Resist Persuasion

[HoodedHero007]

What skill/proficiencies would be used for a check to resist persuasion? Insight wouldn't work, that's for discovering motives and resisting deception, any ideas?

[Plaguescarred]

It's use Charisma (Persuasion) vs Charisma (Persuasion) or Wisdom (Insight)

[Coffee_Dragon]

Not everything has an associated skill and Persuasion isn't really set up to be a contested check, but a player check against an NPC's DC set by DM fiat based on a ton of context. But if you want to roll to see if an NPC "saves" against being persuaded, then depending on circumstances you might use Int (do they know the factual reasons not to do it?), Wis (do they grasp why it's not a good idea?) or Cha (are they strong-willed enough to resist temptation?).

[DivisibleByZero]

Insight is your best bet. It would tell you rant the individual were attempting to sway your judgement.
You could possibly use a Wis or Cha save with the DC equal to the persuasion roll.

Is important to remember that Persuasion is *not* a "charm this creature at will" skill.
Think of a friend that you have so always talks you into doing what s/he wants to do instead of what you wanted. He can't *force* you to do it, but he might *convince* you to do it if it's reasonable. There are plenty of things that no one would be able to convince you to do, ever.
Use persuasion in that manner.

[ad_hoc]

There is nothing to resist.

[Contrast]

I would probably use insight (justified as the ability to keep a clear head and see through someones charm to the real intent of their words). Its worth noting particularly if the reason you're asking is people trying to charm the PCs - a failed charm check doesn't necessarily mean someone doesn't believe you or is unconvinced, it could just mean they judge your words on their merit alone.

If you don't like that you could set the DC for the test as 8+Wis+Prof +/- depending on the difficulty of the charm. I haven't really thought through the implications of that - as I said, I'd just run it as opposed to insight. Has the added advantage that is stops your players meta gaming by automatically assuming they're being lied to every time they're asked to make an insight check.

[rollingForInit]

For an NPC, the DM sets a DC that the PC's roll against. This goes for both Persuasion and Intimidation. The DM could also rule the check to be impossible "give me this expensive item for free" if the NPC would never do that, and then a roll shouldn't be called.

For a PC, you roleplay, whether it's an NPC or another PC that's making the attempt. The player then just decides if their character is swayed or not. If everyone in the group really wants to roll for these situations, the player would set a DC for the persuasion attempt.

[Specter]

Yep, no need to resist it. Just set a DC based on the difficulty. Asking your mom to make you a meal is DC10, asking the orc warlord to be merciful to an elf is DC30.

[Ruslan]

There is nothing to resist. The DM sets the DC based on ingame circumstances.

Example: the gate is guarded by a guard, who was given the "greedy" trait by the DM. The PCs try to convince the guard to let them in, by bribing him with a few GPs. The DM sets the Persuasion DC to be Easy (DC 10). He may even have the check autosucceed.

Example 2: same guard, but the PCs instead are trying to appeal to his morals. Knowing the guard doesn't have any, the DM might set the DC to 15 or even 20, or may even have the check autofail.

[BRC]

I suppose you would "Resist Persuasion" in the context of a Negotiation, where both sides are trying to Persuade each other.

In such a case, both sides usually agree on the basic principle (You should give me money in exchange for this sword), it's the details they're arguing over (How much money).

[hellgrammite]

Remember that persuasion generally is not a conflict type of skill, like intimidation or deception. But DCs should be created on the fly (or planned ahead by the DM.) Failed persuasions will typically allow the other charisma skills to jump in.

Persuasion is basically just trying to lean somebody one direction vs another. Generally a DM should have a path the NPC will likely follow, and paths he might follow with associated DCs. Regarding PCs, its hard to roll DCs the NPCs have to meet to convince the PCs to take actions.

Exceptions are of course artifacts or spells. Compulsion from magical or extreme circumstances. Creature attacks will often take this into account, since they can suggest things to players or outright control them.

Example:

Your trying to convince somebody to open their shop in the dead of night. They are not excited by the idea, but your demeanor might be enough to sweeten them up (DC13 Persuasion). You Persuasion check fails, and the owner says he is going back to sleep. You then try and lie to him that the store is on fire (DC18 Deception.) You fail your deception check, and the owner is getting pissed on you and tells you to leave or there will be trouble. You then grab your sword and threaten the owner to open immediately (DC15/DC20 Intimidate), and your roll a successful Intimidate check (at least you think so.)

In the first one, you were opposed by the NPCs persuasion. The second check, his Insight. The third one is two checks. One against the deception check by the NPC (he is lying to you, he isnt that intimidated and will lead you into a trap to hurt you), vs the second check which is intimidate (you scared him so bad, he won't try to lie or attack you since your scarier then him, and does whatever you want.)

[Zevox]

Yeah, been said many times, but it bears echoing: you do not resist Persuasion. It is not an opposed roll. Its use is to determine how persuasive an NPC found a PC's (or perhaps in rare cases, another NPC's) argument to be - at least partially it substitutes for the fact that the player may not be able to create as strong of an argument or present it as well on the fly as a charismatic character should. You roll persuasion against whatever DC the DM thinks is appropriate, depending on the circumstances - or don't roll at all, if the DM thinks it's just impossible to persuade the NPC of whatever you're trying to argue.

Persuasion never gets used on PCs. What the PCs think is always for their player to decide, never the dice. (Barring mind-altering magic like Modify Memory, in any event, and even those have limits.) That's a very important thing to understand if you're new - I've had to deal with one DM trying to treat it otherwise, and it was not fun.

[rollingForInit]

I suppose you would "Resist Persuasion" in the context of a Negotiation, where both sides are trying to Persuade each other.

In such a case, both sides usually agree on the basic principle (You should give me money in exchange for this sword), it's the details they're arguing over (How much money).

This could also be handled by DC's. If the merchant NPC and the PC are negotiating the price of this diamond the PC wants to sell. The PC knows it's worth at least 100 gp, but would like 200. The NPC starts by offer 25. The DM could set DC's as such:

DC 20: 200gp
DC 15: 150gp
DC 10: 100gp
DC 5: 50g
<5: 25gp

That's easy enough. You could also do it with several rolls. If you use the above levels (25, 50,1 00, 150, 200), and the NPC starts at 25, maybe the first Persuasion roll has a DC of 5 (the PC says he wants 400). If the character beats it, the NPC offers 50. The PC can try to haggle some more (perhaps he goes down to 300) and if the PC beats a DC of 10, the NPC offers 100. The roll against 15 would take you to 150, and then finally the 20 to 200. Or something like that. If you fail one along the way, that's the level you end up at.

[Plaguescarred]

I suppose you would "Resist Persuasion" in the context of a Negotiation, where both sides are trying to Persuade each other.
When you resist persuasion, you only take half the bullsh!t

[Shaofoo]

Nothing says that Persuasion has to work. It can just fail depending on the circumstances.

Persuasion should be rolled when the initial argument by itself is considered, if the argument is too ridiculous to consider then it should fail unless you had something that you can use for leverage (and then it becomes "Because you owe me" instead of "this is a reasonable request"). Just because you are talking doesn't mean that the world has to obey what you say.

[MaxWilson]

If there is anything to resist, the other party must be using something than than Persuasion--perhaps it's really Deception? In which case, resist with Insight.

Persuasion works only when what they're trying to persuade you to do is genuinely in your best interest. Persuasion is for overcoming pigheadedness and irrational emotional objections like pride and not wanting to admit you're wrong, and not wanting to go against the majority opinion. In theory, a perfectly wise and rational being would never require anyone to make any Persuasion checks at all--he would just voluntarily attach himself to whatever belief or course of action is genuinely the best. Available evidence suggests that such wisdom is rare among human beings, hence the need for Persuasion and other forms of etiquette.

In theory, you could change someone's mind about an incorrect D&D ruling by tersely posting, "Everyone else is wrong. Check pg. XYZ of the PHB and cross-reference pg. 123." In practice, that counts as a low Persuasion roll which only changes the minds of exceptionally open-minded and self-critical DMs.

[Shaofoo]

If there is anything to resist, the other party must be using something than than Persuasion--perhaps it's really Deception? In which case, resist with Insight.

I wouldn't call it resisting but rather that something is not right. You are free to act on any information that is given to you and nothing will compel you to do anything outside of magic. If you think someone isn't telling the truth then you do an insight to see if something is up or not.



Persuasion works only when what they're trying to persuade you to do is genuinely in your best interest. Persuasion is for overcoming pigheadedness and irrational emotional objections like pride and not wanting to admit you're wrong, and not wanting to go against the majority opinion. In theory, a perfectly wise and rational being would never require anyone to make any Persuasion checks at all--he would just voluntarily attach himself to whatever belief or course of action is genuinely the best. Available evidence suggests that such wisdom is rare among human beings, hence the need for Persuasion and other forms of etiquette.

In theory, you could change someone's mind about an incorrect D&D ruling by tersely posting, "Everyone else is wrong. Check pg. XYZ of the PHB and cross-reference pg. 123." In practice, that counts as a low Persuasion roll which only changes the minds of exceptionally open-minded and self-critical DMs.

It depends, a perfectly wise being might act on his best interest or on the interest of someone else and even the wisest of beings might not know all the information available which can change their actions. Of course this is where Persuasion comes since you want to persuade someone to act differently due to certain circumstances but of course you must present your case hence the check.

[Contrast]

If there is anything to resist, the other party must be using something than than Persuasion--perhaps it's really Deception? In which case, resist with Insight.

Persuasion works only when what they're trying to persuade you to do is genuinely in your best interest. Persuasion is for overcoming pigheadedness and irrational emotional objections like pride and not wanting to admit you're wrong, and not wanting to go against the majority opinion. In theory, a perfectly wise and rational being would never require anyone to make any Persuasion checks at all--he would just voluntarily attach himself to whatever belief or course of action is genuinely the best. Available evidence suggests that such wisdom is rare among human beings, hence the need for Persuasion and other forms of etiquette.

In theory, you could change someone's mind about an incorrect D&D ruling by tersely posting, "Everyone else is wrong. Check pg. XYZ of the PHB and cross-reference pg. 123." In practice, that counts as a low Persuasion roll which only changes the minds of exceptionally open-minded and self-critical DMs.

I disagree with this - specifically the word 'genuinely'. Persuasion is the skill of earnestly convincing you something is in your interest (even when it might not be).

A car salesmen might persuade me I want extras on my car. He never lied to me or tried to be deceitful, he just convinced me I wanted things which I didn't originally think I wanted. Was that in my best interest? He made me think so temporarily with a charm check.

I'm haggling other the price of a piece of jewellery at a market stand. The vendor persuades me that it will make a nice gift and I agree to pay more for it than I otherwise would have. Was that in my best interest?

[Vogonjeltz]

What skill/proficiencies would be used for a check to resist persuasion? Insight wouldn't work, that's for discovering motives and resisting deception, any ideas?

Persuasion is against a set DC, per DMG 244-243 on Social Interaction.

DC is determined by the creatures current attitude and whatever is being asked.

For example, A friendly creature would simply do as asked assuming there are no risks or sacrifices required; An indifferent creature by default offers no help, but does no harm; and, A hostile creature by default opposes the adventurer's actions and might take risks to do so.

If you're asking about persuasion on the players, it doesn't work like that. This is a skill that is used on NPCs.

[Contrast]

Persuasion is against a set DC, per DMG 244-243 on Social Interaction.

DC is determined by the creatures current attitude and whatever is being asked.

For example, A friendly creature would simply do as asked assuming there are no risks or sacrifices required; An indifferent creature by default offers no help, but does no harm; and, A hostile creature by default opposes the adventurer's actions and might take risks to do so.

If you're asking about persuasion on the players, it doesn't work like that. This is a skill that is used on NPCs.

To everyone who has come back with this line of thought, I would point out that the rules as laid out for deceive are exactly the same as those for persuade.

To quote the description of the insight skill, it allows you to 'determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move' (emphasis mine). I would argue allowing you to see through someones fancy words to the core of their intent is exactly what insight is for and also exactly what resisting a persuade check would require.

So if you don't get a chance to roll a check to resist being persuaded, do you also tell your players they don't get an insight check against being lied to because you already determined the DC of the lie and the NPC passed their skill check?

If the argument is that persuade shouldn't be used against PCs, why do you get to use deceive?

I agree its difficult using these sort of abilities on players (and definately going light touch is the way to go) but sometimes its just one of those things where you have to hope the players aren't going to metagame.

Edit - to further clarify my above post as well its probably worth mentioning that to me saying something doesn't require a persuade check. You can say something and see how someone reacts. A persuade check is needed if you want to try and get the person to give more weight than they normally would to your point of view. Asking a town guard to chase a thief would not require a persuade check. Asking a town guard to chase a thief and return him to your custody rather than the town jail would. Now that said, a failed persuade check doesn't mean he won't do as you ask potentially - he'll still evaluate your request and he might ask for evidence of who you are and want you want rather than just trusting the big shiny heroes to solve the problem for him as he would have done if you'd passed the persuade check.

[Zevox]

If the argument is that persuade shouldn't be used against PCs, why do you get to use deceive?
If by that you mean why does the DM get to "use" it on PCs, that's the wrong way to think of it. More accurately, the PCs are given the opportunity to use their insight to get some idea of whether an NPC is trying to deceive them.

[Contrast]

If by that you mean why does the DM get to "use" it on PCs, that's the wrong way to think of it. More accurately, the PCs are given the opportunity to use their insight to get some idea of whether an NPC is trying to deceive them.

Cool. So in line with my above argument about what exactly persuade should and shouldn't be used for, should they not get an opportunity to see through someones personal eloquence to the underlying issues as well?

How would you run a merchant trying to sell a PC defective goods? Deceive check followed by insight, right?

How would you run a merchant trying to simply get a PC to pay more for an item generally with no deceit? Persuade check followed by...nothing?

The rules don't tell you to do the two interactions any differently at all. The only difference is that one of the specific examples given of what insight can do is discern liars.

Rules on social interactions are a bit of a minefield and I'm not suggesting this is how you should run all social encounters. A lot depends on the situation. I'm trying to point out its not quite as simple as saying you don't get a check to resist persuasion. Clearly the OP thought there was a need for such an option or they wouldn't be asking and I'm pointing out that the rules do support doing that if you want to.

Edit - I should probably also say the result of 'resisting' persuasion for the PCs aren't necessarily going to be massive. The difference is likely between the DM saying 'The messenger makes a compelling plea for you to come aid his town, beset by venegful bandits who have ravaged the town and left its citizens distraught' and 'The messenger makes a plea for you to come aid his town, beset by bandits' or the like.

[Shaofoo]

Cool. So in line with my above argument about what exactly persuade should and shouldn't be used for, should they not get an opportunity to see through someones personal eloquence to the underlying issues as well?
How would you run a merchant trying to sell a PC defective goods? Deceive check followed by insight, right?

The PCs need to do an Insight check against a set DC to notice the deception. Alternatively the PCs can ask to appraise the item in question if they don't trust the word of the merchant (regardless if they made their Insight check or not).


How would you run a merchant trying to simply get a PC to pay more for an item generally with no deceit? Persuade check followed by...nothing?

Persuasion roll and depending on the result is the discount/markup of the item in question. This is just haggling, of course the merchant would always want the PC to pay more. If there is a set price (because this item is in other places) and the merchant wants the PCs to pay more then there is no roll, either the PCs pay it or not (there can be some alternate motives to pay an extra markup, maybe the merchant has connections or the merchant can pull a sob story or something).

The Merchant should never use Persuasion, NPCs should never use social skill checks.

[CaptainSarathai]

How would you run a merchant trying to sell a PC defective goods? Deceive check followed by insight, right?

How would you run a merchant trying to simply get a PC to pay more for an item generally with no deceit? Persuade check followed by...nothing?
You don't roll persuasion in the second case. PC Rey walks up to NPC Junkman and offers to sell some goblin swords she pulled out of the dungeon.
Junkman: for this, 1 quarter portion!
The PC then decides if she likes that price or not. If the PC thinks that I (the DM) am low-balling that price, then she can make an Insight to gauge how much her items should actually sell for iow - is Junkman low-balling Rey, or is that a fair price.
On a success against whatever I set the DC at, she might know that the scrap iron from the swords is worth 1 Portion, and the Junkman is trying to cheat her.
Cue haggling.

If a character doesn't know what something should cost, I let them use a skill (ie: Arcana for scroll prices) or Insight to work out the cost. If they fail the roll, I usually give them the wrong price +/- what they missed the roll by as a multiplier. Sometimes its fun to tell a character that misses the roll that they're actually being offered a HUGE BARGAIN when they're actually be ripped off, or that an item is worth far less than it should be, so that they try to haggle for far too low a value.



Edit - I should probably also say the result of 'resisting' persuasion for the PCs aren't necessarily going to be massive. The difference is likely between the DM saying 'The messenger makes a compelling plea for you to come aid his town, beset by venegful bandits who have ravaged the town and left its citizens distraught' and 'The messenger makes a plea for you to come aid his town, beset by bandits' or the like.

I don't use Persuasion against PCs, it's a waste of time. A "compelling plea" is no more effective to the players than a "normal old plea" because I can't force them to respond to eother. Role>Roll Play, and all that.
If I want the party to listen to a messenger, I break out 'Tiny Tim, desperate orphan' or if I want to practically command them into doing it, I bust out the wounded-Elf-maiden.

[Contrast]

So you can never have NPCs in your games who are any more persuasive or intimidating than you're possible being? But deception gets a pass because reasons?

I think you're still missing my point here - a successul persuade check does not necessarily mean you have persuaded someone of something. It means they're going to interpret what you say in a favourable light - you of course have to rely on the PCs acting in character. In the same way a failed insight check does not mean I automatically believe what you're saying and a PC may still choose to be suspicious, there's just nothing they can put their finger on - you just have to rely on them acting in character and being reasonable about it.

I'm really not seeing what the difference between the two is.

[CaptainSarathai]

Because being able to roll Persuade against your players robs them of agency. It's a slippery slope towards DM railroading or accusations thereof.

I used to use "Passive Insight" when lying to players, so that I didn't have to tip them off that an NPC might be lying. After playing a horror campaign where I intentionally gas-lit the players as much as their characters, I realized what a jerk move that is. Players rely on you to provide them with all the detail they need to know about a world. They have no idea what their character actually does or does not know - so if you lie to them they have no way to fact check you.
Try this in your next session; have an NPC make an offhand comment,
"It's a beautiful day - the birds are chirping, the sun is shining, the sky is a wonderful shade of green..."
And watch how your players react. Their characters see the sky every day, probably saw the sky on their way into the shop, but the players will probably ask you to confirm that no, the sky is in fact NOT green. They rely on you, the DM, for 100% of their sensory information and knowledge of the world.

I have no qualms asking my players openly to roll Insight if someone is lying to them. They can also just ask to check on their own. I use Insight like a limited Sense Motive check, you're never really sure if it worked or not, but it helps. I see it as reading body language or "tells" that a person is being deceitful. Now, obviously the players know that they're probably being duped in some way, but not how, and they know that their characters must continue unaware. This way though, there's no confusion when I say that they arrive at the cave and find a vicious Hydra, when they expected a lavish villa full of Chardonnay and sodomy.

If they pass the check, I tell them, "you know he is lying" and then ask them to roll the associated skill, if any. Remember - Insight is just looking for "tells," a skill that a player likely doesn't have. Pass the skill check for Knowledge Religion, and they might know that the Nunnery to Saint Brassiere was built to the North, not East as the man says. But even if they don't know what the lie entailed, they can now proceed cautiously without metagaming.

So in short: using Persuasion on your PCs is useless or railroading, and I don't like to my players without tipping them off and giving their characters a chance to know too.

[Zevox]

Cool. So in line with my above argument about what exactly persuade should and shouldn't be used for, should they not get an opportunity to see through someones personal eloquence to the underlying issues as well?
You don't "see through personal eloquence." If there's anything to "see through," it's a Deception. If there's no deception involved, there's no reason to involve rolling - the players just decide how they react to the argument being made.


How would you run a merchant trying to simply get a PC to pay more for an item generally with no deceit? Persuade check followed by...nothing?
How would he be doing that without deceit? Openly saying "Hey, this is only worth 15 gp, but I want you to pay me 20 anyway?" Seems silly, but if for some resson that is the case, I wouldn't roll anything - the players would just decide what to do. It would be ridiculous to roll a Persuasion check for the Merchant, even opposed by whatever from the PCs, and tell them if they fail that they have to take the bad deal.

If the Merchant were withholding info on the true value of the item, which is far more likely, then that could be resolved by Deception v Insight to see if the PCs pick up that the guy is trying to pull something shady, or by the PCs getting a Knowledge check of some kind to see if they know the true value of the item themselves.

[Zevox]

So you can never have NPCs in your games who are any more persuasive or intimidating than you're possible being? But deception gets a pass because reasons?

I think you're still missing my point here - a successul persuade check does not necessarily mean you have persuaded someone of something. It means they're going to interpret what you say in a favourable light - you of course have to rely on the PCs acting in character. In the same way a failed insight check does not mean I automatically believe what you're saying and a PC may still choose to be suspicious, there's just nothing they can put their finger on - you just have to rely on them acting in character and being reasonable about it.

I'm really not seeing what the difference between the two is.
Deception is different because a successful Insight check gives the players additional information - whether or not they can tell if the other person is being honest. What they do with that information is still up to them. With Persuasion you're asking them to change how their character behaves towards an NPC based on the result of a dice roll, which is very different and very bad, likely to lead to player frustration even if you're just saying "treat this guy more favorably than you normally would" rather than "you're totally taken in by his smooth talk and have to take the bad deal."

(Sorry for the double post, on my phone, copy & paste aren't working to edit this into my last post.)

[Shaofoo]

So you can never have NPCs in your games who are any more persuasive or intimidating than you're possible being? But deception gets a pass because reasons?

You set the baseline as to how persuasive or intimidating the NPCs can be. At this point it is up to the players to either play along or not. Deception is different because you can grant additional information (and even then the NPCs don't roll deception but rather you roll Insight to beat a DC set by you to see the ruse).


I think you're still missing my point here - a successul persuade check does not necessarily mean you have persuaded someone of something. It means they're going to interpret what you say in a favourable light - you of course have to rely on the PCs acting in character. In the same way a failed insight check does not mean I automatically believe what you're saying and a PC may still choose to be suspicious, there's just nothing they can put their finger on - you just have to rely on them acting in character and being reasonable about it.

I'm really not seeing what the difference between the two is.

Actually a successful persuasion check should mean that they do what you want them to do or at the very least there be some compromise. If they still won't do it then it is a waste of a roll, you might as well say that such a request is just plain unreasonable no matter how you cut it.

[BRC]

You don't "see through personal eloquence." If there's anything to "see through," it's a Deception. If there's no deception involved, there's no reason to involve rolling - the players just decide how they react to the argument being made.


How would he be doing that without deceit? Openly saying "Hey, this is only worth 15 gp, but I want you to pay me 20 anyway?" Seems silly, but if for some resson that is the case, I wouldn't roll anything - the players would just decide what to do. It would be ridiculous to roll a Persuasion check for the Merchant, even opposed by whatever from the PCs, and tell them if they fail that they have to take the bad deal.

If the Merchant were withholding info on the true value of the item, which is far more likely, then that could be resolved by Deception v Insight to see if the PCs pick up that the guy is trying to pull something shady, or by the PCs getting a Knowledge check of some kind to see if they know the true value of the item themselves.
With the case of the merchant, I would use the opposed persuasion checks to abstract out the negotiation.
"You spend ten minutes haggling over the price, the end result is determined by the opposed Persuasion check", rather than spending ten minutes in-character haggling over a horse that isn't actually there.
How I would do it is an opposed persuasion check, which results in a final price. After that, the PC can decide to pay that price, or walk away from the sale, but all haggling has been done.

I do agree that a Persuasion check shouldn't be used to dictate the PC's behavior. If a lengthy conversation has been abstracted, rather than roleplayed out, I could see a DM rolling persuasion to determine how to describe the NPC's argument? But that's kind of a stretch.

[Zevox]

With the case of the merchant, I would use the opposed persuasion checks to abstract out the negotiation.
"You spend ten minutes haggling over the price, the end result is determined by the opposed Persuasion check", rather than spending ten minutes in-character haggling over a horse that isn't actually there.
How I would do it is an opposed persuasion check, which results in a final price. After that, the PC can decide to pay that price, or walk away from the sale, but all haggling has been done.

I do agree that a Persuasion check shouldn't be used to dictate the PC's behavior. If a lengthy conversation has been abstracted, rather than roleplayed out, I could see a DM rolling persuasion to determine how to describe the NPC's argument? But that's kind of a stretch.
That makes considerably more sense and sounds fine to me.

[Contrast]

Because being able to roll Persuade against your players robs them of agency. It's a slippery slope towards DM railroading or accusations thereof.

...

So in short: using Persuasion on your PCs is useless or railroading, and I don't like to my players without tipping them off and giving their characters a chance to know too.

This is important so I'll try and be very clear here. A successful persuasion check does not force a PC (or an NPC for that matter) to do anything. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, nor am I suggesting anyone says 'Sorry, your character isn't allowed to do that HE USED PERSUADE ON YOU'. What I am saying is that persuade is a skill in the game used to represent how persuasive someone is being - the player gets to choose what to do with that information. You can pass that information on to the players in ways which don't bludgeon them into submission.


You don't "see through personal eloquence." If there's anything to "see through," it's a Deception. If there's no deception involved, there's no reason to involve rolling - the players just decide how they react to the argument being made.


How would he be doing that without deceit? Openly saying "Hey, this is only worth 15 gp, but I want you to pay me 20 anyway?" Seems silly, but if for some resson that is the case, I wouldn't roll anything - the players would just decide what to do. It would be ridiculous to roll a Persuasion check for the Merchant, even opposed by whatever from the PCs, and tell them if they fail that they have to take the bad deal.

If the Merchant were withholding info on the true value of the item, which is far more likely, then that could be resolved by Deception v Insight to see if the PCs pick up that the guy is trying to pull something shady, or by the PCs getting a Knowledge check of some kind to see if they know the true value of the item themselves.

How about 'You want to buy a sword eh? You know I have a line of swords for loyal customers such as yourself which come with a gilded scabbard. I'm sure it'll impress the ladies when you stroll through town. How about 20 gold for the lot?'. I did specifically say that you shouldn't be running all (or indeed most) social encounters like this - the example was an example to show what I meant so lets not dig too deep into that.

With regard to 'seeing through the eloquence'. Persuasion is a skill in 5E. You can be better at it and worse at it. Can I ask what exactly you think the skill represents if not the wit and eloquence to see what will be most convincing to someone and make the point/argument in a way that will be convincing and compelling to them? I'm working on the assumption that its not a magical force of personality indictor whereby two people say the exact same thing but only one of them is persuasive because they happened to roll higher. When someone rolls a high persuade check they have made their point well in some way when compared to someone rolling a low persuade check has made their point poorly. I'm not necessarily saying everyone with a high persaude score has a silver tongue - the point is just that they know how to motivate people.

To put it another way, imagine the PCs are watching two people debating an issue. One of them has a much higher persuade score than the other. He makes a well reasoned and compelling argument for why chedder is the best cheese. The other has a much lower persuade score and makes a poorly worded and unconvincing argument about why stilton is the best cheese.

The players are then asked what the best cheese is. They are not compelled to answer chedder no matter how high the roll on the persuasion check and how low the other guy rolled - stilton might just be their favourite cheese or maybe they prefer edam. They may have been swayed in character, they may not - they can say whatever the hell they like. Now they're asked who the winner of the debate was. Sans a persuasion check to give them an idea of who made the better argument, what do your players answer? My argument is that sometimes a DM can't adequately express how charming or convincing someone is and persuade is explicity already there in the game to help you manage precisely that issue.

Another example would be many successful politicians being powerful and compelling public speakers (i.e. have a high persuasion score). That doesn't mean listening to them somehow forces you to change your political beliefs. But it would be useful to be able to convey to the players how convincingly an argument is being made.

Now if being persuasive is a skill which can be learned and got better at, it stands to reason that there is also an ability to see through the persuasion attempt (Why didn't you mention the cost of cheddar? Could it be there's a high import tax on cheddar in this country? Why if I'm only getting half as much cheddar as stilton, stilton is clearly superior!). If persuasion is the skill to get people to give your words more weight than they otherwise would, it makes sense for there to be some sort of ability in keeping a level head while someone is trying to convince you and not get bamboozled by their personal charisma.

I'm going to reiterate a couple of points I've made in this thread so please interpret the above with the following in mind:

Persuasion doesn't ever force anyone to do anything
You probably shouldn't be using skill checks for the vast majority of social interactions - where you do use skill checks (particularly on players) they should be light touch and to emphasise tone rather than force a resolution

[Coffee_Dragon]

A successful persuasion check does not force a PC (or an NPC for that matter) to do anything.

It would be more correct to say the DM is not obligated to let PCs roll Persuasion in any given case. If the DM tells a PC to roll Persuasion against DC 20, and the PC passes, and the DM says the NPC ignores them anyway, they're a jerk DM.

[Contrast]

It would be more correct to say the DM is not obligated to let PCs roll Persuasion in any given case. If the DM tells a PC to roll Persuasion against DC 20, and the PC passes, and the DM says the NPC ignores them anyway, they're a jerk DM.

Yes and no. I'll run through an example to show what I mean.

Player (to guard): Abandon your post and come with us! (DC: Infinity)
DM: He's not doing that.
Player: :smallannoyed:

Player (to guard): Abandon your post and come with us! (DC: Infinity)
DM (guard will not abadon post but will come with them if he can call over a replacement first, DC15. DC10 means he will ask them to explain themselves before he does anything): Ok roll persuade.
Player: I rolled an 18.
DM(guard): I'll come with you but I need to whistle for someone to cover first *whistles*

Sometimes there's no point rolling if they won't do it, but sometimes there is a point rolling even when they won't do it - just because you're not getting what you're asking for doesn't mean you're getting nothing.

[Ruslan]

Sometimes multiple Persuasion checks are needed. In the guard example above, if all the PCs say is "leave your post and come with us", they may need to make a check just to get the guard respond "what's it worth to you?" or "why would I want to leave my post?" (failure: he just ignores them. success: he doesn't leave his post, but gives them a hook for further development).

[Zevox]

This is important so I'll try and be very clear here. A successful persuasion check does not force a PC (or an NPC for that matter) to do anything. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, nor am I suggesting anyone says 'Sorry, your character isn't allowed to do that HE USED PERSUADE ON YOU'.
In that case, why use it? Trying to persuade someone, by definition, is trying to influence their thinking, decision-making, or actions in some way. If the roll isn't going to do that, then there's no reason to involve the dice at all. Which is precisely what I mean when I say that persuasion should never be used against the PCs.

If you don't disagree with that, then we have no fundamental disagreement here, because that is what I meant by the remark that started this whole line of conversation, and I'm pretty darn confident it's what the OP meant by his question, since that's the only context in which a roll to "resist" persuasion makes any sense.


How about 'You want to buy a sword eh? You know I have a line of swords for loyal customers such as yourself which come with a gilded scabbard. I'm sure it'll impress the ladies when you stroll through town. How about 20 gold for the lot?'. I did specifically say that you shouldn't be running all (or indeed most) social encounters like this - the example was an example to show what I meant so lets not dig too deep into that.
Would pretty much be as I responded before. If that's a fair asking price for the sword and gilded scabbard combo, I wouldn't involve the dice at all; if it's the merchant trying to overcharge them and pretend it's a good deal, either Deception v Insight or an intelligence check of some kind to see if the PC knows the real value of the items would be appropriate, but I certainly wouldn't involve the Persuasion skill.


With regard to 'seeing through the eloquence'. Persuasion is a skill in 5E. You can be better at it and worse at it. Can I ask what exactly you think the skill represents if not the wit and eloquence to see what will be most convincing to someone and make the point/argument in a way that will be convincing and compelling to them? I'm working on the assumption that its not a magical force of personality indictor whereby two people say the exact same thing but only one of them is persuasive because they happened to roll higher. When someone rolls a high persuade check they have made their point well in some way when compared to someone rolling a low persuade check has made their point poorly. I'm not necessarily saying everyone with a high persaude score has a silver tongue - the point is just that they know how to motivate people.
Sure, we don't disagree on what it represents there. But those are not things that you "resist" or "see through," it's merely the quality of how the person presents their argument. Coming from an NPC it can be conveyed either through direct roleplaying or, if the DM isn't confident he can act out how eloquent a speaker the person is, through third-person narration about how well the person presented their argument. In any case, dice aren't necessary unless there will be actual consequences to the roll - describing this sort of thing with words would always be preferable to rolling a number that doesn't actually affect anything and saying "wow, look how high his skill check was," which seems to be the only other thing you'd do with this if it was being directed at a PC but wasn't going to require them to change their behavior based on the result.


To put it another way, imagine the PCs are watching two people debating an issue. One of them has a much higher persuade score than the other. He makes a well reasoned and compelling argument for why chedder is the best cheese. The other has a much lower persuade score and makes a poorly worded and unconvincing argument about why stilton is the best cheese.

The players are then asked what the best cheese is. They are not compelled to answer chedder no matter how high the roll on the persuasion check and how low the other guy rolled - stilton might just be their favourite cheese or maybe they prefer edam. They may have been swayed in character, they may not - they can say whatever the hell they like. Now they're asked who the winner of the debate was. Sans a persuasion check to give them an idea of who made the better argument, what do your players answer? My argument is that sometimes a DM can't adequately express how charming or convincing someone is and persuade is explicity already there in the game to help you manage precisely that issue.
I don't know why players would ever be asked to judge a debate in a game of D&D, but eh, I guess there's always fringe cases where anything could happen. In such an instance I'd think opposed persuasion rolls between the two arguing NPCs makes sense, assuming there's any uncertainty as to which NPC would be more persuasive (otherwise the DM can just tell the players which one was clearly better at making his case), but that's still a far cry from "using persuasion on the PCs," and seems like an awfully fringe-case use of the skill.

[Finlam]

There is nothing to resist.

I'm not very persuaded by that.

[Contrast]

I don't know if the judging debate argument is likely to happen - I was just trying to come up with an example you couldn't possibly handwave away saying 'well thats deceive' (surely almost all persuade checks involve some degree of 'deceit' in choosing a particularly positive way of saying something or excluding particular information otherwise no-one would be better at persuading than anyone else) or saying it was a trivial issue which should be dealt with by talking (as you seem keen to do with the merchant example, see the bullet points in my previous post re how often you should be using skill checks).

I'm at a bit of a loss to be honest. You seem to have agreed the principle that using persuade and it having an effect on the PCs can be a thing (I'm not sure what the difference between two NPCs having an opposed persuade check is in your mind given the target audience in the example is the PCs) while insisting you haven't.


Sure, we don't disagree on what it represents there. But those are not things that you "resist" or "see through," it's merely the quality of how the person presents their argument. Coming from an NPC it can be conveyed either through direct roleplaying or, if the DM isn't confident he can act out how eloquent a speaker the person is, through third-person narration about how well the person presented their argument. In any case, dice aren't necessary unless there will be actual consequences to the roll - describing this sort of thing with words would always be preferable to rolling a number that doesn't actually affect anything and saying "wow, look how high his skill check was," which seems to be the only other thing you'd do with this if it was being directed at a PC but wasn't going to require them to change their behavior based on the result.

I'm particularly confused by this bit. I mean you could do that. You will probably do it often (per bullet points). You could also convey if an enemy hits the PCs by describing him hitting or missing, no need to involve dice, eh? Or you, as the DM, could use the actual rules of the game to try and figure out if that NPC is going to succeed in his persuasive flair today or if he's having an off day (still keeping in mind the bullet points) and then roleplay them accordingly. Hopefully this clarifies the why you might want to use persuade even though you can't actually force the PCs to be compelled by it?

I've tried to be as clear as possible about the persuasion not forcing things - I don't think I can really explain my viewpoint on this any further without repeating myself other than pointing you back to the examples of a politician being an effective public speaker while not actually changing your mind on anything and the example I outlined above.


I'm pretty darn confident it's what the OP meant by his question, since that's the only context in which a roll to "resist" persuasion makes any sense.

I don't really get why everyone not being equally guillable is so controversial :smallconfused: There are many situations in which you may be making a concerted effort not to be persuaded of something much as you may sometimes make a concerted effort to discern if someone is telling you the truth (say your merchant friend keeps on being all friendly and convincing you to buy extra fancy gear and its starting to hurt your wallet so you resolve to not let him convince you next time...only to leave the shop shaking your head ruefully with your new circlet of gleaming perched on your head, darn it!).

Edit -


Sometimes multiple Persuasion checks are needed. In the guard example above, if all the PCs say is "leave your post and come with us", they may need to make a check just to get the guard respond "what's it worth to you?" or "why would I want to leave my post?" (failure: he just ignores them. success: he doesn't leave his post, but gives them a hook for further development).

That works too. Personally I'd try to avoid rolling the same test multiple times just for the sake of it unless a new tack is being tried (and obviously the last thing you want is conversational bingo where he refuses to co-operate until they ask him to do a specific thing he will do :smalltongue:).

[Vogonjeltz]

To everyone who has come back with this line of thought, I would point out that the rules as laid out for deceive are exactly the same as those for persuade.

Citations? The rules for deception allow an opposed insight check to see through the deception, the rules for persuasion do not because persuasion is not a deceit.


To quote the description of the insight skill, it allows you to 'determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move' (emphasis mine). I would argue allowing you to see through someones fancy words to the core of their intent is exactly what insight is for and also exactly what resisting a persuade check would require.

The second phrase is in regard to feinting.


So if you don't get a chance to roll a check to resist being persuaded, do you also tell your players they don't get an insight check against being lied to because you already determined the DC of the lie and the NPC passed their skill check?

Persuasion is not something used on PCs, it is up to the players to determine if they are swayed by an argument.


If the argument is that persuade shouldn't be used against PCs, why do you get to use deceive?

Because the players don't know if the DM is presenting them with a lie or not, but they can easily determine if they find the argument persuasive.


I agree its difficult using these sort of abilities on players (and definately going light touch is the way to go) but sometimes its just one of those things where you have to hope the players aren't going to metagame.

Edit - to further clarify my above post as well its probably worth mentioning that to me saying something doesn't require a persuade check. You can say something and see how someone reacts. A persuade check is needed if you want to try and get the person to give more weight than they normally would to your point of view. Asking a town guard to chase a thief would not require a persuade check. Asking a town guard to chase a thief and return him to your custody rather than the town jail would. Now that said, a failed persuade check doesn't mean he won't do as you ask potentially - he'll still evaluate your request and he might ask for evidence of who you are and want you want rather than just trusting the big shiny heroes to solve the problem for him as he would have done if you'd passed the persuade check.

That's not how persuasion functions, as demonstrated by the rules provided earlier.


Cool. So in line with my above argument about what exactly persuade should and shouldn't be used for, should they not get an opportunity to see through someones personal eloquence to the underlying issues as well?

That's not what persuasion is. There's no attempt to deceive about ones intentions there, the desired outcome is being stated, it's just how convincing they are at making the ask.


How would you run a merchant trying to sell a PC defective goods? Deceive check followed by insight, right?

Only if the merchant lies. I might allow a PC to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the goods are defective or if they were proficient in the tools required to make the item and inspected the merchandise for quality.


How would you run a merchant trying to simply get a PC to pay more for an item generally with no deceit? Persuade check followed by...nothing?

No, I'd have the merchant offer the goods for whatever price they wanted then if the players wanted to haggle it would be the players who attempted a persuasion check on the NPC.


The rules don't tell you to do the two interactions any differently at all. The only difference is that one of the specific examples given of what insight can do is discern liars.

Rules on social interactions are a bit of a minefield and I'm not suggesting this is how you should run all social encounters. A lot depends on the situation. I'm trying to point out its not quite as simple as saying you don't get a check to resist persuasion. Clearly the OP thought there was a need for such an option or they wouldn't be asking and I'm pointing out that the rules do support doing that if you want to.

Edit - I should probably also say the result of 'resisting' persuasion for the PCs aren't necessarily going to be massive. The difference is likely between the DM saying 'The messenger makes a compelling plea for you to come aid his town, beset by venegful bandits who have ravaged the town and left its citizens distraught' and 'The messenger makes a plea for you to come aid his town, beset by bandits' or the like.

In point of fact, the rules do treat persuasion and deception entirely differently.


So you can never have NPCs in your games who are any more persuasive or intimidating than you're possible being? But deception gets a pass because reasons?

I think you're still missing my point here - a successul persuade check does not necessarily mean you have persuaded someone of something. It means they're going to interpret what you say in a favourable light - you of course have to rely on the PCs acting in character. In the same way a failed insight check does not mean I automatically believe what you're saying and a PC may still choose to be suspicious, there's just nothing they can put their finger on - you just have to rely on them acting in character and being reasonable about it.

I'm really not seeing what the difference between the two is.

A) yes we can, but it's a question of the NPCs and PCs being in competition to persuade a 3rd party.

B) persuasion is a mechanical effect in that it gets NPCs to behave towards the PCs in a particular way or act on their behalf.

[Contrast]

Citations? The rules for deception allow an opposed insight check to see through the deception, the rules for persuasion do not because persuasion is not a deceit.

They don't as far as I can see. There are rules for making a deception check (as there are for making a persuasion check). Nothing in there says you get an insight roll. However it does specify in the insight rules that they can be used for 'determining the true intentions of a creature'. The crux of my argument is that this extends beyond simply telling if someone is being dishonest or not.

I'm happy to recant this if you can point me to a page number.


The second phrase is in regard to feinting.

I know. I was just trying to point out that insight can be used for more things than just telling if someone if lying. The text I highlighted was the 'such as' implying the two examples given are not an exhaustive list.


Persuasion is not something used on PCs, it is up to the players to determine if they are swayed by an argument.

Disagree with the first, agree with the second (as I feel I've really been at pains to point out :smalltongue:).


Because the players don't know if the DM is presenting them with a lie or not, but they can easily determine if they find the argument persuasive.

Can they? If you don't tell them? How are you deciding what to tell them? (edit - 'tell them' referring to telling them how convincingly the argument was made, not telling them how they respond - see bullet points)


That's not how persuasion functions, as demonstrated by the rules provided earlier.

That's not what persuasion is. There's no attempt to deceive about ones intentions there, the desired outcome is being stated, it's just how convincing they are at making the ask.

Per my earlier point in a previous post - if a high or low persuade roll isn't having an impact on whats actually being said, what are you imagining the skill as doing?


Only if the merchant lies. I might allow a PC to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the goods are defective or if they were proficient in the tools required to make the item and inspected the merchandise for quality.

*facepalm* Could we assume in my hypothetical example specifically about a deceive check that the person is lying and the equipment is otherwise unavailable for perusal. I'm trying not to get bogged down in the minutiae of these examples and just frame them as thought experiments ok?


No, I'd have the merchant offer the goods for whatever price they wanted then if the players wanted to haggle it would be the players who attempted a persuasion check on the NPC.

Cool. See my bullet points - I'm not suggesting you do this all the time, its just a hypothetical example.



In point of fact, the rules do treat persuasion and deception entirely differently.

Show me where and you'll have simplified this discussion immensely.



A) yes we can, but it's a question of the NPCs and PCs being in competition to persuade a 3rd party.

...so its impossible for a PC to tell if an NPC is persuasive unless another NPC happens to be walking past. I do understand where you're coming from generally (big fat no on the telling PCs what their characters think gotcha, see my bullet points I'm on board) but seriously, what?



B) persuasion is a mechanical effect in that it gets NPCs to behave towards the PCs in a particular way or act on their behalf.

That is the issue we are disputing yes.

Spoilered due to the big ole wall of response text.

[Zevox]

I'm at a bit of a loss to be honest. You seem to have agreed the principle that using persuade and it having an effect on the PCs can be a thing (I'm not sure what the difference between two NPCs having an opposed persuade check is in your mind given the target audience in the example is the PCs) while insisting you haven't.
I don't see the example of the debating NPCs as using a persuade check on the PCs and having it effect them at all. There the opposed roll is just to quantify which was the better better debater for the sake of the PCs judging it. Honestly though, I could see a DM who was confident in his ability to RP it just playing out the debate and letting the players decide which they thought was more persuasive, no dice involved - though it may be difficult to keep it from being awkward for the DM to just talk to himself for an extended period of time, or dull for the players to just listen while he does so, which would also be good reasons to involve a game mechanic to abstract and quantify it instead.


I'm particularly confused by this bit. I mean you could do that. You will probably do it often (per bullet points). You could also convey if an enemy hits the PCs by describing him hitting or missing, no need to involve dice, eh?
Dice being used in combat is completely different. There is a need to have something mechanical resolve whether something works on not in battle - there is no need to have something mechanical decide what a PC thinks. That's what the player is for.

That's what it comes down to, really. Persuasion is a mechanic that is tied to trying to influence peoples' thoughts and actions - but the PCs thoughts and actions are always for the players to decide, not a game mechanic. The only exception is when mind-affecting magic is involved, but obviously the Persuasion skill is not mind-affecting magic. That's why I say you only use it on NPCs, not PCs.


Or you, as the DM, could use the rules of the game to try and figure out if that NPC is going to suceed in his persuasive flair today or if he's having an off day (still keeping in mind the bullet points) and then roleplay them accordingly. Hopefully this clarifies the why you might want to use persuade even though you can't actually force the PCs to be compelled by it?
So, you would leave it up to a dice roll whether a particular character was actually a decent public speaker on any given occasion, regardless of their character traits and circumstances? I guess you could do that, if it tickles your fancy for some reason, but it seems entirely pointless to me. Again, if there's no consequences to it, I see no reason to involve the dice - better to just have the DM decide that this NPC is a good public speaker, therefore he's speaking convincingly, or that he's upset and distracted by something today and therefore not doing so well, or whatever might be the case.


I don't really get why everyone not being equally guillable is so controversial :smallconfused:
It's not. But you don't use a game mechanic to decide how gullible a PC is - that's for the character's player to decide. Which even you admit, since you keep saying that no persuade roll will ever force a player to act a certain way.

[Contrast]

I don't see the example of the debating NPCs as using a persuade check on the PCs and having it effect them at all. There the opposed roll is just to quantify which was the better better debater for the sake of the PCs judging it. Honestly though, I could see a DM who was confident in his ability to RP it just playing out the debate and letting the players decide which they thought was more persuasive, no dice involved - though it may be difficult to keep it from being awkward for the DM to just talk to himself for an extended period of time, or dull for the players to just listen while he does so, which would also be good reasons to involve a game mechanic to abstract and quantify it instead.

So...you agree with me then? (edit - except for some reason the bit whereby the PCs being able to tell which NPC is more persuasive is somehow not an NPC using persuade but whatever I'll take it)


So, you would leave it up to a dice roll whether a particular character was actually a decent public speaker on any given occasion, regardless of their character traits and circumstances? I guess you could do that, if it tickles your fancy for some reason, but it seems entirely pointless to me. Again, if there's no consequences to it, I see no reason to involve the dice - better to just have the DM decide that this NPC is a good public speaker, therefore he's speaking convincingly, or that he's upset and distracted by something today and therefore not doing so well, or whatever might be the case.

I feel like the bullet points were a waste of time. Maybe I should just put it in my sig or something :smalleek: I agree, the vast majority of the time you will handle social interactions without even glancing in the direction of the dice (for both player and DM). What I am trying to get across is that if, for whatever reason, you did wish to use the dice - there is a system there and it can be used perfectly functionally in the direction of PCs as well (provided you follow the golden rule of not forcing the result on the PCs with the power of DM fiat).


It's not. But you don't use a game mechanic to decide how gullible a PC is - that's for the character's player to decide. Which even you admit, since you keep saying that no persuade roll will ever force a player to act a certain way.

See my bullet poi This was a thread where the OP specifically asked for advice on how to mechanically represent guillibil You know what, nevermind - suffice to say my answer is the same as the above :smalltongue:

[Zevox]

So...you agree with me then? (edit - except for some reason the bit whereby the PCs being able to tell which NPC is more persuasive is somehow not an NPC using persuade but whatever I'll take it)



I feel like the bullet points were a waste of time. Maybe I should just put it in my sig or something :smalleek: I agree, the vast majority of the time you will handle social interactions without even glancing in the direction of the dice (for both player and DM). What I am trying to get across is that if, for whatever reason, you did wish to use the dice - there is a system there and it can be used perfectly functionally in the direction of PCs as well (provided you follow the golden rule of not forcing the result on the PCs with the power of DM fiat).



See my bullet poi This was a thread where the OP specifically asked for advice on how to mechanically represent guillibil You know what, nevermind - suffice to say my answer is the same as the above :smalltongue:
I know your bullet points perfectly well and am keeping them in mind. They just don't change anything about my point - however commonly or rarely you chose to do it, I see no purpose to rolling a Persuasion check if it won't have actual consequences, i.e. influence the person it's trying to influence. But when that person is a PC, it cannot be allowed to do that, because the players determine what they think, not game mechanics, and allowing the reverse crosses into dangerous territory. And yes, I know that we agree on that, I'm just trying to highlight that it is the heart of my argument and that I feel the rest of it follows logically from that central point.

You could roll it anyway with no intention of having the result actually influence the PCs it's supposedly targeted if you chose, sure, I just think it would just be kind of a waste of time. It's essentially rolling a skill check only to do absolutely nothing with it, which really isn't meaningfully different from not rolling it at all.

Edit:

What I am trying to get across is that if, for whatever reason, you did wish to use the dice - there is a system there and it can be used perfectly functionally in the direction of PCs as well (provided you follow the golden rule of not forcing the result on the PCs with the power of DM fiat).
Okay, so this is your central point then - and the area where we disagree. I would say those two statements contradict each other and cannot coexist: if you are not forcing the result of the Persuasion check on the PCs, then there was no purpose served by the Persuasion check, and you have effectively not "used it on them" at all. Persuasion's purpose was not served - it did nothing. As it shouldn't, which has been my argument all along. But I'm baffled by what you think a persuasion check used "on the PCs" means if not getting them to think or do what the person making the persuasion check wants (or at least something closer to it than they would have without the persuasion check). Because again, that is definitely what I meant when I made my original statement that started this discussion.

[Shaofoo]

To me having someone roll Persuasion where the outcome is predetermined regardless of roll is something like this.

Player: I use the Medicine skill on my friend

DM: Okay, roll it

Player: 20! and with my high modifiers I surpass the DC 30 for nearly impossible so I should be able to perform anything!

DM: Yeah but your great medical prowess just isn't enough to bring the body back to life.

Of course this all has some caveats, if the DM told me I could use the Medicine skill to save his life but still couldn't even after I rolled a 20 then I would start to call shenanigans.

I expect the DM to be able to communicate feats that would be considered impossible (You can't scale a smooth and greased wall, you can't heal someone back from the dead, that guy visibly hates you and will not listen to you at all).

Of course if it was a player that kept insisting to use a skill then I would let him roll it and let him get it out of his system and would attend to the consequences.

[Contrast]

Re Zevox:

I guess my only answer as to why you would roll a dice to figure out how something plays out in a roleplaying game where we use dice to figure out how things play out is...because we're playing a role playing game where we use dice to figure out how things play out.

Your argument seems to be 'but you can just skip that step' - as I said, thats fine and what I would encourage you to do in the vast majority of cases (sorry repeating myself again). There are times when you might not want to do that though (say a character decides themself they want to randomise if they've found someone persuading).

I do love my hypotheticals - lets say the PCs bet on a gladiator fight. You could run the outcome a number of ways - the DM could just describe who won the fight, he could run out the entire combat or he could just do some sort of opposed Str check to decide who won. All of these methods have their place depending on the situation and some of them *gasp* even involve making 'useless' rolls which don't have a direct impact on the players or force them to do anything. Does it make a difference that I described the combat in more or less detail? It may or may not, thats up to the players.

In the same way, you have options open to you in terms of how you run social encounters. Does it make a difference to the players? It may or may not, thats up to them. They might normally go along with this guy cos he sounds like he knows what he's doing but today he hasn't been convincing in his rhetoric so they decide to ask a few more questions and uncover he is actually a spy working for the neighbouring kingdom or whatever. Now you could just fiat this and that's fine. Or you could use dice and that is apparently a terrible sin against mankind for reasons I am yet to understand. In this example the players could have asked the hard questions off the bat, which is why its important as a DM to know how sympathetically and friendly to be presenting the character as. They may still ask the hard questions anyway but the DM should still make the goblins run away even if we knows that the ranger is just going to shoot them in the back if they flee. You could skip over it, you could not - the options are there to run the game in a flexible way.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself but I still kind of feel like you're arguing against a point I'm not making unless you really are saying that DMs should never be allowed to randomise social encounters because that is somehow terrible, while randomising the vast majority of other actions in the game is perfectly fine.

Re Shaofoo

I'm inclined to agree. It could be difficult at times. If you say 'I unlock the lock' and the lock is welded closed with a DC5 to realise this, rolling something stupendous on your thieves tool roll isn't potentially going to avail you anything still and it can feel like the DM moving the goalposts. Use skill tests with caution is I guess my general advice in all things :smalltongue:

[Zevox]

Sorry if I'm repeating myself but I still kind of feel like you're arguing against a point I'm not making
Okay, let's clarify a couple of things then, because I agree, it sounds like we're talking past each other here. What prompted this discussion was me saying "Persuasion never gets used on PCs." You indicated disagreement with that. Everything I've been saying has been in attempt to either understand your position or clarify my own within that context. That's why, for example, I have spelled out on a couple of occasions exactly what I meant by that line: "using Persuasion on the PCs" means, to me, making a Persuasion roll for an NPC to influence the PCs' attitudes, thoughts, or actions. Because that is what "using a persuasion roll on" someone means - you're attempting to persuade the target of something. But from the sound of things, you do not actually disagree with that. Instead, for whatever reason, I get the impression you're using that same phrase, "use Persuasion on the PCs," to mean something else entirely, and from the limited idea I have of it I think it's something that I do not think that phrase applies to.

The one concrete example of that which has cropped up in our discussion is the matter of the debate. You seem to think that's an example of using Persuasion on PCs. I do not - it's using Persuasion to resolve the competition between the two NPCs. It provides an objective measure of which one performed better in the debate, and that's it. That the PCs were listening to it is incidental - it did not affect or influence them in any way, and their absence wouldn't change the roll or its purpose at all, so it is not an example of using Persuasion on PCs.

On a much less important note, I get the feeling that we have a stylistic difference in when we use rolls in general. Personally, I see the purpose of rolling dice in this game as strictly to resolve situations with an uncertain outcome fairly, or situations where random chance should play a part. I wouldn't roll dice just to determine how well-spoken someone is in general on a particular day ever, because that's the sort of thing that I see as determined by the NPC's character and circumstances, not random chance. If you would use a roll for something like that, fine, I have no issue there - I think it's pointless, but it doesn't hurt anything either, so whatever floats your boat. But I also wouldn't call it using that skill on the PCs if you're not going to enforce the result on them in some way. You're just randomizing an element of the NPC's actions at that particular time. To me, it would be something like rolling to determine how well-dressed he was that particular day. It's just not something I can see fitting the description I gave back at the start of the discussion, even taking the words independently of the precise meaning I had in mind at the time.

[Vogonjeltz]

They don't as far as I can see. There are rules for making a deception check (as there are for making a persuasion check). Nothing in there says you get an insight roll. However it does specify in the insight rules that they can be used for 'determining the true intentions of a creature'. The crux of my argument is that this extends beyond simply telling if someone is being dishonest or not.

I'm happy to recant this if you can point me to a page number.

I know. I was just trying to point out that insight can be used for more things than just telling if someone if lying. The text I highlighted was the 'such as' implying the two examples given are not an exhaustive list.

Feinting is a deception (lying about true intentions). And the phrase "determining the true intentions" predicates that it's a question of lying or truth. i.e. simply telling if someone is being dishonest or not. And it says that in the quote you provided from page 178, except you left out the part that says "such as when searching out a lie".

Ascertaining true intentions by its very nature a question of the truth.

Persuasion does not involve deception (PHB 178):
"When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature."
"use persuasion when acting in good faith" (emphasis added).

Insight, by definition, doesn't apply because Persuasion is honest.


Disagree with the first

Can you explain why you think this? The social interaction rules in the DMG are on page 244. NPCs have a starting attitude and how they react is based on the ability of players (or other NPCs) to influence them in roleplaying at sometimes with a die roll targeting a DC set by the DM.

Players have no similar system.


Can they? If you don't tell them? How are you deciding what to tell them? (edit - 'tell them' referring to telling them how convincingly the argument was made, not telling them how they respond - see bullet points)

You roleplay the request and the players react based on that interaction.


Per my earlier point in a previous post - if a high or low persuade roll isn't having an impact on whats actually being said, what are you imagining the skill as doing?

A Charisma (Persuasion) check is used to determine how an NPC reacts to adventurers request, demand, or suggestion. (DMG 245)


*facepalm* Could we assume in my hypothetical example specifically about a deceive check that the person is lying and the equipment is otherwise unavailable for perusal. I'm trying not to get bogged down in the minutiae of these examples and just frame them as thought experiments ok?

So, if I'm following:

Merchant (DM), upon spotting the Players entering the shop: Helllllooo good sirs! Might I have a word?

Fighter (Player 1): Aye, and I'll be wanting 6lbs of those rations you have on the back wall.

Merchant: Oh but of course good sir, but of course. I also wanted to let you know that I have a very special shipment of the finest Tychonian arrows coming in (a lie, the merchant knows they are shoddy and is trying to offload them quickly to recoup his lost investment) and I wanted my best customers to have the first crack at it!

Fighter: Oh, well, I suppose I'm always in the market for some good arrows. Just what makes these so special?

Merchant: Uhm...well they are fletched by blind monks in the hills of Argox (made up place)... and made with the famed Tychonian feathers (made up thing)! Yes, and of course, because you are such a valued customer, I'd even let them go far below market price...say...2 gold for 10 (4 times the price of arrows). It's a steal!

Player 1: I want to know if he is trying to fleece me.

DM: Ok, make an insight check. (DM predetermines what the DC is)

Player 1 rolls d20: Uh, total of 15.

DM (@dc 15 or less): He's fidgeting, and seems deceptive.
or
DM (@dc 16 or more): He seems sincere.

end scene.


Cool. See my bullet points - I'm not suggesting you do this all the time, its just a hypothetical example.

This bullet?: "•Persuasion doesn't ever force anyone to do anything"

Because that's not technically correct. Persuasion CAN 'force' an NPC to do something by changing its attitude. A particularly persuasive PC can get an NPC to do something that it wasn't previously inclined to do, which in a technical sense is forcing it.


...so its impossible for a PC to tell if an NPC is persuasive unless another NPC happens to be walking past. I do understand where you're coming from generally (big fat no on the telling PCs what their characters think gotcha, see my bullet points I'm on board) but seriously, what?

It's about roleplaying the NPCs as persuasive. If the arguments used aren't, then the players won't respond to them. If you are trying to narrate that the NPC1 is good at persuading another NPC, just do that and the players can get the idea that NPC1 is quite persuasive.

If you're having trouble actually roleplaying a convincing character, you could just tell the player how you'd describe the NPC and apologize if the roleplay doesn't convey that adequately; There's no harm in that.


That is the issue we are disputing yes.

It's in the rulebook (DMG 244-245) on how a DM handles Social Interactions. What is under dispute?

[Zalabim]

This bullet?: "•Persuasion doesn't ever force anyone to do anything"

Because that's not technically correct. Persuasion CAN 'force' an NPC to do something by changing its attitude. A particularly persuasive PC can get an NPC to do something that it wasn't previously inclined to do, which in a technical sense is forcing it.

The only thing I'd correct here is that the DMG rules for social interaction don't use the check to change attitude. A creature you successfully persuade does what you asked it to do, but how they feel about you (their attitude) isn't controlled by that die roll.

This is a distinct reversal from 3.x diplomacy which did give DCs for the purpose of changing attitudes. Diplomacy is used to make people like you. Persuade is used to convince people to do what you want them to do. (There are other contexts where Persuade is used, but this is the area where it's comparable to Deception and Intimidation.)

[Ruslan]

Insight, by definition, doesn't apply because Persuasion is honest.


Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature

Well, Insight could apply. It is used to gauge intentions, not to gauge lies. One interpretation would be you can, in fact, use Insight when the other party is sincere. On a success you get "he seems sincere", and on a failure you get "you don't know".

[Douche]

I didn't read the whole topic to help me understand, but based on the OP alone, I am worried.

If you, as a PC, are being "persuaded" then your DM is doing it wrong. He can't roll an NPC persuasion check to railroad you into doing what the guy asks. PC's can't be persuaded. That's ridiculous.

Furthermore, you can't roll persuasion against your fellow PCs either. Could you imagine? Guy sitting next to you says "Well, I say we kill the emperor, even though he's a really nice guy" and rolls a crit. So, what, you have to do it now? That's just silly. I've had noobs try and roll persuasion on me before and the whole table would just laugh at them.

So anyway, as others have said, the only "resist" there is for a persuasion is for NPCs, and it's called a DC that the DM decides upon, based on what you said and how difficult they want to make it.

[Vogonjeltz]

The only thing I'd correct here is that the DMG rules for social interaction don't use the check to change attitude. A creature you successfully persuade does what you asked it to do, but how they feel about you (their attitude) isn't controlled by that die roll.

It's a limited example, but on 245 they mention that a noble whose attitude is hostile (as the result of something the party rogue said) could have their hostility diffused back to indifferent by a successful Charisma (Persuasion) check from the party Paladin. (Along with roleplaying of course.)

Generally speaking though, you're right that most of the time attitude change is about roleplaying to say the right things regarding an ideal, bond, or flaw.


Well, Insight could apply. It is used to gauge intentions, not to gauge lies. One interpretation would be you can, in fact, use Insight when the other party is sincere. On a success you get "he seems sincere", and on a failure you get "you don't know".

Wouldn't the response be the same either way?

i.e. We know He is sincere, so if the player asks if the guy is being deceptive, the answer would always be (pass or fail) "He seems sincere".


Furthermore, you can't roll persuasion against your fellow PCs either. Could you imagine? Guy sitting next to you says "Well, I say we kill the emperor, even though he's a really nice guy" and rolls a crit. So, what, you have to do it now? That's just silly. I've had noobs try and roll persuasion on me before and the whole table would just laugh at them.

So anyway, as others have said, the only "resist" there is for a persuasion is for NPCs, and it's called a DC that the DM decides upon, based on what you said and how difficult they want to make it.

Only attack rolls have critical hits.

That being said, one scenario where opposed Persuasion checks by an NPC and a PC would make sense is when both parties are attempting to persuade a 3rd party.

i.e. Players petition one outcome, and an NPC is petitioning for a mutually exclusive outcome. Assuming one party must be chosen (i.e. the King can't or won't say no to both) and both PC and NPC would succeed against the DC of convincing the King in a one on one situation, then the 'winner' would be the party who has the better total.

[Ruslan]

Wouldn't the response be the same either way?

i.e. We know He is sincere, so if the player asks if the guy is being deceptive, the answer would always be (pass or fail) "He seems sincere".

Once again, going back to:


Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature

We can clearly see that success means: you gauge his true intentions. But what does a failure mean? It's not specified.

1. One way to interpret is would be: failure means you gauge the opposite of his true intentions. But that's kind of cruel, and somewhat prone to abuse by players deliberately dumping their Wis scores and trying Insight checks with the intent to fail. "He seems sincere to me? I stab him!"

2. Another interpretation would be that a failure means you believe his sincerity.

3. My interpretation is that a failure means you simply don't know.

Since there is no RAW for what happens on failing in Insight check (only on succeeding), any interpretation is valid. However, I would warn against (1), and suggest to limit our options to (2) or (3).