their true motivation is. If the first player's Insight roll is better than the second player's perception roll then the first player knows the second character's truthfulness and motivation, otherwise they don't know anything.

The only two that I see are problematic are Persuasion and Intimidation, because those are coercion skills, and no player likes their characters to be coerced (either by the GM or by other players). Note that these are not automatic skills, even against NPCs - they are not CHarm magic. If someone intimidates your character, that doesn't mean you have to do what they say - it just means that you believe strongly that they *will* follow up on their threats of violence.

As for those two skills against NPCs, I always make players roll. Like other posters here, I've also had the situation of fast-talking players dumping CHA but still getting their way. My ruling is that it doesn't matter how smooth-tongued you are, you'r character is based on their stats. It is just the same as fighting - how well your character knows how to fight has nothing to do with how well you know it.

 

[Pauln6]

Like other posters here, I've also had the situation of fast-talking players dumping CHA but still getting their way. My ruling is that it doesn't matter how smooth-tongued you are, you'r character is based on their stats. It is just the same as fighting - how well your character knows how to fight has nothing to do with how well you know it.

True, although the rules do suggest that DMs should consider degrees of success and failure based on what the PC (or NPC) is trying to achieve. A low CHA character trying to persuade someone to do something objectively sensible and reasonable depends on the NPC's personality and motivations; it should not just be pass or fail at the mercy of the dice. So trying to persuade a terrified peasant brave the flames to escape a burning building could be more about the amount of damage the PC and NPC take while plucking up the courage rather than whether they do attempt the escape. Likewise, a high CHA peasant PC trying to persuade the Queen to engage in a 3sum with a basilisk might involve whether that PC ends up being executed for impertinence, merely imprisoned, thrown out, or lauded for their unconventional humour but even on a natural 20 the Queen willnot end up in her chamber waiting for her reptilian lover to attend.

DMs are players too. There is nothing wrong with asking players to make a judgment about degrees of success on their PC and roleplay the consequences and award inspiration for a job well done. Imposing consequences dictatorially is likely to be less fun.

 

[Zalabim]

In the third case, typically it's not the magistrate trying to convince a PC to take a job at a certain cost, but a PC trying to convince a magistrate to increase a job's pay.

In any case, something that came up in the discussion, is that Persuasion and Intimidation are means, not goals. They aren't opposed by skills either, but tend to have a DC determined by what the goal is. So those tactics can be used on the PCs, and the result of the NPCs roll, or general bonus, could inform the narrative, but the player essentially determines the DC to succeed instead of the DM. Deception could be used in much the same way, even while being opposed by Insight to reveal the deception. In other words, insight could reveal the goal and truthiness of an attempt, then the PC still has the option to go along with it or not.

For example
"You don't want this motorcycle. Sleipnir here has 16,700,000 horsepower. It's killed everyone who's ever ridden it. You should try something more your speed."
Insight "He's trying to use reverse psychology to goad you into buying this machine."

Almost forgot. The magic that influences how a PC thinks or acts has, as its basic form, Charm which is advantage on Cha checks to influence someone's behavior. When monsters have those as major abilities, it implies to me that they should be using Cha checks to influence a PCs behavior.

 

[iserith]

As for those two skills against NPCs, I always make players roll. Like other posters here, I've also had the situation of fast-talking players dumping CHA but still getting their way. My ruling is that it doesn't matter how smooth-tongued you are, you'r character is based on their stats. It is just the same as fighting - how well your character knows how to fight has nothing to do with how well you know it.

This is why I recommend DMs make sure players are, at a minimum, clear as to their goal and approach. Whether you say, "I try to convince the king to aid our cause by appealing to his sense of nobility..." or give an passionate in-character speech that boils down to the same goal and approach, the uncertainty (and thus the need for a check) remains the same, provided the outcome is uncertain in the eyes of the DM. (A selfish king might not have a sense of nobility, so it could just fail outright, no roll.) The character's ability is then reflected in the resolution mechanic.

Of course, a player with a character with a trait along the lines of "I use polysyllabic words that convey the impression of great erudition..." might earn him or herself Inspiration by giving that same speech with big words.

I recommend DMs be careful with having the players roll for everything or most things though. As the DMG says, this can diminish roleplaying when the players realize that it's the dice, rather than their decisions and characterization, that always decides the outcome.

 

[Guest 6801328]

True, although the rules do suggest that DMs should consider degrees of success and failure based on what the PC (or NPC) is trying to achieve. A low CHA character trying to persuade someone to do something objectively sensible and reasonable depends on the NPC's personality and motivations; it should not just be pass or fail at the mercy of the dice. So trying to persuade a terrified peasant brave the flames to escape a burning building could be more about the amount of damage the PC and NPC take while plucking up the courage rather than whether they do attempt the escape. Likewise, a high CHA peasant PC trying to persuade the Queen to engage in a 3sum with a basilisk might involve whether that PC ends up being executed for impertinence, merely imprisoned, thrown out, or lauded for their unconventional humour but even on a natural 20 the Queen willnot end up in her chamber waiting for her reptilian lover to attend.

DMs are players too. There is nothing wrong with asking players to make a judgment about degrees of success on their PC and roleplay the consequences and award inspiration for a job well done. Imposing consequences dictatorially is likely to be less fun.

I don't think he was talking about the difficulty of the task, he was talking about the ability of the player at the table to sound persuasive. Taking both the objective and the strategy/plan for achieving it into account is different from taking the player's acting (not roleplaying) ability into account.

That said, I try to avoid doing either. It just becomes too subjective, and is not only subject to the player's personal persuasiveness and arguing but is begging for it to happen. "Oh come on...that would have worked for sure! I saw this episode of myth-busters where..." etc. If anything is too outlandish I'll give it a high DC, but in general I let the dice decide and the player narrates the result.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I never use deception, intimidate or persuasion on the players. We just roleplay it.

We also roleplay the PCs using these skills. But I also call for rolls for them more often than not (for degrees of success if nothing else).

 

[Ristamar]

If an NPC or player could Intimidate another player with a die roll, I would expect there'd be at least one example in the rules regarding how to adjudicate social skills, or a section in the PHB detailing how and why players must abide by the results of "social combat". Conversely, tweets from the designers seem to consider social skill checks versus players as a reasonable method of play (e.g. - http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/05/intimidation-opposing-skill/)

Putting aside my own beliefs on the topic for the moment and considering it from a purely mechanical and balanced approach, Mearls' suggestion, IMO, is poor because it opens the door for typical fighter types (low-to-average Wisdow and Charisma without Insight or Diplomacy) to frequent Intimidation from "lesser" foes that are simply glib or wise or have Expertise in the relevant skills.

For those that allow NPC social skills to force player emotion/reaction, when an NPC tries to Intimidate a PC, who sets the DC or the method and modifiers of the opposed check? And how does that person set them? If the DM sets them, does the player have any recourse for objections? If the player sets them, can the DM overrule the player?

 

[Tony Vargas]

considering it from a purely mechanical and balanced approach, Mearls' suggestion, IMO, is poor because it opens the door for typical fighter types (low-to-average Wisdow and Charisma without Insight or Diplomacy) to frequent Intimidation from "lesser" foes that are simply glib or wise or have Expertise in the relevant skills.

Nod, that was a definite problem in 3.x, as well. Fighters, with very limited skill selection, were easily fooled by a number of basic combat options like Feint, or bypassed with a Tumble check. Whenever a skill touched upon combat, the fighter's combat prowess was bypassed and he became incompetent. Pathfinder addressed that problem with CMB & CMD, 4e by modeling such tricks with martial maneuvers, and 5e by 'letting' fighters take backgrounds and thus have better access to skills. But, it was never /completely/ solved. A simple fix (similar to CMB/D) would be to let fighters add proficiency to any check actually touching on combat - even if they were already proficient, the equivalent of Expertise, but only as relates directly or indirectly to combat uses of skills.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If an NPC or player could Intimidate another player with a die roll, I would expect there'd be at least one example in the rules regarding how to adjudicate social skills, or a section in the PHB detailing how and why players must abide by the results of "social combat". Conversely, tweets from the designers seem to consider social skill checks versus players as a reasonable method of play (e.g. - http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/05/intimidation-opposing-skill/)

well I guess no one can claim anyone is misreading or not using the rules since the maker of the game agrees with it...