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

[iserith]

but it is because of an outside action, an action that has rules... why do green hags have Deception +4 and knight hags Deception +7, Insight +6, and flyaers Deception +6, Insight +6, Persuasion +6, and the orcs

basic Skills Intimidation +2
war chief Skills Intimidation +5
eye of G Skills Intimidation +3
orog Intimidation +5

Ability checks are a mechanic used to resolve uncertainty. They aren't actions in and of themselves.

A hag's Deception check might be used to oppose a character's Wisdom (Insight) check, when the player describes his or her character as trying to discern the hag's truthfulness and the DM says that the character's action has an uncertain outcome (perhaps because the hag has had hundreds of years of lying experience and the character has no clues to go on as yet).

A githzerai monk's Wisdom (Insight) check might oppose a character's Charisma (Deception) check, when the player describes his or her character as trying to deceive the githzerai monk and the DM says that the character's action has an uncertain outcome (perhaps because the githzerai is carefully studying the character's mannerisms and the lie isn't terribly crafty).

An orog's Charisma (Intimidation) check might oppose a character's Charisma (Intimidation) check, when the player describes his or her character as trying to get the goblins to flee the battle and the DM says that the character's action has an uncertain outcome (perhaps because the goblins fear the orog about as much as a group of armed adventurers).

At no point am I using these skills to tell a player what his or her character thinks, how he or she acts, or what he or she says. I'm just using them to resolve uncertainty that exists outside of those things because the player controls the outcome of how a character thinks, acts, or what he or she says in the face of what the DM describes.

 

[MostlyDm]

Scenarios:

Player: "I think he's lying."
DM: "Roll Insight."
Player: "Um...4."
DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him."
Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?"
DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight."

DM: "The guard rolls Intimidate and gets an 18. Yeah, you're intimidated."
Player: "Oh, ok I guess I'll just keep moving then."

Player: "I don't think I want to do this quest for only 100 gold."
DM: "The magistrate rolls Persuade and gets...a natural 20!"
Player: "Darn. Looks like I'll take the quest."

Any reactions? How many people play the way that's described in those three scenarios?

These examples are of course simplistic and lacking in any interesting roleplaying.

But.

Sure, I use those skills against players. My players are all good enough role-players to roll with it. I wouldn't use them against players I didn't think had sufficient buy-in and RP experience to be able to play being intimidated/persuaded while also staying true to their character and goals.

I don't see why it's so controversial. You don't say "you're intimidated." You explain what the guy is saying/doing, and how sincere it sounds, and let them know how crazy-high the intimidate roll was if they are having a hard time seeing it. They'll do the rest. Or... they should, anyway.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

woah... no this has nothing to do with the magic cheerleader class that is completely different... no skill can shout a wound closed in my games...

that isn't how it works and you know it, they inspire you to push past the damage... and the cheerleader thing is getting on my nerves...

edit... lets both drop this we are on the same side in this thread...

 

[iserith]

I don't roll anything npc vs npc at that point I just tell a story...

Me too, usually. But not always. If I'm not sure how it turns out, I have the tool at my disposal to resolve the uncertainty. If the PCs want their new kobold ally, Meepo, Keeper of Dragons, to try and cow the kobolds that serve Yusdrayl, the Kobold Clutch-Queen, then it might be a good time to say that's uncertain and have Meepo roll a Charisma (Intimidation) check, perhaps with advantage for having such powerful allies.

I am using a game mechanic to effect the PC... the PC can choose to go with it or resist it (it would be an oppsed roll) so I wouldn't just say he DID intimidate, I would say roll x I got a y and the dice determine it...

What you're doing is saying how a character must think or act. That would be unacceptable at my table except where magical compulsion is involved.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think your doing it wrong either, I do think that your way works mostly if you know and have a long time friendship/understanding with your players

It's also how the DMs I play with in Adventurer's League do it, and that's always a bunch of new players. Why do you think it needs to be among a group of longtime friends?

Are you perhaps assuming it works because the players agree to "act intimidated" without rolling the dice? Because that's not it, either. It is entirely, 100% up to the players to decide if they're intimidated. A typical scene might be:

DM: "The half-dragon strides out with his two-handed sword, electricity crackling up and down the blade"
Paladin: "Oh boy....I raise my shield and charge him, but I don't like this."
Bard: "Uhh....I slide behind the pillar and peek out to see how the paladin fares, making sure the path to the door is clear."

I'm not sure how it would add anything to the game to roll the bad guy's Intimidation and then say, "Ok, you you and you are Intimidated. You two are not." Just let the players narrate. And if some guy new to D&D doesn't understand the roleplaying part of it and just says "I attack the dragon" without batting an eye, so what?

 

[Guest 6801328]

These examples are of course simplistic and lacking in any interesting roleplaying.

But.

Sure, I use those skills against players. My players are all good enough role-players to roll with it. I wouldn't use them against players I didn't think had sufficient buy-in and RP experience to be able to play being intimidated/persuaded while also staying true to their character and goals.

I don't see why it's so controversial. You don't say "you're intimidated." You explain what the guy is saying/doing, and how sincere it sounds, and let them know how crazy-high the intimidate roll was if they are having a hard time seeing it. They'll do the rest. Or... they should, anyway.

Uh...maybe you didn't mean it that way, but please don't imply that not playing your way is the result of bad or inexperienced roleplaying. Sounds like you are into one aspect of roleplaying that maybe some of us don't share, but that's not a good/bad distinction. It doesn't take any particular roleplaying skill to do what you're describing, just a desire to do so. Certainly if I found myself at a table with that approach I would play along. I just don't find it very interesting.

 

[pukunui]

then "I'm using my insight to see if he is lying"

How are you using it? The approach matters because it might result in automatic success or failure. If, as the DM, I am thinking that this NPC is nervous and is sweating because he knows he's telling a lie and is worried about getting caught, and I have a player who tells me that they're watching him closely to see if his body language or mannerisms betray him, I might just tell them straight out - no roll required - that he does appear to be quite nervous. His hand is shaking and he keeps mopping sweat from his brow. This should indicate that they might not be telling the truth - or at least not the whole truth.

If you *really* want to roll - that is, if you *really* want to have a chance to fail - then by all means, be vague. But if you want to succeed, then be as specific as possible.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ability checks are a mechanic used to resolve uncertainty. They aren't actions in and of themselves.

A hag's Deception check might be used to oppose a character's Wisdom (Insight) check, when the player describes his or her character as trying to discern the hag's truthfulness and the DM says that the character's action has an uncertain outcome (perhaps because the hag has had hundreds of years of lying experience and the character has no clues to go on as yet).

A githzerai monk's Wisdom (Insight) check might oppose a character's Charisma (Deception) check, when the player describes his or her character as trying to deceive the githzerai monk and the DM says that the character's action has an uncertain outcome (perhaps because the githzerai is carefully studying the character's mannerisms and the lie isn't terribly crafty).

An orog's Charisma (Intimidation) check might oppose a character's Charisma (Intimidation) check, when the player describes his or her character as trying to get the goblins to flee the battle and the DM says that the character's action has an uncertain outcome (perhaps because the goblins fear the orog about as much as a group of armed adventurers).

At no point am I using these skills to tell a player what his or her character thinks, how he or she acts, or what he or she says. I'm just using them to resolve uncertainty that exists outside of those things because the player controls the outcome of how a character thinks, acts, or what he or she says in the face of what the DM describes.

I might potentially use a monster's CHA + Skill as the DC for a player check. I.e., if you want to Intimidate a War Chief the DC is their Charisma + 5.

 

[JediGamemaster]

that isn't how it works and you know it, they inspire you to push past the damage... and the cheerleader thing is getting on my nerves...

edit... lets both drop this we are on the same side in this thread...

I'm sorry your right, I will go back to the warlord thread later... for now sorry I don't want to derail this it is a good discussion that seems not to be flairing with anger

Me too, usually. But not always. If I'm not sure how it turns out, I have the tool at my disposal to resolve the uncertainty. If the PCs want their new kobold ally, Meepo, Keeper of Dragons, to try and cow the kobolds that serve Yusdrayl, the Kobold Clutch-Queen, then it might be a good time to say that's uncertain and have Meepo roll a Charisma (Intimidation) check, perhaps with advantage for having such powerful allies.



What you're doing is saying how a character must think or act. That would be unacceptable at my table except where magical compulsion is involved.

I don't think I'm telling them, the game is, it is the same as anything else dice rolls

It's also how the DMs I play with in Adventurer's League do it, and that's always a bunch of new players. Why do you think it needs to be among a group of longtime friends?

because I know people it would piss off and I assume you know your player wont be.

Are you perhaps assuming it works because the players agree to "act intimidated" without rolling the dice? Because that's not it, either. It is entirely, 100% up to the players to decide if they're intimidated. A typical scene might be:

DM: "The half-dragon strides out with his two-handed sword, electricity crackling up and down the blade"
Paladin: "Oh boy....I raise my shield and charge him, but I don't like this."
Bard: "Uhh....I slide behind the pillar and peek out to see how the paladin fares, making sure the path to the door is clear."

sounds like my normal Friday night game to me...

I'm not sure how it would add anything to the game to roll the bad guy's Intimidation

neaither do I... I don't use every skill every game.

and then say, "Ok, you you and you are Intimidated. You two are not." Just let the players narrate. And if some guy new to D&D doesn't understand the roleplaying part of it and just says "I attack the dragon" without batting an eye, so what?

that situation didn't seem to me to need an intimidate check... so I don't know

 

[Guest 6801328]

LOL. It would appear you prefer rollplaying to roleplaying.

Easy....we're all friends here.