This is sort of related to my shield master feat question... In combat, if I successfully shove an opponent down, and if I let the DM know that I will make an attack attempt but choose not make contact, and have my character (Paladin/Oath of Redemption) say something along the lines of, "You don't want to do this, please stand down..." Would you say that is a persuasion check or an intimidation check? I mean, the action is rather intimidating, but he's not threatening him in what he is actually saying. He really just wants to give the target every chance to stand down.
It depends on whether your character is doing this as a matter of diplomacy (Persuasion) or through fear or a show of strength (Intimidation). Intimidation doesn't have to be a threat. You can intimidate somebody even when speaking politely if you have a hostile demeanour, bloodlust in your eyes, or are puffing your chest to show you are bigger, stronger or more skilled.
Persuasion is generally reasoning, logic, haggling, debating, pleading and even begging. Intimidation is about being imposing, hostile, instilling fear.
Think of the target's response. If after the check succeeds would they be reasonable, calm, agreeable? Then persuasion. If they would be fearful of getting hurt, making you angry, nervous and following the request because they feel you're not giving them any choice then that's Intimidation.
In your situation I would consider it Intimidation. Your character's words may be polite but combined with his actions the message the target will receive is "they're better than me, if I continue I'll get hurt or even die", this is fear so he's intimidated by you (if the check succeeds).
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.
I think it depends on what check the player wants to make and then base what they say/do on that check. But in your instance I think the use of the word please nullifies all intimidation lol if he wanted to intimidate then ask him how he intimidates the person, and vice versa.
I'd let the player choose which one to roll for. I think both choices could apply.
My DM has, several times, let us do choices like this. For example when trying to recall something about an unknown symbol at a shrine. If the deity in question was really powerful or had great influence across the lands in ancient times, then both religion and history will be relevant.
Building on the clarity of "Let the player choose which" (great advice), as a DM I have different DC's for these rolls depending on the NPC target. Some NPC's are easier to Intimidate, and others respond better to Persuasion. I choose which as a means of expressing the personality, concerns, and motivations of the target NPC and wherever possible try to communicate that through NPC roleplay.
This lets every player attempt the Intimidate/Persuasion and focus on how they roleplay, and rewards those who observe and better understand the NPC's around them.
While I agree that letting the player choose if they are persuading or intimidating is great advice generally, and is advice for DMs - it's useless advice for this particular thread. The Original Poster (OP) is not the DM. They are the player and have already made their decision in what their character has said and has done - they are asking for advice on whether this decision they have made, the things their character has already done and said, is better as persuasion or as intimidation.
Basically the OP is asking "considering what my character has done, should I choose Persuasion or Intimidation?"
So coming back with "I think players should choose" is, well, redundant. The OP already knows. They're asking for advice on making that choice.
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.
While I agree that letting the player choose if they are persuading or intimidating is great advice generally, and is advice for DMs - it's useless advice for this particular thread. The Original Poster (OP) is not the DM. They are the player and have already made their decision in what their character has said and has done - they are asking for advice on whether this decision they have made, the things their character has already done and said, is better as persuasion or as intimidation.
Basically the OP is asking "considering what my character has done, should I choose Persuasion or Intimidation?"
So coming back with "I think players should choose" is, well, redundant. The OP already knows. They're asking for advice on making that choice.
In cases like these... Whichever skill you have the highest bonus in.
In cases like these... Whichever skill you have the highest bonus in.
I believe the OP is asking from an RP perspective not a mechanical one.
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.
I believe the OP is asking from an RP perspective not a mechanical one.
That is probably up to his DM decide then. If he lets OP choose, then I think OP should just go with the one he has most bonus in, because as I mentioned, both proficiencies apply.
If that answer is still not satisfying, how about using the average of the intimidation and persuasion modifiers instead? The action described is after all a mix of both, so this wouldn't be completely incorrect.
For the sake of the OP; Cyb3rM1nd had the most concise description of how the actions should have influenced the situation and DM's roll.
For much of the rest of the posts: In many cases I lean on the players to help dictate what their characters are doing, saying, etc. The more I can give agency to the players the better.
However, not in this situation. The player decided their action, the Non-Player Character must respond. Why, then, are you the DM, asking the player to tell you how the Non-Player Character is responding? You, the DM, are in the role of the Non-Player Character, and as such determine if they are feeling persuaded or intimidated. By asking the player to tell you what skill they are using (intimidation/persuasion) you essentially ask them to dictate the Non-Player Character's reaction.
This is sort of related to my shield master feat question... In combat, if I successfully shove an opponent down, and if I let the DM know that I will make an attack attempt but choose not make contact, and have my character (Paladin/Oath of Redemption) say something along the lines of, "You don't want to do this, please stand down..."...
I won't comment on Persuasion vs Intimidation (consensus seems to be no one really knows - up to the DM), but you may also run into trouble here with using your Shield Master bonus shove. When you do that you are declaring that you are taking the Attack action that turn and, while I would allow a player to choose to waste their Attack action without using it, I would not allow them to them take some other action like attempting to Persuade/Intimidate the enemy into submission. Just be aware that the DM may require you to take a separate action for the attempt at diplomacy, and that means no Shield shove in the same turn.
As I DM, I would not make this a player choice as to what to roll - or you get BS like "I'm holding a knife to his throat, but I have proficiency in persuasion so I want to roll that" - which this almost is.
Persuasion or Intimidation is all about NPC perception, and that's all about context.
" ... successfully shove an opponent down, and if I let the DM know that I will make an attack attempt but choose not make contact ..."
The "please" notwithstanding, this is Intimidation, and I'd make the player roll Intimidation - perhaps at a bonus since the NPC is being "loomed over".
I also don't have a problem with the player making a short statement as a free action - "don't move!", "stand down!", etc. - although long sentences, or complex arguments might need an additional action.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
As I DM, I would not make this a player choice as to what to roll - or you get BS like "I'm holding a knife to his throat, but I have proficiency in persuasion so I want to roll that" - which this almost is.
Persuasion or Intimidation is all about NPC perception, and that's all about context.
" ... successfully shove an opponent down, and if I let the DM know that I will make an attack attempt but choose not make contact ..."
The "please" notwithstanding, this is Intimidation, and I'd make the player roll Intimidation - perhaps at a bonus since the NPC is being "loomed over".
I also don't have a problem with the player making a short statement as a free action - "don't move!", "stand down!", etc. - although long sentences, or complex arguments might need an additional action.
I agree with this, especially you have to think, each round of combat is 6 seconds, so if it takes their character longer than 6 seconds, along with any actions they take, it really wouldn't work, inside of the game mechanics.
I have a houserule: you can use 6 words as a free action. This can be used at any time during any turn. It allows minor communication for tactics, and the brief exchanges one might make when taunting an opponent as they stick them with the pointy end.
I have a houserule: you can use 6 words as a free action. This can be used at any time during any turn. It allows minor communication for tactics, and the brief exchanges one might make when taunting an opponent as they stick them with the pointy end.
I like that. I think 6 is good, except how long can you talk if you use your action to speak?
I give them 2-3 sentences in general. "By order of the king we are here to sieze your chickens. Resistance is futile, any attempt to fight back will result in noodle lashings" that's about the time I'd tell them their action is done. Question>answer>resolution/question is another scenario, 3 sentences max. I play it this way as though everyone is in a held action state, as soon as the third sentence is finished I hit play again. It causes some really fun commotion with people who interrogate mid combat.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey everyone,
This is sort of related to my shield master feat question... In combat, if I successfully shove an opponent down, and if I let the DM know that I will make an attack attempt but choose not make contact, and have my character (Paladin/Oath of Redemption) say something along the lines of, "You don't want to do this, please stand down..." Would you say that is a persuasion check or an intimidation check? I mean, the action is rather intimidating, but he's not threatening him in what he is actually saying. He really just wants to give the target every chance to stand down.
Thoughts?
It depends on whether your character is doing this as a matter of diplomacy (Persuasion) or through fear or a show of strength (Intimidation). Intimidation doesn't have to be a threat. You can intimidate somebody even when speaking politely if you have a hostile demeanour, bloodlust in your eyes, or are puffing your chest to show you are bigger, stronger or more skilled.
Persuasion is generally reasoning, logic, haggling, debating, pleading and even begging. Intimidation is about being imposing, hostile, instilling fear.
Think of the target's response. If after the check succeeds would they be reasonable, calm, agreeable? Then persuasion. If they would be fearful of getting hurt, making you angry, nervous and following the request because they feel you're not giving them any choice then that's Intimidation.
In your situation I would consider it Intimidation. Your character's words may be polite but combined with his actions the message the target will receive is "they're better than me, if I continue I'll get hurt or even die", this is fear so he's intimidated by you (if the check succeeds).
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.
I think it depends on what check the player wants to make and then base what they say/do on that check. But in your instance I think the use of the word please nullifies all intimidation lol if he wanted to intimidate then ask him how he intimidates the person, and vice versa.
Published Subclasses
Ok thanks for clearing that up!
I'd let the player choose which one to roll for. I think both choices could apply.
My DM has, several times, let us do choices like this. For example when trying to recall something about an unknown symbol at a shrine. If the deity in question was really powerful or had great influence across the lands in ancient times, then both religion and history will be relevant.
Building on the clarity of "Let the player choose which" (great advice), as a DM I have different DC's for these rolls depending on the NPC target. Some NPC's are easier to Intimidate, and others respond better to Persuasion. I choose which as a means of expressing the personality, concerns, and motivations of the target NPC and wherever possible try to communicate that through NPC roleplay.
This lets every player attempt the Intimidate/Persuasion and focus on how they roleplay, and rewards those who observe and better understand the NPC's around them.
While I agree that letting the player choose if they are persuading or intimidating is great advice generally, and is advice for DMs - it's useless advice for this particular thread. The Original Poster (OP) is not the DM. They are the player and have already made their decision in what their character has said and has done - they are asking for advice on whether this decision they have made, the things their character has already done and said, is better as persuasion or as intimidation.
Basically the OP is asking "considering what my character has done, should I choose Persuasion or Intimidation?"
So coming back with "I think players should choose" is, well, redundant. The OP already knows. They're asking for advice on making that choice.
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.
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.
For the sake of the OP; Cyb3rM1nd had the most concise description of how the actions should have influenced the situation and DM's roll.
For much of the rest of the posts: In many cases I lean on the players to help dictate what their characters are doing, saying, etc. The more I can give agency to the players the better.
However, not in this situation. The player decided their action, the Non-Player Character must respond. Why, then, are you the DM, asking the player to tell you how the Non-Player Character is responding? You, the DM, are in the role of the Non-Player Character, and as such determine if they are feeling persuaded or intimidated. By asking the player to tell you what skill they are using (intimidation/persuasion) you essentially ask them to dictate the Non-Player Character's reaction.
As I DM, I would not make this a player choice as to what to roll - or you get BS like "I'm holding a knife to his throat, but I have proficiency in persuasion so I want to roll that" - which this almost is.
Persuasion or Intimidation is all about NPC perception, and that's all about context.
" ... successfully shove an opponent down, and if I let the DM know that I will make an attack attempt but choose not make contact ..."
The "please" notwithstanding, this is Intimidation, and I'd make the player roll Intimidation - perhaps at a bonus since the NPC is being "loomed over".
I also don't have a problem with the player making a short statement as a free action - "don't move!", "stand down!", etc. - although long sentences, or complex arguments might need an additional action.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Published Subclasses
I have a houserule: you can use 6 words as a free action. This can be used at any time during any turn. It allows minor communication for tactics, and the brief exchanges one might make when taunting an opponent as they stick them with the pointy end.
Published Subclasses
I give them 2-3 sentences in general. "By order of the king we are here to sieze your chickens. Resistance is futile, any attempt to fight back will result in noodle lashings" that's about the time I'd tell them their action is done. Question>answer>resolution/question is another scenario, 3 sentences max. I play it this way as though everyone is in a held action state, as soon as the third sentence is finished I hit play again. It causes some really fun commotion with people who interrogate mid combat.
Damn King ... always taking my chickens ....
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.