Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8476208" data-attributes="member: 7032025">Actually, RAW supports my perspective, it has nothing to do with where the PC/NPC will go, just with: &quot;character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.&quot;&quot;Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions.&quot; So, seeing the overall definition of an ability check, it's not about whether the other party believes or does not believe, it's about seeing whether you can succeed or not at being convincing.That was entirely up to you not to roll because you decided on auto-failure because the NPC was bad at lying. Had he been better at lying, then there would have been a doubt as to whether he could lie convincingly. Whether the other one would have believed him is another matter, as your player showed.I have given you the opposite example, haggling using persuasion. In that case, it's an opposed checked and the DM determines the result.I would argue that as a player, your reaction would totally depend as to whether I describe a whining goblin or an enraged pit fiend trying to intimidate you.And yet, as a DM, I might roll the NPC's persuasion check to see whether he finds new information, or whether I can roleplay him more persuasive. Remember, I'm not rolling to see whether you accept the information, I'm rolling because I'm just not sure how persuasive my NPC is, it's only his success of failure on his attempt that I'm interested in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8476208, member: 7032025"] Actually, RAW supports my perspective, it has nothing to do with where the PC/NPC will go, just with: "character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." "Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions." So, seeing the overall definition of an ability check, it's not about whether the other party believes or does not believe, it's about seeing whether you can succeed or not at being convincing. That was entirely up to you not to roll because you decided on auto-failure because the NPC was bad at lying. Had he been better at lying, then there would have been a doubt as to whether he could lie convincingly. Whether the other one would have believed him is another matter, as your player showed. I have given you the opposite example, haggling using persuasion. In that case, it's an opposed checked and the DM determines the result. I would argue that as a player, your reaction would totally depend as to whether I describe a whining goblin or an enraged pit fiend trying to intimidate you. And yet, as a DM, I might roll the NPC's persuasion check to see whether he finds new information, or whether I can roleplay him more persuasive. Remember, I'm not rolling to see whether you accept the information, I'm rolling because I'm just not sure how persuasive my NPC is, it's only his success of failure on his attempt that I'm interested in. [/QUOTE]

Verification