I had a doppelganger encounter with my party. The players sussed something was wrong very quickly (it was a rudimentary, improvised roleplay on my part), and asked for repeated perception checks as the exchange continued. The doppelganger rolled 3 nat 20s (so 26 total) in a row on their deception check contested against the pcs perception checks, so I told the party they perceived the doppelganger was telling the truth.
This put the party in an awkward meta-conundrum. As players, they knew damn well something was up. But officially speaking, their characters were deceived. They were good sports and played along, but it just didn't sit right with me. Eventually, they entered combat with the doppelganger by their side. Since the doppelganger doesn't use weapons, and the weapons are part of the illusion, I had the doppelganger use their charge attack, even though they had the illusion of having weapons. This I felt allowed the party to bypass the tyranny of the dice rolls and act on their basic intelligence.
How would you handle this? I hated every moment of that exchange, and I have some more doppelgangers to handle soon.
Some of the funniest moments I have had in D&D are where players are aware of something and their characters are not and they have to act that way. Just like RP with a low INT character and a not stupid player. The one I find hardest to manage is a high INT character with an average intelligence player. It's hard to RP an Einstein level genius 20 INT for a player so I tend to give them more hints on things on puzzles and things that a genius would more easily grasp.
If our characters know exactly what our players know... then why are we even playing an RPG? That's the whole point of dice rolling... whether it is in combat or in social situations. This is also why we don't allow everyone to take individual checks for every single thing that seems off. The first person to call it gets to roll it and we all live by the rolls until there is something that crops up that makes us ask questions again.
If it helps to deal with the meta, just tell your players, "I wasn't quite prepared for some of the questions and I know because of that you, the players, could tell something was wrong... sorry about that... I'm sure we'll get to the full truth at some point in the near future."
Also... have fun deceiving your players from time to time. I guarantee there is at least one of them trying to deceive you or another player at the table already.
If our characters know exactly what our players know... then why are we even playing an RPG? That's the whole point of dice rolling... whether it is in combat or in social situations. This is also why we don't allow everyone to take individual checks for every single thing that seems off. The first person to call it gets to roll it and we all live by the rolls until there is something that crops up that makes us ask questions again.
Fair point. I guess the onus is also on me as DM to not screw up the role playing and raise red flags almost immediately. First time handling a doppelganger - I'm sure I'll be better next time.
I'd say that this would be a Wisdom (Insight) check vs. either a DC set by you or contested by Charisma (Deception) check from the Doppelganger.
Either way, the only thing you can say at this point is that "there is nothing off about the character that you can sense".
Ultimately, social skills are tricky. Many follow the rule that no matter what the checks say, barring supernatural instances, the player is in ultimate control of their character.
You can't roll a Persuasion check vs. a player and tell them that their character is "persuaded" to do something, same with Intimidation.
If there is something off about the character, let them just act on it if they choose to, unless it's a blatant metagaming situation.
In this instance, something led the players to believe that something was off about the Doppelganger. If it wasn't something blatantly obvious like you muttering "let me pull up my doppelganger stat block real quick" then I'd just allow them to act on it if they wished.
I would have a chat with your players and tell them that you were improvising on the spot and yes they can obviously tell something was up but that doesn't mean their characters are aware in the same way. Now if they can come up with a creative way their character's would pick up on that, reward them for it, but I also wouldn't allow them to continue rolling insight or other checks till they get the result they want.
Its the same conundrum for dealing with a player who has been a DM or whos read the monster manual, etc... that player may know ____ monster has immunity to X and vulnerability to Y but that doesn't mean their character also knows that. Most players in my experience will respect it if you tell them something is being a little too metagamey in the moment, so just reserve the right to step in when necessary.
Since the doppelganger doesn't use weapons, and the weapons are part of the illusion, I had the doppelganger use their charge attack, even though they had the illusion of having weapons.
What's up with that though? Normally, doppelgangers can use weapons. Oh, do you mean they aren't particularly proficient in them? I guess that seems fair, but a doppelganger who intends to infiltrate a party of warriors almost certainly would be smart enough to have some basic weapon proficiency.
If our characters know exactly what our players know... then why are we even playing an RPG? That's the whole point of dice rolling... whether it is in combat or in social situations. This is also why we don't allow everyone to take individual checks for every single thing that seems off. The first person to call it gets to roll it and we all live by the rolls until there is something that crops up that makes us ask questions again.
Fair point. I guess the onus is also on me as DM to not screw up the role playing and raise red flags almost immediately. First time handling a doppelganger - I'm sure I'll be better next time.
how you roleplay shouldn’t matter, consider it like everything else let me give you a real experience from just my last session.
Green Gem held by a statue, rogue investigates and finds the statue is trapped but can’t find a way to disarm it. He does identify the trap is weight triggered.
Player rolls a perception check to gauge the size of the gem, and then an investigation check to see if they can find a similair size gem they roll a 3 and a 1 so the players know that the stone they have found is not a match. Another player asks if she can check the stone, I allow it once, she rolls a one as well.
So players know there is a trap, know that the stone they have does not match the gem but, more importantly they know there characters don’t have a clue. So they do the only thing they can, they huddle around the statue as one makes the switch, was almost a TPK with the damage the party took.
in your case the party should hav made one perception check failed it and that’s it, unless the character does something obvious to draw attention again they believe him, regardless of your roleplaying skills. Part of the fun is knowing and seeing the comical or tragic result the dice throw up and rolling with them, not trying to keep rolling dice until you get a pass. In that case above, even after seeing 5 of 6 players knocked unconscious taking death saving throws the players where laughing at the hilarity of the dice rolls.
my advice talk to your players explain that while they as players may think there is something wrong there characters think this person is there best friend. Indicate that in the way you describe the roll.
“I think there is something wrong with this NPC I want to roll an insight check” rolls a 3
“you talk to them for about 15 mins, they are exactly who they say they are, in fact you find yourself thinking this is the kind of person you want to hang out with, you just get that sense they are trustworthy and honest to a fault”
and that’s it, don’t let other players try unless there is a clear reason for it.
It's the players' job to RP their character and not themselves. If my players failed an insight check and still had their character act suspicious, I would gently remind them that their character thinks the NPC is being honest. If they persisted in RPing suspicion we would probably need to halt play and discuss metagaming and why I don't like it when players do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If our characters know exactly what our players know... then why are we even playing an RPG? That's the whole point of dice rolling... whether it is in combat or in social situations. This is also why we don't allow everyone to take individual checks for every single thing that seems off. The first person to call it gets to roll it and we all live by the rolls until there is something that crops up that makes us ask questions again.
Fair point. I guess the onus is also on me as DM to not screw up the role playing and raise red flags almost immediately. First time handling a doppelganger - I'm sure I'll be better next time.
I would say if they run into one again, I might give them a small bonus (or the doppelgänger a minus) on the check, just to reflect their experience dealing with the creature. If you have a campaign full of them, the characters would end up super paranoid, maybe to the point of casting true seeing every time they meet a new NPC.
If our characters know exactly what our players know... then why are we even playing an RPG? That's the whole point of dice rolling... whether it is in combat or in social situations. This is also why we don't allow everyone to take individual checks for every single thing that seems off. The first person to call it gets to roll it and we all live by the rolls until there is something that crops up that makes us ask questions again.
Fair point. I guess the onus is also on me as DM to not screw up the role playing and raise red flags almost immediately. First time handling a doppelganger - I'm sure I'll be better next time.
I would say if they run into one again, I might give them a small bonus (or the doppelgänger a minus) on the check, just to reflect their experience dealing with the creature. If you have a campaign full of them, the characters would end up super paranoid, maybe to the point of casting true seeing every time they meet a new NPC.
Thankfully not, this is LMOP, so just one more coming up in Wave Echo Cave. I'll plan more carefully this time, and hopefully be better at handling party suspicions.
I have great players that role well. So the times when they roll low Insight, the play along. The really funny part is when they roll to see if the NPC is lying and roll low. I tell them they think the NPC is telling the truth. THEN they begin to wonder if the PCs think the NPC is honest or is the NPC really honest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The players sussed something was wrong very quickly (it was a rudimentary, improvised roleplay on my part), and asked for repeated perception checks as the exchange continued. The doppelganger rolled 3 nat 20s (so 26 total) in a row on their deception check contested against the pcs perception checks, so I told the party they perceived the doppelganger was telling the truth.
The party should be making Wisdom (Insight) checks, not perception. The new shape of the Doppelganger is a flawless transformation, the only suspicion would be how to behaves and talks - so it would be insight against its Charisma (Deception).
The party gets one, maybe two checks tops. You can apply advantage or disadvantage to any rolls as you feel necessary - for example if the second Insight is only because they feel the first failed and know there must be something since you rolled, that is metagaming. You might allow "with disadvantage" or you could say "they have not made or said anything that could warrant suspicion".
You decide whether a player gets a roll or not and whether rolling is appropriate. If they're rolling only because of metagaming and not as a result of anything in-game then you are entirely able to simply say "no".
If you did let something slip and they're suspicious then fine - one roll, maybe two at best if reasonable, and that's it.
This put the party in an awkward meta-conundrum. As players, they knew damn well something was up. But officially speaking, their characters were deceived. They were good sports and played along, but it just didn't sit right with me.
There's nothing awkward about it. There will always be a separation between character and player. I mean, I can't cast fireballs like my wizard, nor would the wizard know how to program an app on a computer like me. I am not my character, they are not me. So characters may have knowledge the player doesn't and vice versa. We have character sheets and dice rolls to define the characters abilities, skills and attempts at doing things and interacting. If that doesn't sit right with you ... then you're playing the wrong game and D&D is not for you. It's the only fundamental aspect of D&D. So if that isn't right for you, set dice aside, rip up the sheets and just play-pretend as yourselves in a co-op narrative improv scene.
Eventually, they entered combat with the doppelganger by their side. Since the doppelganger doesn't use weapons, and the weapons are part of the illusion, I had the doppelganger use their charge attack, even though they had the illusion of having weapons. This I felt allowed the party to bypass the tyranny of the dice rolls and act on their basic intelligence.
Are you using homebrew version of Doppelganger or the D&D monster stat block of Doppelganger?
If homebrew - well it's homebrew, do as you please. If using the actual monster that appears in Basic Rules and DMG then .. huh?
Doppelgangers don't use illusions. They shapechange their body as a natural ability. It's not an illusion, it's a transformation. They don't change equipment, clothes, objects or weapons - nor can they create them or any illusions of such. If a naked doppelganger was in a room with a rogue that had leather armour and a pair of daggers and then that doppelganger used its shapechanging ability to become that rogue: they'd become a naked, empty-handed, version of the rogue. This is why the feature has the line "Any equipment it is wearing or carrying isn't transformed. ".
There is nothing stopping the doppelganger putting on clothes, armour or carrying and using weapons. However, it has no proficiencies so if it donned armour it suffers any penalties for that and if it used a weapon it doesn't add any proficiency bonus to the attack rolls. Monster Stat Blocks are a base, so you as DM are free to tailor the statblock in reasonable ways to take a generic version and make it a unique NPC. So, you could very much just give appropriate armour and weapon proficiencies, if you wanted. The CR wouldn't change much either, really, if at all.
I also don't know what you mean by "Charge" attack. The Doppelganger doesn't have one. It's attack is "Slam" which is monster statblock speak for "unarmed strike with different damage". It could be a a full body slam. Or a punch. Or a kick. Or headbutt. Or a... you get the idea. It's called a "Slam" instead only to avoid confusion with the rules of unarmed strikes (which normally use Strength and deal 1 + Str mod damage), to indicate a monster-specific version : in this case, it is a Dex based attack doing 1d6 + Dex mod damage. There is no "charging". It's just a punch.
Even if you had illusions, you could easily disguise a punch as a stab. So, you could just use the attack in the statblock but visually describe the illusion. If you're really insistent on giving them this illusion power, for some reason.
How would you handle this? I hated every moment of that exchange, and I have some more doppelgangers to handle soon.
It's hard to say because you have no detailed why the group are suspicious of the NPC and why they are making an Insight Perception check. But generally it'd be,
Player A: I find NPC is a bit sus, can I roll for sus?
Me: You don't get a read on anything, they seem to be genuine.
Player B: What about me, can I check too?
Me: Sure. **rolls 26 again**
Player B: I got 3.
Me: You don't get a read on anything, they seem to be genuine.
Player C: I want to try to!
Me: OK we're getting metagamey here. We'll do this passively. **checks everyone's passive insight scores (10 + Insight Bonus) against NPC's passive deception (10 + Deception Bonus [16]). ** OK, nobody considers this NPC suspicious.
**A little time passes**
Player A: I want to Insight NPC, I think he's acting sus again.
Me: WHat, specifically is making him more suspicious that is different than before?
Player A: I don't know.
Me: Then no.
--
This is why we have DM screens / private rolls, why we have passive scores and so on. Rather than rolling as contest which just signals they were being deceptive and inviting metagaming, you could instead just set the DC as a passive deception score, so they can't tell if their number was a success or failure. Don't forget Doppelgangers have the ability to read thoughts so if they are trying to actively deceive somebody, especially in regards to the identity they're copying, you can have them read the person's mind - this is advantage on the deception roll or +5 to the insight DC, if going passive.
If this NPC's true identity has not been revealed to the party and they're going to be important consider a sneaky retcon of making the NPC being made like a player character using the Changeling race and a rogue, the armour and weapons would be real, they might have expertise in deception, and might balance more favourably. If they end up being an assassin that turns on one of them, well that would be fun, or maybe they're a scout? The subclasses can give you more room to flesh out the character. Or you could go arcane trickster to actually give them illusions for playing with.
I'm going to reiterate that the statblock is a base and for any NPC that isn't generic encounter fodder you can consider customising the statblock into something more unique and with more personality and identity: by adding class levels, proficiencies, stats, and working on the mentality of the character: why are they hiding themselves, are they really ally or secretly enemy, why are they with this group and willing to endanger themselves, etc..
Hope this helps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Bear in mind, a successful deception check doesn't mean they're automatically perceived as telling the truth, it just means they've given no indication they're bluffing. If a character has a reason to be suspicious, even if it's just a part of their nature as a flaw or something, they can still be suspicious, they just have no grounds for it (unless you RP something suspicious; then they have absolutely every reason to think something's up, deception rolls be damned).
This is a long quote by Alfred Hitchcock. Read it and I hope the master can alleviate your concerns. Suspense is fun. Suspense is good. Ride that wave and let your players enjoy it.
“There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean. We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"
In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.”
In both cases of that great Hitch example, the actors know there is a bomb under the table -- it says it in the script... they saw the prop guys put it there... and the director has told them that when they hear a certain queue or get to a certain line of dialogue they are to fall backwards as if blasted by a bomb. The actors are very clear on what is about to happen.
The actors' job is to play their characters as if the characters do not know. The actors aren't supposed to look under the table repeatedly... or look at the clock repeatedly... or jump half a second BEFORE the director cries out "boom!" as the signal for them to jump.
The players are the actors here -- yes, I know an RPG is not a movie, but the principles are the same. Just like the actor is supposed to act like he doesn't know there is a bomb under the table, the players should RP their characters as if they don't know the doppelganger is in their midst.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I have great players that role well. So the times when they roll low Insight, the play along. The really funny part is when they roll to see if the NPC is lying and roll low. I tell them they think the NPC is telling the truth. THEN they begin to wonder if the PCs think the NPC is honest or is the NPC really honest.
Exactly. The mind game of meta gaming which makes judicious use of facial expressions and tone of voice as the DM so much more valuable when the player's are uncertain about what the characters do or don't know!
And that Hitchcock example is a brilliant analysis of suspense and how the meta game works...
Right. Meta-gaming, to follow the example, would be the audience member yelling "don't go in there!' and the character breaking the fourth wall, looking out at the audience member and saying "thanks." Or if you prefer that the player be the actor, going off script looking for the bomb. Maybe like the actor on a live soap opera going off script to get leverage for contract negotiations. And either of those ruins everyone's good time and is to be discouraged.
OTOH, if your players are enjoying the suspense and playing along; if all that happens is that every time the suspicious character interacts with them, the players lean into the scene, and participate a bit more, I think it can add a bit of fun.
This is all the long way of saying that it's the characters' job to act surprised, but that doesn't mean the players can't enjoy the suspense.
I had a doppelganger encounter with my party. The players sussed something was wrong very quickly (it was a rudimentary, improvised roleplay on my part), and asked for repeated perception checks as the exchange continued. The doppelganger rolled 3 nat 20s (so 26 total) in a row on their deception check contested against the pcs perception checks, so I told the party they perceived the doppelganger was telling the truth.
This put the party in an awkward meta-conundrum. As players, they knew damn well something was up. But officially speaking, their characters were deceived. They were good sports and played along, but it just didn't sit right with me. Eventually, they entered combat with the doppelganger by their side. Since the doppelganger doesn't use weapons, and the weapons are part of the illusion, I had the doppelganger use their charge attack, even though they had the illusion of having weapons. This I felt allowed the party to bypass the tyranny of the dice rolls and act on their basic intelligence.
How would you handle this? I hated every moment of that exchange, and I have some more doppelgangers to handle soon.
Some of the funniest moments I have had in D&D are where players are aware of something and their characters are not and they have to act that way. Just like RP with a low INT character and a not stupid player. The one I find hardest to manage is a high INT character with an average intelligence player. It's hard to RP an Einstein level genius 20 INT for a player so I tend to give them more hints on things on puzzles and things that a genius would more easily grasp.
If our characters know exactly what our players know... then why are we even playing an RPG? That's the whole point of dice rolling... whether it is in combat or in social situations. This is also why we don't allow everyone to take individual checks for every single thing that seems off. The first person to call it gets to roll it and we all live by the rolls until there is something that crops up that makes us ask questions again.
If it helps to deal with the meta, just tell your players, "I wasn't quite prepared for some of the questions and I know because of that you, the players, could tell something was wrong... sorry about that... I'm sure we'll get to the full truth at some point in the near future."
Also... have fun deceiving your players from time to time. I guarantee there is at least one of them trying to deceive you or another player at the table already.
Fair point. I guess the onus is also on me as DM to not screw up the role playing and raise red flags almost immediately. First time handling a doppelganger - I'm sure I'll be better next time.
I'd say that this would be a Wisdom (Insight) check vs. either a DC set by you or contested by Charisma (Deception) check from the Doppelganger.
Either way, the only thing you can say at this point is that "there is nothing off about the character that you can sense".
Ultimately, social skills are tricky. Many follow the rule that no matter what the checks say, barring supernatural instances, the player is in ultimate control of their character.
You can't roll a Persuasion check vs. a player and tell them that their character is "persuaded" to do something, same with Intimidation.
If there is something off about the character, let them just act on it if they choose to, unless it's a blatant metagaming situation.
In this instance, something led the players to believe that something was off about the Doppelganger. If it wasn't something blatantly obvious like you muttering "let me pull up my doppelganger stat block real quick" then I'd just allow them to act on it if they wished.
It is definitely Wisdom (Insight) checks which should be used during roleplay, since there's nothing visible to notice with Perception.
The players only get to make a roll when the DM decides that a roll is warranted - not every few seconds of a long conversation.
Role-Playing - players are taking the role of characters who have more limited (or at least different) knowledge than the players.
I would have a chat with your players and tell them that you were improvising on the spot and yes they can obviously tell something was up but that doesn't mean their characters are aware in the same way. Now if they can come up with a creative way their character's would pick up on that, reward them for it, but I also wouldn't allow them to continue rolling insight or other checks till they get the result they want.
Its the same conundrum for dealing with a player who has been a DM or whos read the monster manual, etc... that player may know ____ monster has immunity to X and vulnerability to Y but that doesn't mean their character also knows that. Most players in my experience will respect it if you tell them something is being a little too metagamey in the moment, so just reserve the right to step in when necessary.
Sounds to me like you have some good players on your hands. Consider handing out inspiration for those players who RPd ignorance.
Also consider throwing your players off by intentionally making them suspicious about some future NPC who is *not* a doppelganger.
What's up with that though? Normally, doppelgangers can use weapons. Oh, do you mean they aren't particularly proficient in them? I guess that seems fair, but a doppelganger who intends to infiltrate a party of warriors almost certainly would be smart enough to have some basic weapon proficiency.
The only attack doppelgangers have is bash. And their weapons aren't real, they have to be part of the illusion, right?
how you roleplay shouldn’t matter, consider it like everything else let me give you a real experience from just my last session.
Green Gem held by a statue, rogue investigates and finds the statue is trapped but can’t find a way to disarm it. He does identify the trap is weight triggered.
Player rolls a perception check to gauge the size of the gem, and then an investigation check to see if they can find a similair size gem they roll a 3 and a 1 so the players know that the stone they have found is not a match. Another player asks if she can check the stone, I allow it once, she rolls a one as well.
So players know there is a trap, know that the stone they have does not match the gem but, more importantly they know there characters don’t have a clue. So they do the only thing they can, they huddle around the statue as one makes the switch, was almost a TPK with the damage the party took.
in your case the party should hav made one perception check failed it and that’s it, unless the character does something obvious to draw attention again they believe him, regardless of your roleplaying skills. Part of the fun is knowing and seeing the comical or tragic result the dice throw up and rolling with them, not trying to keep rolling dice until you get a pass. In that case above, even after seeing 5 of 6 players knocked unconscious taking death saving throws the players where laughing at the hilarity of the dice rolls.
my advice talk to your players explain that while they as players may think there is something wrong there characters think this person is there best friend. Indicate that in the way you describe the roll.
“I think there is something wrong with this NPC I want to roll an insight check” rolls a 3
“you talk to them for about 15 mins, they are exactly who they say they are, in fact you find yourself thinking this is the kind of person you want to hang out with, you just get that sense they are trustworthy and honest to a fault”
and that’s it, don’t let other players try unless there is a clear reason for it.
It's the players' job to RP their character and not themselves. If my players failed an insight check and still had their character act suspicious, I would gently remind them that their character thinks the NPC is being honest. If they persisted in RPing suspicion we would probably need to halt play and discuss metagaming and why I don't like it when players do that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I would say if they run into one again, I might give them a small bonus (or the doppelgänger a minus) on the check, just to reflect their experience dealing with the creature. If you have a campaign full of them, the characters would end up super paranoid, maybe to the point of casting true seeing every time they meet a new NPC.
Thankfully not, this is LMOP, so just one more coming up in Wave Echo Cave. I'll plan more carefully this time, and hopefully be better at handling party suspicions.
I have great players that role well. So the times when they roll low Insight, the play along. The really funny part is when they roll to see if the NPC is lying and roll low. I tell them they think the NPC is telling the truth. THEN they begin to wonder if the PCs think the NPC is honest or is the NPC really honest.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The party should be making Wisdom (Insight) checks, not perception. The new shape of the Doppelganger is a flawless transformation, the only suspicion would be how to behaves and talks - so it would be insight against its Charisma (Deception).
The party gets one, maybe two checks tops. You can apply advantage or disadvantage to any rolls as you feel necessary - for example if the second Insight is only because they feel the first failed and know there must be something since you rolled, that is metagaming. You might allow "with disadvantage" or you could say "they have not made or said anything that could warrant suspicion".
You decide whether a player gets a roll or not and whether rolling is appropriate. If they're rolling only because of metagaming and not as a result of anything in-game then you are entirely able to simply say "no".
If you did let something slip and they're suspicious then fine - one roll, maybe two at best if reasonable, and that's it.
There's nothing awkward about it. There will always be a separation between character and player. I mean, I can't cast fireballs like my wizard, nor would the wizard know how to program an app on a computer like me. I am not my character, they are not me. So characters may have knowledge the player doesn't and vice versa. We have character sheets and dice rolls to define the characters abilities, skills and attempts at doing things and interacting. If that doesn't sit right with you ... then you're playing the wrong game and D&D is not for you. It's the only fundamental aspect of D&D. So if that isn't right for you, set dice aside, rip up the sheets and just play-pretend as yourselves in a co-op narrative improv scene.
Are you using homebrew version of Doppelganger or the D&D monster stat block of Doppelganger?
If homebrew - well it's homebrew, do as you please. If using the actual monster that appears in Basic Rules and DMG then .. huh?
Doppelgangers don't use illusions. They shapechange their body as a natural ability. It's not an illusion, it's a transformation. They don't change equipment, clothes, objects or weapons - nor can they create them or any illusions of such. If a naked doppelganger was in a room with a rogue that had leather armour and a pair of daggers and then that doppelganger used its shapechanging ability to become that rogue: they'd become a naked, empty-handed, version of the rogue. This is why the feature has the line "Any equipment it is wearing or carrying isn't transformed. ".
There is nothing stopping the doppelganger putting on clothes, armour or carrying and using weapons. However, it has no proficiencies so if it donned armour it suffers any penalties for that and if it used a weapon it doesn't add any proficiency bonus to the attack rolls. Monster Stat Blocks are a base, so you as DM are free to tailor the statblock in reasonable ways to take a generic version and make it a unique NPC. So, you could very much just give appropriate armour and weapon proficiencies, if you wanted. The CR wouldn't change much either, really, if at all.
I also don't know what you mean by "Charge" attack. The Doppelganger doesn't have one. It's attack is "Slam" which is monster statblock speak for "unarmed strike with different damage". It could be a a full body slam. Or a punch. Or a kick. Or headbutt. Or a... you get the idea. It's called a "Slam" instead only to avoid confusion with the rules of unarmed strikes (which normally use Strength and deal 1 + Str mod damage), to indicate a monster-specific version : in this case, it is a Dex based attack doing 1d6 + Dex mod damage. There is no "charging". It's just a punch.
Even if you had illusions, you could easily disguise a punch as a stab. So, you could just use the attack in the statblock but visually describe the illusion. If you're really insistent on giving them this illusion power, for some reason.
It's hard to say because you have no detailed why the group are suspicious of the NPC and why they are making an
InsightPerception check. But generally it'd be,Player A: I find NPC is a bit sus, can I roll for sus?
Me: What are you trying to find out?
Player A: If they are who they say they are.
Me: Ok, roll Insight. **rolls NPC deception privately/behind screen : rolls 26**
Player A: I got 15.
Me: You don't get a read on anything, they seem to be genuine.
Player B: What about me, can I check too?
Me: Sure. **rolls 26 again**
Player B: I got 3.
Me: You don't get a read on anything, they seem to be genuine.
Player C: I want to try to!
Me: OK we're getting metagamey here. We'll do this passively. **checks everyone's passive insight scores (10 + Insight Bonus) against NPC's passive deception (10 + Deception Bonus [16]). ** OK, nobody considers this NPC suspicious.
**A little time passes**
Player A: I want to Insight NPC, I think he's acting sus again.
Me: WHat, specifically is making him more suspicious that is different than before?
Player A: I don't know.
Me: Then no.
--
This is why we have DM screens / private rolls, why we have passive scores and so on. Rather than rolling as contest which just signals they were being deceptive and inviting metagaming, you could instead just set the DC as a passive deception score, so they can't tell if their number was a success or failure. Don't forget Doppelgangers have the ability to read thoughts so if they are trying to actively deceive somebody, especially in regards to the identity they're copying, you can have them read the person's mind - this is advantage on the deception roll or +5 to the insight DC, if going passive.
If this NPC's true identity has not been revealed to the party and they're going to be important consider a sneaky retcon of making the NPC being made like a player character using the Changeling race and a rogue, the armour and weapons would be real, they might have expertise in deception, and might balance more favourably. If they end up being an assassin that turns on one of them, well that would be fun, or maybe they're a scout? The subclasses can give you more room to flesh out the character. Or you could go arcane trickster to actually give them illusions for playing with.
I'm going to reiterate that the statblock is a base and for any NPC that isn't generic encounter fodder you can consider customising the statblock into something more unique and with more personality and identity: by adding class levels, proficiencies, stats, and working on the mentality of the character: why are they hiding themselves, are they really ally or secretly enemy, why are they with this group and willing to endanger themselves, etc..
Hope this helps.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Bear in mind, a successful deception check doesn't mean they're automatically perceived as telling the truth, it just means they've given no indication they're bluffing. If a character has a reason to be suspicious, even if it's just a part of their nature as a flaw or something, they can still be suspicious, they just have no grounds for it (unless you RP something suspicious; then they have absolutely every reason to think something's up, deception rolls be damned).
This is a long quote by Alfred Hitchcock. Read it and I hope the master can alleviate your concerns. Suspense is fun. Suspense is good. Ride that wave and let your players enjoy it.
In both cases of that great Hitch example, the actors know there is a bomb under the table -- it says it in the script... they saw the prop guys put it there... and the director has told them that when they hear a certain queue or get to a certain line of dialogue they are to fall backwards as if blasted by a bomb. The actors are very clear on what is about to happen.
The actors' job is to play their characters as if the characters do not know. The actors aren't supposed to look under the table repeatedly... or look at the clock repeatedly... or jump half a second BEFORE the director cries out "boom!" as the signal for them to jump.
The players are the actors here -- yes, I know an RPG is not a movie, but the principles are the same. Just like the actor is supposed to act like he doesn't know there is a bomb under the table, the players should RP their characters as if they don't know the doppelganger is in their midst.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Exactly. The mind game of meta gaming which makes judicious use of facial expressions and tone of voice as the DM so much more valuable when the player's are uncertain about what the characters do or don't know!
And that Hitchcock example is a brilliant analysis of suspense and how the meta game works...
Right. Meta-gaming, to follow the example, would be the audience member yelling "don't go in there!' and the character breaking the fourth wall, looking out at the audience member and saying "thanks." Or if you prefer that the player be the actor, going off script looking for the bomb. Maybe like the actor on a live soap opera going off script to get leverage for contract negotiations. And either of those ruins everyone's good time and is to be discouraged.
OTOH, if your players are enjoying the suspense and playing along; if all that happens is that every time the suspicious character interacts with them, the players lean into the scene, and participate a bit more, I think it can add a bit of fun.
This is all the long way of saying that it's the characters' job to act surprised, but that doesn't mean the players can't enjoy the suspense.