As a relatively new DM, I found myself wondering a few things while preparing a session for on of my groups.
I am using a Cult Fanatic as the "boss" more or less and noticed that the NPC has a +4 to Deception and Persuasion checks, and the description of the fanatic in the Monster Manual (page 345) states that they use "charisma and dogma to influence and prey on those of weak will". With this, I am essentially wondering two thing:
1. How exactly do I determine if a monster or NPC "deceives" or "persuades" a player? This may be just a game rule I've overlooked, such as comparing dice rolls.
2. If, say, the monster or NPC successfully deceives or persuades the player, what should it look like? I'm sure it's a matter of style on some level, but are there any general rules that hold up across the board? Is it as simple as saying "you were deceived" or saying "he seems to be telling the truth to you"? Furthermore, how can it be done in a way that lets the player know they have been deceived/persuaded (since that's the example we're running with) without making it seem like their characters have no control over their action and are just plain dumb. I'm sure the Player who has a 20 in Charisma wouldn't be satisfied being deceived fully on the basis that he or she rolled a 5 while the monster or NPC rolled a 15.
You typically roll vs PC's insight check or passive insight.
You don't persuade a player, but you can persuade their character (you can deceive both ;) ).
A simple "he seems honest," "you don't get the sense that he's lying," or "he seems to be telling the truth" are good responses.
As for the illusion of control, just try not to metagame too much. You ever play a video game where you know a NPC is lying to you, but you do a mission they give you anyway because the PC doesn't know? It's like that.
I guess a big thing to remember here is that a persuasion check is not a Jedi mind trick or even a Charm Person spell. The argument needs to make sense -and- be believable. The smarter or wiser a character is, the better the lie would have to be.
That said, there are a few rules mentioned in the books about these skill checks, oppositions, and automatic successes.
A chart in the Player's Handbook (PHB) lists the DC of things of increasing difficulty. You might try to match the persuasion verses how much sense it makes.
You might also give the party advantage or bonuses if the villain speaks to all of them together. Its harder to convince a group of people who have their mind made up already than an individual.
PHB - Ch 7: Using Ability Scores - Working Together
The most likely skill check that the characters would use is gone into about as much detail as you will get in the Wisdom section.
PHB - Ch 7: Using Ability Scores - Using Each Ability - Wisdom - Wisdom Checks - Insight
The Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG) has a section that goes over ability checks as well. Of particular note is when it talks about needing checks instead of rolling for the super easy or impossible, when it goes over contests between ability scores, and it also has an Ability Check Chart.
DMG - Ch 8: Running the Game - Using Ability Scores
In regards to someone who really should not fail an ability check there is a variant rule for automatic successes.
Under this optional rule, a character automatically succeeds on any ability check with a DC less than or equal to the relevant ability score minus 5.
* * *
Having proficiency with a skill or tool can also grant automatic success. If a character’s proficiency bonus applies to his or her ability check, the character automatically succeeds if the DC is 10 or less.
DMG - Ch 8: Running the Game - Using Ability Scores - Difficulty Class - Variant: Automatic Success
Hopefully these will give you what you're looking for. Let me know if there is something a little more that might need assistance with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Good luck and may you roll 20's when you need them and 1's when you need a laugh. - myself
In favour of rolling persuasion 'against' a player, sometimes you need to figure out just how persuasive an NPC is, but you're not as charismatic or convincing as the NPC is. Sometimes you just need to be able to put a number on it and say they're "15 persuasive". I generally use it as a metric for how well the NPC is at putting together a convincing argument.
Fine you’re , ‘15 persuasive’, but it’s my character, so only I could possibly know how hard I would be to convince, and the dc was 100, because my character would think that was a bad idea no matter how enticingly you tried to sell me on it. So the outcome was never uncertain, so moving forward let’s avoid meaningless rolls.
Or you could just role play and/or describe the scene together, instead of trying remove what is very much their fundamental agency. I’d leave the table if a DM kept that nonsense up. Neither the dice, nor the DM, get to tell me if I or my character finds something convincing or not. Deciding what compels or motivates your character, is fundamental to role playing. Now you of course must collaborate or compromise to make sure you have a character that works with the constraints of the game and other players, but if you take that decision making away from them, you may as well remove the player while you’re at it.
Sure thing, taking away a player’s fundamental ability to make their own character decisions, certainly doesn’t work for me, but as you say if it works at your table, go for it.
I think you're misunderstanding. I don't use a persuasion check to dictate what a pc believes. Instead I use it to determine how convincing the NPC (or in the case of another player, their pc) can make an argument.
Me: the guard tries to convince you he didn't have anything to do with it (rolls 6 for persuasion) but his argument isn't very convincing
Sometimes you can't be as convincing as your character
Also, chill with the attitude, no one is right or wrong here, just different styles of play
Sure thing, taking away a player’s fundamental ability to make their own character decisions, certainly doesn’t work for me, but as you say if it works at your table, go for it.
Persuasion does not take away the ability to make decisions, it just changes what decisions are available to make. It is no different from traps in a dungeon.
And moreover a deception/persuasion roll is best used to decide what information to give the player, not for exerting control over a character.
If the DM tells you an NPC is friendly, do you attack them out of disbelief? Then why should "the item you are looking for is at this location" be treated any different?
A persuasive or convincing argument is a subjective perspective of the argument. If it’s not about how the PC perceives the argument, then we are left with the speaker, and it is fairly irrelevant how convincing an argument is to them.
From your response, I take it that it doesn’t dictate the PCs decision on how to act. You don’t have to be an amazing orator, or an actor to role play. Simply describe it more or less as you did, state the intent and approach, no need for acting, no need for a roll. Which presumably is all the players are experiencing anyway.
DM: The guard tries to convince you of something (rolls 20), he tells you it in a very convincing manner.
Player: You tell a good story, but I’ve been burnt before.., I have more urgent business, because of x, y, z, I’m still not buying what you’re selling.
If it’s still ultimately up to the player to decide if they were persuaded, then it’s not a roll against the player. That’s not even a check, though it might be a useful improvisational tool or aid.
I think you're assuming persuasion is a contested check like deception, when it's not. You can roll to persuade a PC without rolling 'against' them technically, it's just that rolling 'against' a target is the common parlance for when they're the intended target of the outcome of the roll.
Yes, it's down to the player to decide if they were convinced, but that no way negates the purpose of rolling persuasion 'against' a PC.
I am doing no such thing, being an opposed check or not, is irrelevant; this is not an ability check period.
It entirely negates it as an ability check; by your own statement, the roll is not determining the outcome, that is down to the player. If the player can decide if they are convinced or not, then this roll involves no obstacle. Without one, by definition it is not an ability check.
You are describing an improvisational or role playing tool which nevertheless could be useful, but a check it is not.
I think you are forgetting that your character is not you. Your character does not know what you know, think what you think, or believe what you believe.
And your character can be convinced of something with the role of a die, because the DM ultimately determines all events in the game. But you still have control of how the character acts with that info. That is how role-playing works.
No, that's how roll playing works. The DM or dice can inform or influence me or my characters thoughts, but you are saying they dictate them. I originally thought that was what Dave was advocating, but I was wrong. We are just circling back to that being absolute nonsense. You have not provided a single good reason why you should take away what is arguably the most fundamental aspect of a player's agency; deciding how their character thinks and feels.
Can the DM arbitrarily have rocks fall on your head? Technically I guess they can, but should they just because they can ultimately determine everything?
Stating the DM controls everything is of course true, but for that very reason (it can be applied to any perspective of any point), it's not useful to raise when providing rules guidance, or discussing something where there may be a difference of opinion.
What we do at our table is roll a contested PC's insight vs persuasion (if NPC is telling truth) or deception (if NPC is lying) - the PC doesn't know which I'm rolling against.
This roll usually only happens if the player asks for it - this means the player must be the one to have a suspicion. If I feel that an NPC would is very unconvincing, I may ask the player to roll an insight without their prompting for it.
NPC: "I have no idea how they managed to escape the cell, it was locked up tight" PC: "Do I believe him?" DM: "Roll an insight check."
PC rolls slightly higher than NPC
DM: "You get the feeling he is hiding something"
Of course it's important to mention, the player doesn't have to roll an insight check, they can just decide they don't believe the NPC or that they do believe. If they are unsure and initiate an insight check, I expect my players to play along with the decision of that insight check - if they roll a low insight and get back "You feel he is being completely truthful" then it would be metagaming for the player to then decide their character doesn't believe them.
Previous points raised had nothing to do with someone lying or not. Though our examples and language were not clear on that front admittedly. Being generic examples I think we were just lazy. A lie is deception, we were discussing persuasion, which would be convincing someone in an active sense; to go along with something, to do or allow a thing.
However, I still disagree with how you present insight, (and metagaming being presented as only problematic but is also a fallacy itself, but that's a red herring to this). Saying you feel..is likely just a short hand, but as I wasn't clear on the distinction between persuasion and deception earlier, and the nature of this conversation, semantics are important.
Insight doesn't dictate what a character feels. It is observation, it's more general purpose parallel in the world would be perception. You observe the clues, these collection clues as a short hand are often described simply as you say "you feel...". This is a useful short hand I don't deny that, but if a player said I don't really trust what he says anyway, I'd have no problem, that's their perogative.
There could have been numerous previous interactions with the character in question that informs the PC what ultimate decision or feelings they come to. It goes both ways also, belief or disbelief. They could have for example, rolled very poorly, but just prior caught them in an outright lie about something else. It's not unreasonable at all for the PC to still be dubious, even if based on the roll the NPC is composing themselves in an entirely convincing manner now.
None of the points raised are at all convincing to me that any fun would be added, let alone it's even remotely nessecary, to remove this fundamental aspect of player agency; determining how a PC thinks or feels for themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a relatively new DM, I found myself wondering a few things while preparing a session for on of my groups.
I am using a Cult Fanatic as the "boss" more or less and noticed that the NPC has a +4 to Deception and Persuasion checks, and the description of the fanatic in the Monster Manual (page 345) states that they use "charisma and dogma to influence and prey on those of weak will". With this, I am essentially wondering two thing:
1. How exactly do I determine if a monster or NPC "deceives" or "persuades" a player? This may be just a game rule I've overlooked, such as comparing dice rolls.
2. If, say, the monster or NPC successfully deceives or persuades the player, what should it look like? I'm sure it's a matter of style on some level, but are there any general rules that hold up across the board? Is it as simple as saying "you were deceived" or saying "he seems to be telling the truth to you"? Furthermore, how can it be done in a way that lets the player know they have been deceived/persuaded (since that's the example we're running with) without making it seem like their characters have no control over their action and are just plain dumb. I'm sure the Player who has a 20 in Charisma wouldn't be satisfied being deceived fully on the basis that he or she rolled a 5 while the monster or NPC rolled a 15.
You typically roll vs PC's insight check or passive insight.
You don't persuade a player, but you can persuade their character (you can deceive both ;) ).
A simple "he seems honest," "you don't get the sense that he's lying," or "he seems to be telling the truth" are good responses.
As for the illusion of control, just try not to metagame too much. You ever play a video game where you know a NPC is lying to you, but you do a mission they give you anyway because the PC doesn't know? It's like that.
I guess a big thing to remember here is that a persuasion check is not a Jedi mind trick or even a Charm Person spell. The argument needs to make sense -and- be believable. The smarter or wiser a character is, the better the lie would have to be.
That said, there are a few rules mentioned in the books about these skill checks, oppositions, and automatic successes.
A chart in the Player's Handbook (PHB) lists the DC of things of increasing difficulty. You might try to match the persuasion verses how much sense it makes.
PHB - Ch 7: Using Ability Scores - Ability Checks - Typical Difficulty Classes
You might also give the party advantage or bonuses if the villain speaks to all of them together. Its harder to convince a group of people who have their mind made up already than an individual.
PHB - Ch 7: Using Ability Scores - Working Together
The most likely skill check that the characters would use is gone into about as much detail as you will get in the Wisdom section.
PHB - Ch 7: Using Ability Scores - Using Each Ability - Wisdom - Wisdom Checks - Insight
The Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG) has a section that goes over ability checks as well. Of particular note is when it talks about needing checks instead of rolling for the super easy or impossible, when it goes over contests between ability scores, and it also has an Ability Check Chart.
DMG - Ch 8: Running the Game - Using Ability Scores
In regards to someone who really should not fail an ability check there is a variant rule for automatic successes.
DMG - Ch 8: Running the Game - Using Ability Scores - Difficulty Class - Variant: Automatic Success
Hopefully these will give you what you're looking for. Let me know if there is something a little more that might need assistance with.
Good luck and may you roll 20's when you need them and 1's when you need a laugh. - myself
I would never roll persuasion against a player in a million years. That’s just nonsense, they decide what appeals to them period.
In favour of rolling persuasion 'against' a player, sometimes you need to figure out just how persuasive an NPC is, but you're not as charismatic or convincing as the NPC is. Sometimes you just need to be able to put a number on it and say they're "15 persuasive". I generally use it as a metric for how well the NPC is at putting together a convincing argument.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Fine you’re , ‘15 persuasive’, but it’s my character, so only I could possibly know how hard I would be to convince, and the dc was 100, because my character would think that was a bad idea no matter how enticingly you tried to sell me on it. So the outcome was never uncertain, so moving forward let’s avoid meaningless rolls.
Or you could just role play and/or describe the scene together, instead of trying remove what is very much their fundamental agency. I’d leave the table if a DM kept that nonsense up. Neither the dice, nor the DM, get to tell me if I or my character finds something convincing or not. Deciding what compels or motivates your character, is fundamental to role playing. Now you of course must collaborate or compromise to make sure you have a character that works with the constraints of the game and other players, but if you take that decision making away from them, you may as well remove the player while you’re at it.
It's all about what works at your table. You do you
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Sure thing, taking away a player’s fundamental ability to make their own character decisions, certainly doesn’t work for me, but as you say if it works at your table, go for it.
I think you're misunderstanding. I don't use a persuasion check to dictate what a pc believes. Instead I use it to determine how convincing the NPC (or in the case of another player, their pc) can make an argument.
Me: the guard tries to convince you he didn't have anything to do with it (rolls 6 for persuasion) but his argument isn't very convincing
Sometimes you can't be as convincing as your character
Also, chill with the attitude, no one is right or wrong here, just different styles of play
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Persuasion does not take away the ability to make decisions, it just changes what decisions are available to make. It is no different from traps in a dungeon.
And moreover a deception/persuasion roll is best used to decide what information to give the player, not for exerting control over a character.
If the DM tells you an NPC is friendly, do you attack them out of disbelief? Then why should "the item you are looking for is at this location" be treated any different?
A persuasive or convincing argument is a subjective perspective of the argument. If it’s not about how the PC perceives the argument, then we are left with the speaker, and it is fairly irrelevant how convincing an argument is to them.
From your response, I take it that it doesn’t dictate the PCs decision on how to act. You don’t have to be an amazing orator, or an actor to role play. Simply describe it more or less as you did, state the intent and approach, no need for acting, no need for a roll. Which presumably is all the players are experiencing anyway.
DM: The guard tries to convince you of something (rolls 20), he tells you it in a very convincing manner.
Player: You tell a good story, but I’ve been burnt before.., I have more urgent business, because of x, y, z, I’m still not buying what you’re selling.
If it’s still ultimately up to the player to decide if they were persuaded, then it’s not a roll against the player. That’s not even a check, though it might be a useful improvisational tool or aid.
I think you're assuming persuasion is a contested check like deception, when it's not. You can roll to persuade a PC without rolling 'against' them technically, it's just that rolling 'against' a target is the common parlance for when they're the intended target of the outcome of the roll.
Yes, it's down to the player to decide if they were convinced, but that no way negates the purpose of rolling persuasion 'against' a PC.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
I am doing no such thing, being an opposed check or not, is irrelevant; this is not an ability check period.
It entirely negates it as an ability check; by your own statement, the roll is not determining the outcome, that is down to the player. If the player can decide if they are convinced or not, then this roll involves no obstacle. Without one, by definition it is not an ability check.
You are describing an improvisational or role playing tool which nevertheless could be useful, but a check it is not.
I think you are forgetting that your character is not you. Your character does not know what you know, think what you think, or believe what you believe.
And your character can be convinced of something with the role of a die, because the DM ultimately determines all events in the game. But you still have control of how the character acts with that info. That is how role-playing works.
No, that's how roll playing works. The DM or dice can inform or influence me or my characters thoughts, but you are saying they dictate them. I originally thought that was what Dave was advocating, but I was wrong. We are just circling back to that being absolute nonsense. You have not provided a single good reason why you should take away what is arguably the most fundamental aspect of a player's agency; deciding how their character thinks and feels.
Can the DM arbitrarily have rocks fall on your head? Technically I guess they can, but should they just because they can ultimately determine everything?
Stating the DM controls everything is of course true, but for that very reason (it can be applied to any perspective of any point), it's not useful to raise when providing rules guidance, or discussing something where there may be a difference of opinion.
What we do at our table is roll a contested PC's insight vs persuasion (if NPC is telling truth) or deception (if NPC is lying) - the PC doesn't know which I'm rolling against.
This roll usually only happens if the player asks for it - this means the player must be the one to have a suspicion. If I feel that an NPC would is very unconvincing, I may ask the player to roll an insight without their prompting for it.
NPC: "I have no idea how they managed to escape the cell, it was locked up tight"
PC: "Do I believe him?"
DM: "Roll an insight check."
PC rolls slightly higher than NPC
DM: "You get the feeling he is hiding something"
Of course it's important to mention, the player doesn't have to roll an insight check, they can just decide they don't believe the NPC or that they do believe. If they are unsure and initiate an insight check, I expect my players to play along with the decision of that insight check - if they roll a low insight and get back "You feel he is being completely truthful" then it would be metagaming for the player to then decide their character doesn't believe them.
Previous points raised had nothing to do with someone lying or not. Though our examples and language were not clear on that front admittedly. Being generic examples I think we were just lazy. A lie is deception, we were discussing persuasion, which would be convincing someone in an active sense; to go along with something, to do or allow a thing.
However, I still disagree with how you present insight, (and metagaming being presented as only problematic but is also a fallacy itself, but that's a red herring to this). Saying you feel..is likely just a short hand, but as I wasn't clear on the distinction between persuasion and deception earlier, and the nature of this conversation, semantics are important.
Insight doesn't dictate what a character feels. It is observation, it's more general purpose parallel in the world would be perception. You observe the clues, these collection clues as a short hand are often described simply as you say "you feel...". This is a useful short hand I don't deny that, but if a player said I don't really trust what he says anyway, I'd have no problem, that's their perogative.
There could have been numerous previous interactions with the character in question that informs the PC what ultimate decision or feelings they come to. It goes both ways also, belief or disbelief. They could have for example, rolled very poorly, but just prior caught them in an outright lie about something else. It's not unreasonable at all for the PC to still be dubious, even if based on the roll the NPC is composing themselves in an entirely convincing manner now.
None of the points raised are at all convincing to me that any fun would be added, let alone it's even remotely nessecary, to remove this fundamental aspect of player agency; determining how a PC thinks or feels for themselves.