If a character says something that is technically true, but intentionally omits key information to manipulate or mislead someone, does that count as a Deception check or a Persuasion check?
For example: A cleric says, "I have the authority to perform weddings," which is true. However, he has no actual intention of performing the ceremony — he's just trying to gain someone's trust or stall for time. Would this situation call for a Deception check, even though no direct lie was told?
I’m looking for interpretations that align with the spirit of the rules in the Player’s Handbook or any other official sources. Personal experiences are also welcome!
Deception. Deception covers all attempts to lie, cheat, mislead, or otherwise manipulate another character by misrepresenting the truth.
It is not Persuasion, as Persuasion covers all attempts to convince or manipulate another character using honest arguments.
For example: A cleric says, "I have the authority to perform weddings," which is true. However, he has no actual intention of performing the ceremony.
Maybe it's the missing context but that doesn't seem like an attempt to manipulate another creature, so I generally wouldn't require any check for it. If a character is just stating something to transmit information that doesn't need a check, a check is only required is the character is attempted to manipulate another creature, so if the cleric says: "I have the authority to perform weddings, why don't you come over here and we can talk about it." In order to distract / help the other party members slip by while they have no intention of performing the wedding that's Deception, if they are genuine in their offer then it would be Persuasion.
If a character says something that is technically true, but intentionally omits key information to manipulate or mislead someone, does that count as a Deception check
Yes
The skill used is based on the character's motives. If their intent is to mislead someone, it's a Deception check
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Also remember that these situations do not "require" a check at all. The DM calls for a check whenever the outcome is deemed to be uncertain. If the DM decides that a particular effort to deceive or persuade is always successful, then it's just an auto-success with no roll required. If he decides that the effort will always fail, then it's just an auto-fail with no roll required. A DM might also ask for such a check with advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation with respect to how likely the activity is to succeed.
The skill used is based on the character's motives. If their intent is to mislead someone, it's a Deception check
Nonsense. I'm a sales guy. I pick my arguments and *Persuade* customers .... all the time. I would *never* lie to them. But I'm also not about to tell them 'well, my product is cheaper, but life time cost of ownership is much higher because our financing totally screws you.' Just ... as an example, I'm not in that sort of business at all =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
We’re playing Out of the Abyss, and during a certain scene, our level 7 party encountered Zuggtmoy. Things escalated quickly — we accidentally burned her wedding dress with a Fireball, and in the process also killed the officiant who was supposed to conduct her wedding.
Zuggtmoy is furious. She already killed one of our companions.
Now, our Cleric of Tyr is trying to de-escalate the situation by speaking to her. He says something like:
“If it is your will, and the will of the groom, and all is done according to the rites, then it shall be consecrated.”
Zuggtmoy interprets this as: “This Cleric of Tyr will marry me.”
However, the cleric is only trying to buy time — he has no real intention of performing the ceremony. He’s using technically true words, but with the deliberate intent to mislead.
So, based on this added detail: would you still consider it Persuasion, or does it now clearly fall under Deception?
My opinion is some social skills have boarder areas where 2 or more skills can be used so I let the player decide in those places. in the case described in the latest post I'd let the player decide. Personally I think the game should just drop it down to one social skill anyways, 3 skills to skin the same cat seems overkill. They are all designed to do the same thing just with different routes.
My opinion is some social skills have boarder areas where 2 or more skills can be used so I let the player decide in those places. in the case described in the latest post I'd let the player decide. Personally I think the game should just drop it down to one social skill anyways, 3 skills to skin the same cat seems overkill. They are all designed to do the same thing just with different routes.
Except different approaches can reasonably be expected to produce different results depending on the situation: someone who's super scared of their boss is unlikely to go against the boss just because you ask really nicely and if they have explicit instructions you can't claim there's a reason they should do the exact opposite, but if you scare them more they could cave. The level 20 Paladin with a plate suit of Armor of Invulnerability is unlikely to be impressed by someone waving a weapon in their face or asking them to go against their Oath, but they could be tricked into thinking circumstances are different. And so on and so forth. Note that it takes a very narrow selection of starting picks for a single character to gain all three social skills at level 1- only Bards and Rogues can get all three skills as a class, and that eats into most if not all of your picks. Most other classes are only going to have one social if any, and it would take very specific background or race picks to fill in the gaps. And that's before you get into the part where I expect most players simply won't take all 3 when they're just designing a character because it would seem incongruous to have all of them in one character. They've very clearly made a deliberate choice to avoid making a single social skill in favor of tacitly encouraging players to operate in one or two of the three segments, and imo that's good game design simply because it helps avoid letting single player dominate in every social encounter the group encounters.
And that's before you get into the part where I expect most players simply won't take all 3 when they're just designing a character because it would seem incongruous to have all of them in one character.
I somewhat disagree there, most characters I see have the exact same modifier for Persuasion and Deception and many have proficiency in at least 3 CHA skills:
Bards - most have Expertise in Persuasion and Deception, many take proficiency in Intimidation or Performance as well. Sorcerers - most have proficiency in Persuasion and Deception, some also take proficiency in Intimidation Warlock - most have proficiency in Deception and Intimidation, many also take proficiency in Persuasion Paladins - most have proficiency in Persuasion, many also take proficiency in Deception or Intimidation Rogues - tend to take Deception only unless they are Swashbucklers then they take both Deception and Persuasion. Barbarians/Fighters - tend to take Intimidation only (if any), some Fighters also take Persuasion if they are the inspiring-speech commander types Clerics - sometimes take Persuasion only, unless they are Trickery Domain in which case they take Deception.
Everyone else tends to take none of them, unless they are in a party without a CHA-based party member. But CHA-classes are popular to most parties end up with a "face" character with high CHA and proficiency in both Persuasion and Deception.
Intimidation doesn't get used all that much in my circles at least because of awareness of the issues with torture in terms of getting accurate information. It's mostly used to convince enemies to surrender or flee rather than in social situations.
just because you ask really nicely
That's not what Persuasion is as a skill. Persuasion is your ability to frame the argument in a way that your target understands and agrees with your conclusion. In your examples, Persuasion would be convincing that Paladin that their Oath is in violation of their true values in this case or that their current actions do not actually uphold their Oath - e.g. persuading a Redemption Paladin that not killing the BBEG would result in greater suffering and/or that this BBEG is not redeemable, or persuading a Crown Paladin that the leader they follow is illegitimate and thus they are not duty bound to follow them. But using truthful arguments - e.g. your character might know the true heir to the throne is in hiding elsewhere, or that the BBEG plans to massacre an entire city out of spite.
Deception is using false or misleading arguments to trick an NPC to act against what they would do if they knew the truth. So it's lying to the Crown Paladin that the leader their follow is an imposter, or falsely telling the Redemption Paladin that the BBEG had a bunch of children prisoners they are about to sacrifice to and evil god.
Whereas Intimidation is threats truthful or otherwise, it is telling the Crown Paladin you will reveal their dirty little secret unless they help you, or threatening to burn down the home of the Redemption Paladin unless they help you.
For someone scared of their boss, you could certainly persuade them to help you if you convince them that you will protect them from that boss and give them a new and better life elsewhere, or you could deceive them into believing you also work for that boss and they should help you out, or you could intimidate them into believing you are ever worse than their boss and even worse things would happen to them if they don't help you than if their boss find out they betrayed them. TBH, Persuasion or Deception is generally easier to be successful on if the target is scared of their boss than Intimidation, as the choice between death now and death later doesn't make much difference to someone, but the choice between death at the hand of a vengenful boss and freedom from fear is a big difference.
However, the cleric is only trying to buy time — he has no real intention of performing the ceremony. He’s using technically true words, but with the deliberate intent to mislead.
How do you know this is the case? Are you the one playing the cleric? In situations such as this, generally only the player playing the cleric knows for sure what the character's motivations are so they should choose or suggest to the DM whether they are being sincere (Persuasion) or not (Deception).
Also why is Zuggmoy interpreting a statement of "if you doing it right, then you are still married" as "I will marry you here and now" ? Those are not the same statement at all. The first is saying "you can still be considered married even though we killed your priest" the second is promising to personally do something to make it so. The first could absolutely be Persuasion if the cleric honestly believes that - i.e. that sanctification by a priest is not necessary to be married in a spiritual sense - even if the cleric doesn't intend to do the marriage themselves.
Personally I think the game should just drop it down to one social skill anyways, 3 skills to skin the same cat seems overkill. They are all designed to do the same thing just with different routes.
I don't understand this at all
For one thing, the role play of the CHA skills is extremely different, and that matters
For another thing, the information you gain from Intimidation can be very different than what you gain from Deception or from Persuasion
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi everyone,
I have a question about roleplay and mechanics:
If a character says something that is technically true, but intentionally omits key information to manipulate or mislead someone, does that count as a Deception check or a Persuasion check?
For example: A cleric says, "I have the authority to perform weddings," which is true. However, he has no actual intention of performing the ceremony — he's just trying to gain someone's trust or stall for time. Would this situation call for a Deception check, even though no direct lie was told?
I’m looking for interpretations that align with the spirit of the rules in the Player’s Handbook or any other official sources. Personal experiences are also welcome!
Thanks in advance!
Deception. Deception covers all attempts to lie, cheat, mislead, or otherwise manipulate another character by misrepresenting the truth.
It is not Persuasion, as Persuasion covers all attempts to convince or manipulate another character using honest arguments.
Maybe it's the missing context but that doesn't seem like an attempt to manipulate another creature, so I generally wouldn't require any check for it. If a character is just stating something to transmit information that doesn't need a check, a check is only required is the character is attempted to manipulate another creature, so if the cleric says: "I have the authority to perform weddings, why don't you come over here and we can talk about it." In order to distract / help the other party members slip by while they have no intention of performing the wedding that's Deception, if they are genuine in their offer then it would be Persuasion.
Yes
The skill used is based on the character's motives. If their intent is to mislead someone, it's a Deception check
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes. And by the way, this is also true in real life ;)
Also remember that these situations do not "require" a check at all. The DM calls for a check whenever the outcome is deemed to be uncertain. If the DM decides that a particular effort to deceive or persuade is always successful, then it's just an auto-success with no roll required. If he decides that the effort will always fail, then it's just an auto-fail with no roll required. A DM might also ask for such a check with advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation with respect to how likely the activity is to succeed.
When omitting information, and the other side tries to insight check, I'd let the player roll deception vs. insight
Nonsense. I'm a sales guy. I pick my arguments and *Persuade* customers .... all the time. I would *never* lie to them. But I'm also not about to tell them 'well, my product is cheaper, but life time cost of ownership is much higher because our financing totally screws you.' Just ... as an example, I'm not in that sort of business at all =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Just to give more context:
We’re playing Out of the Abyss, and during a certain scene, our level 7 party encountered Zuggtmoy. Things escalated quickly — we accidentally burned her wedding dress with a Fireball, and in the process also killed the officiant who was supposed to conduct her wedding.
Zuggtmoy is furious. She already killed one of our companions.
Now, our Cleric of Tyr is trying to de-escalate the situation by speaking to her. He says something like:
Zuggtmoy interprets this as: “This Cleric of Tyr will marry me.”
However, the cleric is only trying to buy time — he has no real intention of performing the ceremony. He’s using technically true words, but with the deliberate intent to mislead.
So, based on this added detail: would you still consider it Persuasion, or does it now clearly fall under Deception?
My opinion is some social skills have boarder areas where 2 or more skills can be used so I let the player decide in those places. in the case described in the latest post I'd let the player decide. Personally I think the game should just drop it down to one social skill anyways, 3 skills to skin the same cat seems overkill. They are all designed to do the same thing just with different routes.
Except different approaches can reasonably be expected to produce different results depending on the situation: someone who's super scared of their boss is unlikely to go against the boss just because you ask really nicely and if they have explicit instructions you can't claim there's a reason they should do the exact opposite, but if you scare them more they could cave. The level 20 Paladin with a plate suit of Armor of Invulnerability is unlikely to be impressed by someone waving a weapon in their face or asking them to go against their Oath, but they could be tricked into thinking circumstances are different. And so on and so forth. Note that it takes a very narrow selection of starting picks for a single character to gain all three social skills at level 1- only Bards and Rogues can get all three skills as a class, and that eats into most if not all of your picks. Most other classes are only going to have one social if any, and it would take very specific background or race picks to fill in the gaps. And that's before you get into the part where I expect most players simply won't take all 3 when they're just designing a character because it would seem incongruous to have all of them in one character. They've very clearly made a deliberate choice to avoid making a single social skill in favor of tacitly encouraging players to operate in one or two of the three segments, and imo that's good game design simply because it helps avoid letting single player dominate in every social encounter the group encounters.
I somewhat disagree there, most characters I see have the exact same modifier for Persuasion and Deception and many have proficiency in at least 3 CHA skills:
Bards - most have Expertise in Persuasion and Deception, many take proficiency in Intimidation or Performance as well.
Sorcerers - most have proficiency in Persuasion and Deception, some also take proficiency in Intimidation
Warlock - most have proficiency in Deception and Intimidation, many also take proficiency in Persuasion
Paladins - most have proficiency in Persuasion, many also take proficiency in Deception or Intimidation
Rogues - tend to take Deception only unless they are Swashbucklers then they take both Deception and Persuasion.
Barbarians/Fighters - tend to take Intimidation only (if any), some Fighters also take Persuasion if they are the inspiring-speech commander types
Clerics - sometimes take Persuasion only, unless they are Trickery Domain in which case they take Deception.
Everyone else tends to take none of them, unless they are in a party without a CHA-based party member. But CHA-classes are popular to most parties end up with a "face" character with high CHA and proficiency in both Persuasion and Deception.
Intimidation doesn't get used all that much in my circles at least because of awareness of the issues with torture in terms of getting accurate information. It's mostly used to convince enemies to surrender or flee rather than in social situations.
That's not what Persuasion is as a skill. Persuasion is your ability to frame the argument in a way that your target understands and agrees with your conclusion. In your examples, Persuasion would be convincing that Paladin that their Oath is in violation of their true values in this case or that their current actions do not actually uphold their Oath - e.g. persuading a Redemption Paladin that not killing the BBEG would result in greater suffering and/or that this BBEG is not redeemable, or persuading a Crown Paladin that the leader they follow is illegitimate and thus they are not duty bound to follow them. But using truthful arguments - e.g. your character might know the true heir to the throne is in hiding elsewhere, or that the BBEG plans to massacre an entire city out of spite.
Deception is using false or misleading arguments to trick an NPC to act against what they would do if they knew the truth. So it's lying to the Crown Paladin that the leader their follow is an imposter, or falsely telling the Redemption Paladin that the BBEG had a bunch of children prisoners they are about to sacrifice to and evil god.
Whereas Intimidation is threats truthful or otherwise, it is telling the Crown Paladin you will reveal their dirty little secret unless they help you, or threatening to burn down the home of the Redemption Paladin unless they help you.
For someone scared of their boss, you could certainly persuade them to help you if you convince them that you will protect them from that boss and give them a new and better life elsewhere, or you could deceive them into believing you also work for that boss and they should help you out, or you could intimidate them into believing you are ever worse than their boss and even worse things would happen to them if they don't help you than if their boss find out they betrayed them. TBH, Persuasion or Deception is generally easier to be successful on if the target is scared of their boss than Intimidation, as the choice between death now and death later doesn't make much difference to someone, but the choice between death at the hand of a vengenful boss and freedom from fear is a big difference.
How do you know this is the case? Are you the one playing the cleric? In situations such as this, generally only the player playing the cleric knows for sure what the character's motivations are so they should choose or suggest to the DM whether they are being sincere (Persuasion) or not (Deception).
Also why is Zuggmoy interpreting a statement of "if you doing it right, then you are still married" as "I will marry you here and now" ? Those are not the same statement at all. The first is saying "you can still be considered married even though we killed your priest" the second is promising to personally do something to make it so. The first could absolutely be Persuasion if the cleric honestly believes that - i.e. that sanctification by a priest is not necessary to be married in a spiritual sense - even if the cleric doesn't intend to do the marriage themselves.
I don't understand this at all
For one thing, the role play of the CHA skills is extremely different, and that matters
For another thing, the information you gain from Intimidation can be very different than what you gain from Deception or from Persuasion
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)