Why does Persuasion/Deception seem so ridiculously powerful?

[Cealocanth]

So, this is more of a 'what am I doing wrong' sort of thread, rather than a 'this is broken' sort of thread.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble working with a character who has built strongly into Persuasion and Deception. Specifically, I think he's a multiclass Whispers Bard 6 Rogue 1. Like any class, he uses his class features as often as he can, but it strikes me that Persuasion and Deception are far too powerful skills in this game.

NPC interaction is one of the primary ways that you can deliver lore, give players a way to spend their gold, develop story, and build a world, but it seems that when any amount of brief conversation would lead to a richer experience, the conversation is bypassed with a Persuasion or a Deception roll. With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics or telling the Wizard that there's no way he could discern the identity of a magic item with Arcana.

Am I misinterpreting how these skills work? How do you run a game where a single Persuasion or Deception roll won't break things? I'm not very good at improvisation, so I tend to prepare games by planning instead. I'm sure if I could improvise everything, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

[Caelic]

Persuasion and Deception aren't magic; they're not going to convince a target of something which is very evidently untrue. The guard who knows the King is not going to believe you're the King just because you rolled well on a Deception check. The peasant selling cabbages is not going to believe that the cabbage he's holding is really a dragon because you rolled a 20 on a Persuasion check. Establishing that there are things social skills simply can't accomplish is no more hurting player agency than telling the barbarian his 20 on an Athletics check does not, in fact, allow him to jump to the moon.

[Jerrykhor]

Have it require multiple successful checks to achieve what they want. Someone who is super determined or hell bent on something won't ever be successfully convinced with one single good point. Usually 3 to 5 checks is enough. Nat 20 would count as 2 successes, and Nat 1 would be 2 failures.

[sir_argo]

I'm not sure if this applies to your situation or not, but ability checks are called for by the DM when he/she thinks they are appropriate. They are not requested by players. The following is wrong:

DM: Two guards are standing in front of the prison doors.
Player: I'd like to use my Persuasion skill to convince the guards to give me the keys and walk away.
DM: Ok, make a roll.
Player: I'm bad ass, I rolled 19, plus my proficiency, plus expertise, plus my CHA bonus and I got a 30!
DM: Holy crap. Well, I guess you succeed. They give you the keys and walk away.

Here is what really happens.

DM: Two guards are standing in front of the prison doors.
Player: I'd like to try and persuade the guards into giving me the keys and walk away.
DM: They tell you to %$&@ off.
Player: Don't I get to roll Persuasion?
DM: Nope.

Players should never ask to roll an ability check. You, as the DM, will call for one when you think it is needed. Here's one of my favorite examples of this...


Player: I walk up to the city guard and try to intimidate him. I say, "This is my home town! Your presence here is an abomination. I have a right to enter. Step aside or you will taste my blade!"
DM: Ok. Make a persuasion roll.
Player: Um, I'm trying to intimidate him.
DM: Yeah, but he's being magically controlled by the wizard who invaded your town. He isn't effected by fear or emotion at all. When you said it is your home town and you have a right to enter, that's more of a rational argument that he might interpret would apply to the orders he is compelled to follow. I think that's persuasion... go ahead and roll it.


The player does not say, I'm going to use X skill to do something. You call for the specific skill if and only if you think it is appropriate.

[Sabeta]

If a professional conman walked into King Arthur's Court and declared himself King, would anyone give him the time of day? On the other hand, if he began spinning a narrative where he was the forgotten son of the late king, born first out of wedlock and he's here to claim his rightful place as King. Well that's a bit of a different story.

Essentially demand your players be a part of the world. +9 Deception doesn't let them bypass conversations. If you've played Divinity: Original Sin II they do something similar. Persuasion is mandatory for a lot of skill checks in that game, but many skill checks are actually flagged as "Impossible" because it's only there for character story-telling.

[bc56]

As a DM, I use persuasion for off-camera stuff. Haggle with a jeweler over the price of your loot? Persuasion. That kind of thing.

If the players want to convince an NPC of something, I usually have them give out a rational argument in character. If the argument leaves the NPC on the fence, then they may roll persuasion. If they try to trick an NPC, then it's a deception vs insight contest, but they can't get away with obviously ridiculous stuff. A natural 20 does not alter the laws of the universe.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Just like you can't jump to the moon with an Athletics check, you can't Persuasion the king into turning over the throne. Skills are used to see if you succeed on a task that was already possible-- no roll will let you break the laws of physics (at least, not significantly). The problem is that when it comes to social things, "what is possible" is a lot more subjective.

Since you fall on the preparation side of DMing, I'd take the time to make up a few charts about what the skills can and can't do, and maybe discuss them with the players to make sure you're all on the same page.

One Persuasion idea I really liked came from Exalted. In that system, if you want to convince someone to do something significant, you have to tie the request to one of their Intimacies-- the people and ideals they value most. The more extreme the request, the stronger Intimacy is required. For example, you might be able to convince someone whose loyalty to the king is a Defining Intimacy to sacrifice their life to help him escape, but not someone who has only a Minor Intimacy in that area.

Something similar can be adapted here, I think. To persuade someone, you need to appeal to their Bonds/Flaws/Ideals/etc. If you can't do that, there's no way you can talk them into more than a minor favor.

[Tanarii]

Them seem ridiculously powerful because you're not following the DMG advice on running the game in Chapter 8. I highly recommend reading Using Ability Scores on pages 237-242, and Social Interactions on pages 244-246.

The section on Using Ability Scores is the most important thing in the DMG. Reading it and understanding it is extremely helpful in learning to run the game the way it's intended.

That's not to say you can't run a game anyway without reading and understanding that section, and you and your players could well have boat loads of fun regardless. But you're most likely not end up utilizing the full capabilities of the system, and you'll run into occasional wonkiness because you're making assumptions about how it's supposed to work.

(As a side note, this section should have been the very first page of the DMG. But D&D is hardly alone in burning critical game mastering "Running the Game" info near the end of the book. It's a general failing of RPG books.)

[Ganymede]

A DM only calls for an ability check if the results of a player's action are uncertain.

Wandering into a king's court and proclaiming yourself as king has as much an uncertain outcome as Creed Bratton jumping on a desk and proclaiming himself the new manager.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics

You realize, of course, that this is perfectly reasonable if the chasm is big enough, right? That Barbarian is not jumping the Grand Canyon. Heck, he's not even jumping a moderately sized gorge. Same rules apply for social checks.

[Elysiume]

Pathfinder is much more explicit about skill checks, which is nice. For example, it has this to say about bluff:

Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).You can't just walk into court and say "I'm the king," even if you have +50 to bluff. Well, you can, but you'll probably get arrested.

Acrobatics (jumping was acrobatics in PF), for reference, has a DC of 5 per 5' for a long jump, and 4 per 1' for a high jump. Jumping across a 15' wide crevice would be a DC 15, while jumping over an average part of the Grand Canyon would be a DC 300.

5e, on the other hand, opted to be incredibly vague about skills. Unless I'm missing something in both the PHB and DMG, there's very little guidance on where you draw the line on where something falls on the spectrum of "very easy" to "nearly impossible." The world record for a long jump is 29' 4.4", so I'd actually use the Pathfinder scale here. 5' is very easy (an average person can make it 5' with a running start), while 30' is a 5e "nearly impossible."

There's nothing you can really use for lies, so you need to quantify how big of a lie it is. At the end of the day, skill checks aren't magic. Getting a 30 on your athletics check won't get you to the moon, a 35 on your medicine check can't reanimate the dead, and a 40 on your acrobatics check won't let you squeeze out of a forcecage. It's up to you to decide what people will believe, and the royal court isn't going to believe some random bard who saunters in and declares they're the king.

[JNAProductions]

Actually, with a 40 on Acrobatics, I probably WOULD let you squeeze from a Forcecage. Considering that requires Expertise with an Ioun Stone of Master (+14), a 22 Dex (+6), AND a Nat 20... Look, you deserve it at that point. Mid-to-upper 30s is where you start seeing the impossible.

Such as, for instance, convincing the king you're actually the ruler. So with +9? Not happening.

[Boci]

Players should never ask to roll an ability check. You, as the DM, will call for one when you think it is needed. Here's one of my favorite examples of this...

How exactly does that play out at the table

DM: The guard asks if you know where the elven spy is

Player: I say no I do not and roll deception

DM: Woah, easy there buddy. I decide when an roll is going to be made, you just tell me what your character does

Player: Okay, I tell him I don't know where the elven spy is hiding

DM: Okay, roll deception

Player:...

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'm not sure if this applies to your situation or not, but ability checks are called for by the DM when he/she thinks they are appropriate. They are not requested by players. The following is wrong:

DM: Two guards are standing in front of the prison doors.
Player: I'd like to use my Persuasion skill to convince the guards to give me the keys and walk away.
DM: Ok, make a roll.
Player: I'm bad ass, I rolled 19, plus my proficiency, plus expertise, plus my CHA bonus and I got a 30!
DM: Holy crap. Well, I guess you succeed. They give you the keys and walk away.

Here is what really happens.

DM: Two guards are standing in front of the prison doors.
Player: I'd like to try and persuade the guards into giving me the keys and walk away.
DM: They tell you to %$&@ off.
Player: Don't I get to roll Persuasion?
DM: Nope.

Players should never ask to roll an ability check. You, as the DM, will call for one when you think it is needed. Here's one of my favorite examples of this...


Player: I walk up to the city guard and try to intimidate him. I say, "This is my home town! Your presence here is an abomination. I have a right to enter. Step aside or you will taste my blade!"
DM: Ok. Make a persuasion roll.
Player: Um, I'm trying to intimidate him.
DM: Yeah, but he's being magically controlled by the wizard who invaded your town. He isn't effected by fear or emotion at all. When you said it is your home town and you have a right to enter, that's more of a rational argument that he might interpret would apply to the orders he is compelled to follow. I think that's persuasion... go ahead and roll it.


The player does not say, I'm going to use X skill to do something. You call for the specific skill if and only if you think it is appropriate.


Yeah, I think after a few minutes of this I'd just hand the GM my character sheet, tell him to have fun playing my character for me, and go find another D&D table.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, I think after a few minutes of this I'd just hand the GM my character sheet, tell him to have fun playing my character for me, and go find another D&D table.

GM doing his job is playing your character for you? The scenarios used describe how the game works: The player describes his character's actions, the GM decides how to resolve them. Does the action call for a roll? Then he sets up the DC and tell you what to roll. If success (or failure) is impossible, you don't roll, you fail (or succeed) automatically.

[Contrast]

How exactly does that play out at the table

DM: The guard asks if you know where the elven spy is

Player: I say no I do not and roll deception

DM: Woah, easy there buddy. I decide when an roll is going to be made, you just tell me what your character does

Player: Okay, I tell him I don't know where the elven spy is hiding

DM: Okay, roll deception

Player:...

There are lots of situations where a player might think a check is required when it actually isn't - the player is free to roll whatever dice they want but the outcome is meaningless unless the DM asked for a roll because if the DM didn't ask for a roll then the outcome wasn't in question. In your example, lets say the guy is a bored border guard with a list of questions to ask. He isn't really paying much attention and he's asked this same list of questions 100s of times today. The DM decides unless you draw attention no check is required.


Yeah, I think after a few minutes of this I'd just hand the GM my character sheet, tell him to have fun playing my character for me, and go find another D&D table.

No matter how charming I am, the guards at Buckingham Palace will not let me in to see the Queen. They just won't. You could stand there all day rolling nat 20s and they're not gonna let you in.

I assume you don't like being told you can't roll but what do you see as the difference between 'no don't roll' and 'the DC is higher than its possible to reach/infinite, feel free to roll'? In the last example given the DM is actually doing the players a favour as they know intimidation won't work so they're letting them roll what might work instead:

Player looking at inscription: Can I roll history and see if I know what this is?
DM: No but roll arcana
Player: I have a better bonus in history, I want to roll history *rolls* 22!
DM: Your history check tells you nothing useful...
Player: Fine *rolls* 10 on arcana, see that's rubbish!
DM: Its instructions on a spell incantation.

[Unoriginal]

Adding to what people have said:

-There is no such thing as a Deception or Persuasion roll. It's an Ability check, with the relevant proficiency added only if relevant.

-Even if you decide to allow the check, advantage and disadvantage are a thing.

- +9 may seem like a big modifier, but a King's court would easily be filled with people who have +6 or more to Wisdom (Insight) checks. It's kinda their job. I mean, even Commoners who work at the dinos' pens in ToA have +5 to WIS (Animal Handling) checks.

[Cespenar]

A good rule of thumb is to always limit the social check results by the actual roleplaying effort being put in.

That is, of course, after applying at least a modicum of common sense to the NPCs.

[Gryndle]

some players will feel the need to push the limits just to see what they can get away with. Some DMs too but that's an entirely different subject.

but as a DM sometimes you just have to put your foot down and say "dice bedamned this thing just cannot be done!" Or at least cannot be done in that manner.

the example given earlier of walking into a court making a ridiculously high roll and proclaiming yourself the rightful king- the roll is inconsequential. the absolute best result they could hope for is laughter and a new job opportunity as court jester, but more likely its going to be shackles, and a "conversation" with the royal guard and possibly executioner.

now a long con of forging documents, bribing "witnesses" and spreading disinformation to give a PC some credibility as the prior king's firstborn and rightful heir to the throne, that might actually be a fun, playable scenario. but its not going to auto succeed on one die roll alone, that is all going to have to be played out in game with lots of rolls, risks and effort from the PC(s)

Its our job as DMs to draw the lines between what is insignificant/easy/moderate/hard/improbable/impossible and all the way up to: You had better be joking or walk away from my table right now because that crap just is not going to happen.

[carrdrivesyou]

There are several bits of excellent advice above, but here is my take:

I am sure you are familiar with the phrase "The pen is mightier than the sword." However, I believe this is actually a shortening of the phrase that alters its meaning. "The pen is mightier than the sword, but the pen without the sword has no power."

In essence, make your characters back up what they are saying. The bard claims he is the king? Make him show irrefutable proof, and then put him in line for succession. Rogue wants out of jail? Tough luck; no amount of honeyed words are going to get them to let them out. Seduction might work, but words alone will not.

In my games, skills like deception and persuasion are certainly useful, but rarely so blatantly broken without some sort of effort or sacrifice on the player's part.

Hope this helps :D
-Carr

[Darth Ultron]

5E has made the stand that D&D is not just Roll Playing, like Sadly 3E was. So you only need to make a roll or a check if you need one.

So unlike 3E were you would ''move your character to square A7 and use persuasion to on the guard in square A8 make him let me inside'', your doing more ''my character walks over to the guard and says 'hello, can I come inside'?"


Also, you have the typical power problem D&D has had forever: PC's are demi gods to normal 'by the book NPCs'. So you might want to do the classic ''increase the level of the world''.

In general, half the world should always be a ''challenge'' to the players, just to make the game interesting and fun. Sure lots of players think they want to be demi gods, but it does get boring fast for most players: why even bother to do anything if you will always 'win'.

[Elbeyon]

The skills could be that powerful. The dm & players need to work out what is possible or impossible within the world. It could be a easy or average difficulty to convince people the liar is the king. It could be impossible. This is left in the hands of the people at the table. Some people want a five result on the dice to equal jumping a hundred feet.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why does Persuasion/Deception seem so ridiculously powerful? Because too many people try to treat it like an attack roll, rather than a role playing opportunity.

[Elbeyon]

Because too many people try to treat it like an attack roll, rather than a role playing opportunity.There is nothing inherently wrong with the way the op has played it so far. The fact that the op is unhappy is the reason to change it, not because its "wrong."

[KorvinStarmast]

There is nothing inherently wrong with the way the op has played it so far. The fact that the op is unhappy is the reason to change it, not because its "wrong."
Disagree.

With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics or telling the Wizard that there's no way he could discern the identity of a magic item with Arcana. The problem here is that the deception check is being used as an attack roll. The social interaction pillar of the game is not the same as combat, and should not be treated as such, just as exploration isn't the same as combat. The social interaction with NPC's calls on the DM to use some imagination (which most DM's have plenty of) and to treat the NPC as a three dimensional person during the interaction.

DM describes the situation
Player describes that they are doing
DM narrates the result

Only roll the dice when necessary; a lot of times it isn't necessary. There are some things that make no sense, so don't bother to roll the dice.

How much effort did this deceiving PC put in to set up the situation where their line of BS is believeable?

[Elbeyon]

Disagree.
The problem here is that the deception check is being used as an attack roll. The social interaction pillar of the game is not the same as combat, and should not be treated as such, just as exploration isn't the same as combat.

That's the nice thing. The rules allow for both.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's the nice thing. The rules allow for both. Then I guess I'd suggest that people not complain that Deception or Persuasion is overpowered if it is treated as something that it isn't. If you treat it like free magic spells, then the expertise feature is like giving every spell attack roll advantage. Do you do that for your casters?

[PeteNutButter]

A good rule of thumb for whether or not a deception/persuasion check should be called for is simply your gut feeling. Picture the most silver-tongued person you know of, such as a movie star or something and think that if that person tried to talk the character into x would it work?

Part of this plays into the level of seriousness at your table. Some people play high comedy which might make this work frequently, others play grim dark which would make individual high deception checks rather rare. There is a reason in real life most cons require a team of people (or a very wide net via the internet). People are naturally skeptical, and even more skeptical if the claim is outrageous or directly effects them.

For a serious game, deception needs to be more nuanced. In Game of Thrones, the characters don't just lie and say they are the rightful king, they set up schemes and back up claims by armies. If someone had +9 cha and the DM/Author just let it roll for it, the entire story would be over in one check.

Bottom line is if Tyrion couldn't get away with it, your PC shouldn't be able to (in a serious game).

[Pex]

A good rule of thumb is to always limit the social check results by the actual roleplaying effort being put in.

That is, of course, after applying at least a modicum of common sense to the NPCs.

Need to be careful with that to prevent the socially awkward player* from never getting anywhere while the charismatic charming player gets away with everything, not that that's what happening for this thread topic. Here's it's raw numbers. As was said, a Natural 20 Persuasion does not make the king give you his throne as much as a Natural 20 Athletics does not let you jump to the moon.

*Still, even the socially awkward player needs to say something to get the idea across what he wants to accomplish and how.

[SirDigby]

They seem so powerful because people throw out all logic to allow them to be so powerful. Would you allow the barbarian to jump across a 1,000 foot chasm? Because that's basically what you're doing when you allow a character to declare themselves king. Not to mention that a kingdom tends to have quite a few people in it, and I can only assume you aren't rolling buckets full of d20s to ensure that they have all been convinced that this random outsider is now the king.

A skill check should not be the determining factor on whether or not someone CAN succeed, but only IF they succeed. Whether or not something would be logically impossible is up to you to decide. If your players think you are killing their agency, then just say a natural 20 is required to pass a ludicrously hard check and start hitting them with penalties if they fail - character fails the check to declare themselves king and the 30 veteran royal guardsmen in the throne room place them under arrest.

[Pex]

5E has made the stand that D&D is not just Roll Playing, like Sadly 3E was. So you only need to make a roll or a check if you need one.

So unlike 3E were you would ''move your character to square A7 and use persuasion to on the guard in square A8 make him let me inside'', your doing more ''my character walks over to the guard and says 'hello, can I come inside'?"


Also, you have the typical power problem D&D has had forever: PC's are demi gods to normal 'by the book NPCs'. So you might want to do the classic ''increase the level of the world''.

In general, half the world should always be a ''challenge'' to the players, just to make the game interesting and fun. Sure lots of players think they want to be demi gods, but it does get boring fast for most players: why even bother to do anything if you will always 'win'.

Wrong. False. Unfair accusation.

3E was not a "rollplaying" game. The issue the OP has did happen in some players' 3E games, but it was never the fault of 3E. This issue is only a DM/Player interaction problem. Game edition is irrelevant. The king does not give up his throne in 3E.

What a king could do, 3E or 5E, with a Natural 20 Persuasion is humor the PC and teach him the lesson of Damocles.

[Elbeyon]

Then I guess I'd suggest that people not complain that Deception or Persuasion is overpowered if it is treated as something that it isn't. If you treat it like free magic spells, then the expertise feature is like giving every spell attack roll advantage. Do you do that for your casters?This usage is perfectly fine if the group is happy with it. The fact that they are not happy is the issue. Skills are left to the group more so than combat. The group might decide that it is an Easy DC to jump a hundred feet. They are not wrong in reading the book that way. That's simply the game they are playing. That's 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

This usage is perfectly fine if the group is happy with it. The fact that they are not happy is the issue. Skills are left to the group more so than combat. The group might decide that it is an Easy DC to jump a hundred feet. They are not wrong in reading the book that way. That's simply the game they are playing. That's 5e. I understand, but the OP came off as a complaint. I completely appreciate the point you are making.

[Elbeyon]

I understand, but the OP came off as a complaint. I completely appreciate the point you are making.Yep! I saw people saying the op did it wrong, but I think it's more fair to say they did it wrong for them. The focus toward them can be understood since the thread is directed towards them, but I thought it was worth being a bit pedantic to flesh out the topic.

[Contrast]

If your players think you are killing their agency, then just say a natural 20 is required to pass a ludicrously hard check and start hitting them with penalties if they fail - character fails the check to declare themselves king and the 30 veteran royal guardsmen in the throne room place them under arrest.

This is a very dangerous precedent to set because 1/20 isn't that low odds in the grand scheme of things. If a party of 4 all stepped forward and independently claimed to be the king there's around a 1/5 chance of at least one person rolling a 20. If they have access to enhance ability/inspiration so they all get advantage that jumps to about 1/3.

[Tanarii]

5e, on the other hand, opted to be incredibly vague about skills. Unless I'm missing something in both the PHB and DMG, there's very little guidance on where you draw the line on where something falls on the spectrum of "very easy" to "nearly impossible."You are. Many people do. Especially specifically for social checks.:

Them seem ridiculously powerful because you're not following the DMG advice on running the game in Chapter 8. I highly recommend reading Using Ability Scores on pages 237-242, and Social Interactions on pages 244-246.

----------


Wrong. False. Unfair accusation.

3E was not a "rollplaying" game. The issue the OP has did happen in some players' 3E games, but it was never the fault of 3E. This issue is only a DM/Player interaction problem. Game edition is irrelevant. The king does not give up his throne in 3E.

What a king could do, 3E or 5E, with a Natural 20 Persuasion is humor the PC and teach him the lesson of Damocles.
Agreed. "Roll playing" has been a "problem", in so far as people being unhappy with strictly applied results of allowing rolls for everything, since D&D has come about.

What happened with 3e is the ability to make checks for resolution became more systematic, codified, and more front and center (because skills), so more people were aware of them and how the system worked. And most importantly, the game included many example tables of DCs. This led many to believe everything needed a check, and that the DCs were fixed and immutable things regardless of a specific situation. And for many players to believe that it was their right to roll the dice on a specific skill for a given situation, and to know what the DC must be in advance.

(Edit Just in case that comes across wrong: I don't think you're one of those players. I think you view the 3e DC tables as examples that give the DM an idea of typical DC, and you as a player an idea of what your character can do. Not something completely immutable for specific situations.)

[Spacehamster]

So, this is more of a 'what am I doing wrong' sort of thread, rather than a 'this is broken' sort of thread.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble working with a character who has built strongly into Persuasion and Deception. Specifically, I think he's a multiclass Whispers Bard 6 Rogue 1. Like any class, he uses his class features as often as he can, but it strikes me that Persuasion and Deception are far too powerful skills in this game.

NPC interaction is one of the primary ways that you can deliver lore, give players a way to spend their gold, develop story, and build a world, but it seems that when any amount of brief conversation would lead to a richer experience, the conversation is bypassed with a Persuasion or a Deception roll. With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics or telling the Wizard that there's no way he could discern the identity of a magic item with Arcana.

Am I misinterpreting how these skills work? How do you run a game where a single Persuasion or Deception roll won't break things? I'm not very good at improvisation, so I tend to prepare games by planning instead. I'm sure if I could improvise everything, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Um nope, some NPC’s can not be reasoned with and no matter how high the player rolls they would not be convinced to agree. As with anything you the DM decides what can and can’t be done with the skills, convincing some bandits that attacking your group is suicide should be doable while convincing the king to hand you the throne would obviously not be a realistic outcome no matter how much of a silver tounge the player has. :)

[Kibry]

Persuasion is useful depending on the situation, but not overpowered(As long as your DM doesn't make it overpowered..).

I'll pull an example from one of my own games. I was playing a level 5 Halfling Bard named Jerome with +11 to intimidate(Which my DM has made a running joke out of). Our party Gladiotor, Barry Allen, wanted to fight a veteran that had been leading him toward a bandit camp(We had already tied the Veteran up and taken his weapons).

He rolled a persuasion and got the best of my intimidation(I forgot to use my dread helm for advantage..).
Kibry decided to let him fight the Veteran, but not kill him. He would seperate them if things got out of hand.

Instead of Kibry letting Barry do whatever he wanted, my DM let him do things within reason. Even with a nat 20 I don't think my DM would have let Barry incapacitate and/or kill him(Most of the party is good).

Deception wouldn't work for obvious facts or things contradicted by common sense. It would be possible(Not easy) to say, convince a commoner that a cart is a mimic. It would not be possible to convince them that it's an apple.

Declaring themselves king would be an entirely different matter than jumping a chasm or identifying a magic object, they would have to convince people as opposed to physically do stuff. There would be opposing rolls. They can have someone spread word that they're a king or declare themselves king, but that doesn't mean the NPCs will go along with whatever they say. No matter how good the roll.

[Coffee_Dragon]

This led many to believe everything needed a check, and that the DCs were fixed and immutable things regardless of a specific situation. And for many players to believe that it was their right to roll the dice on a specific skill for a given situation, and to know what the DC must be in advance.

The Omniscifier build relied on this, among others. Basically get inifinite bonus to skill checks (e.g. Knowledge, Diplomacy, Craft) through a broken rules interaction involving sticking your head in a bucket of water. Inform the DM you now know everything and can tell anyone what to do.

[MaxWilson]

Actually, with a 40 on Acrobatics, I probably WOULD let you squeeze from a Forcecage. Considering that requires Expertise with an Ioun Stone of Master (+14), a 22 Dex (+6), AND a Nat 20... Look, you deserve it at that point. Mid-to-upper 30s is where you start seeing the impossible.

Or just Expertise (+12) and Peerless Skill (+7ish) and Dex 20 (+5) and a 16 or higher, which will happen almost half the time when you've got Enhance Ability up. Add Guidance from a buddy for an extra +2.5.

This is why it's folly to allow impossible things just because you think the DC roll is improbable--it's probably not as unattainable as you think it is. If something is impossible, just declare it to be impossible-under-the-circumstances, don't give it DC 40.

I don't care what your Athletics DC is, you're not fitting your head through a hole the size of a nickel unless the tone of the game is already ridiculous. (If the tone is ridiculous, then I'd make that DC 20 but it only works once, and not while anyone is looking.)

[Thrudd]

Yep! I saw people saying the op did it wrong, but I think it's more fair to say they did it wrong for them. The focus toward them can be understood since the thread is directed towards them, but I thought it was worth being a bit pedantic to flesh out the topic.

They did it wrong according to the rule book. The DM calls for checks. But yes, the DM can decide to play differently than the rules and let players decide when to make checks if he wants. The result of doing this, however, is the problem stated by the OP.

Players describe what their character is doing or wants to do. The DM decides what happens and asks for dice to be rolled if necessary. That is the basic format for the game in all editions. Most common problems in people's games appear when this basic format is not followed.

[Pex]

Agreed. "Roll playing" has been a "problem", in so far as people being unhappy with strictly applied results of allowing rolls for everything, since D&D has come about.

What happened with 3e is the ability to make checks for resolution became more systematic, codified, and more front and center (because skills), so more people were aware of them and how the system worked. And most importantly, the game included many example tables of DCs. This led many to believe everything needed a check, and that the DCs were fixed and immutable things regardless of a specific situation. And for many players to believe that it was their right to roll the dice on a specific skill for a given situation, and to know what the DC must be in advance.

That's a fair assessment as something that happened. They see the numbers, and that's all they see. It would have helped to be clear in the Player's Handbook for players to read themselves that Diplomacy is not Charm/Dominate Person and even those spells have limits. A Charmed King will not give up his throne either. A Dominated one would at least get another saving throw.

I do think 3E erred in giving social skills defined DCs. It would have worked better as opposed rolls with the degree of effectiveness hostile -> indifferent -> friendly etc. be how much you win by in increments of 5. Have an example given where using Diplomacy successfully by 0-5 on a hostile creature only means it won't kill you now, but it's still hostile.


(Edit Just in case that comes across wrong: I don't think you're one of those players. I think you view the 3e DC tables as examples that give the DM an idea of typical DC, and you as a player an idea of what your character can do. Not something completely immutable for specific situations.)

Cheers

[Elbeyon]

They did it wrong according to the rule book. The DM calls for checks. But yes, the DM can decide to play differently than the rules and let players decide when to make checks if he wants. The result of doing this, however, is the problem stated by the OP.

Players describe what their character is doing or wants to do. The DM decides what happens and asks for dice to be rolled if necessary. That is the basic format for the game in all editions. Most common problems in people's games appear when this basic format is not followed.Yeah, the OP didn't actually say that's what happened/ is happening. The player might have said what they were doing, the dm asked for a roll, and things progressed as normal.

[BRC]

So, this is more of a 'what am I doing wrong' sort of thread, rather than a 'this is broken' sort of thread.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble working with a character who has built strongly into Persuasion and Deception. Specifically, I think he's a multiclass Whispers Bard 6 Rogue 1. Like any class, he uses his class features as often as he can, but it strikes me that Persuasion and Deception are far too powerful skills in this game.

NPC interaction is one of the primary ways that you can deliver lore, give players a way to spend their gold, develop story, and build a world, but it seems that when any amount of brief conversation would lead to a richer experience, the conversation is bypassed with a Persuasion or a Deception roll. With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics or telling the Wizard that there's no way he could discern the identity of a magic item with Arcana.

Am I misinterpreting how these skills work? How do you run a game where a single Persuasion or Deception roll won't break things? I'm not very good at improvisation, so I tend to prepare games by planning instead. I'm sure if I could improvise everything, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.


Skills are not magic (And even magic isn't fully Magic), and should be run through a considerable filter of Common Sense.

Deception, in particular, can only convince somebody that you believe that YOU are telling the truth, not that a thing is True.

Also, there are some lies that are just too big to sell, and some arguments that, no matter how persuasive you are, simply won't fly.


If the Bard walks into the Throne Room, Declares themselves King, and rolls a nat 20 (For a total of 29), they STILL get thrown out if that's all they've done. Because people here KNOW the king, and that is obviously not them.

Even if they give a more likely story, like "I'm the King's long lost brother, and actually the True Heir", you might get some people believing that you THINK that's the case, but that's not going to give you a throne.

Let's go with a less extreme example.

There is a Guard at the door of a fancy party. The PC wants to get into the party.

If they walk up to the door, dressed as some wealthy merchant, and declare that they've lost their invitation, a simple insight vs Deception is probably enough. The Guard has no reason to disbelieve them, and so, once the Guard is convinced that the PC is not trying to deceive them, they'll let them in.

If they are dressed as a commoner, the Guard is going to be far more skeptical. The PC might have disadvantage, the guard may have advantage, or you may just set the DC as much higher.



Persuasion should also be run through a filter. "Is the PC's Goal achievable through charm and reason alone". Generally Speaking, Persuasion won't work unless the target already has a reason to do what they're being persuaded to do.

Something like "Convince a Merchant to give us a discount" works. The Merchant wants to make the sale, your persuasion check convinces them that they won't get the sale unless they give you a discount, and some profit is better than no profit. However, no matter how high you roll on persuasion, you're never going to convince the Merchant to give you the item for Free or sell it at a loss, because they have no reason to do so.

If the PC's want to convince an NPC to do something they have no reason to do (Like, give them free stuff), they need to provide a reason why the NPC might do that besides "I rolled well on Persuasion". Something like "We're local heroes, if you give us free equipment, we'll tell everybody about your store" might work. Or, "We just saved this town, the Merchant might want to show his gratitude".


You don't even get to make a Deception roll unless the target has a reason to believe you. You don't get to make a Persuasion roll unless the target has a reason to be convinced.

[mephnick]

Along with "checks aren't mind control", generally you actually have to provide an argument/bribe for Persuasion, a lie for Deception or a threat for Intimidation. You can't just throw dice. You can't just say you're the King now and roll Persuasion. But if you presented a mythical sword given to the rightful heir and used this as evidence of being the rightful King that might warrant a check to convince the court. You can't just roll Deception, you have to present a lie. You can't just say "I Intimidate the guy" you actually have to threaten his family. If you don't provide a lie, argument or threat the DM has no information with which to adjudicate rolls or present adequate reactions for his NPCs.

[Boci]

There are lots of situations where a player might think a check is required when it actually isn't - the player is free to roll whatever dice they want but the outcome is meaningless unless the DM asked for a roll because if the DM didn't ask for a roll then the outcome wasn't in question. In your example, lets say the guy is a bored border guard with a list of questions to ask. He isn't really paying much attention and he's asked this same list of questions 100s of times today. The DM decides unless you draw attention no check is required.

Yes, but why would the DM tell them that? Players, and certainly characters, shouldn't know about behind the scenes context that makes the check obsolete. If the player says they are going to sneak forward and the DM doesn't ask for a stealth check, the player now knows that either there are no enemies present, or they are but their detection will beast any stealth result. Which is weird information for the stealth skill to give the player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In this particular case, there's a table in the DMG with "What can you expect for certain social check results" based on the NPC's attitude to you. Even at best (20+ with a friendly NPC) you get "The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked." An indifferent creature maxes out at minor risk or sacrifice; a hostile one at no risk or sacrifice.

Note that to shift a creature's attitude requires playing on their specific bonds/flaws/ideals, not necessarily rolling high.

"I persuade the king to give me his throne" requires one of the following (or similar) to be anything but DC: Nope at my table--

1) overwhelming force
2) a strongly lawful king and a clear better claim (and this one's gonna be hard anyway)
3) magic of the domination sort (and even then you'll have to roll, as that's an extreme request in my book. Not RAW, but...)

[mephnick]

Yes, but why would the DM tell them that? Players, and certainly characters, shouldn't know about behind the scenes context that makes the check obsolete. If the player says they are going to sneak forward and the DM doesn't ask for a stealth check, the player now knows that either there are no enemies present, or they are but their detection will beast any stealth result. Which is weird information for the stealth skill to give the player.

The player doesn't need to roll Stealth until there is something to roll against. If a player says he is going to sneak forward the DM says "OK". That's it. Then if something that may actually detect the PC comes along the player rolls Stealth as they try and sneak by. You don't go into "Stealth mode". Otherwise the PC can think "huh rolled a 10 on my Stealth, better change what I was going to do."

[Ganymede]

How exactly does that play out at the table

DM: The guard asks if you know where the elven spy is

Player: I say no I do not and roll deception

DM: Woah, easy there buddy. I decide when an roll is going to be made, you just tell me what your character does

Player: Okay, I tell him I don't know where the elven spy is hiding

DM: Okay, roll deception

Player:...

That's one of two outcomes. The other outcome is that no roll is required.

I am sure that this player can survive a minute instance of pedantry in order to avoid this scenario in the future.

[Tanarii]

The player doesn't need to roll Stealth until there is something to roll against. If a player says he is going to sneak forward the DM says "OK". That's it. Then if something that may actually detect the PC comes along the player rolls Stealth as they try and sneak by. You don't go into "Stealth mode". Otherwise the PC can think "huh rolled a 10 on my Stealth, better change what I was going to do."
Actually, the way the PHB is worded does kind of imply the PC goes into "stealth mode".

PHB sidebar on Hiding:
"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."

This implies strongly you immediately make a check immediately, and it is used by any creature that contests it until it changes.
(We had a thread on this, what, a week ago? It made me look at this a little more closely and revise my position slightly. I can easily see how it's possible to read that statement as 'make your check right away'.)

[Boci]

The player doesn't need to roll Stealth until there is something to roll against. If a player says he is going to sneak forward the DM says "OK". That's it.

And the DM just told the player "there is no monster in the vicinity/there is one but it doesn't care about your stealth result". Which is a wierd thing for a stealth check to reveal, regardless of what the rules say about the topic.


You don't go into "Stealth mode". Otherwise the PC can think "huh rolled a 10 on my Stealth, better change what I was going to do."

If you have that little trust in your PCs, having them anticipate what rolls their actions will require is the least of your concern.


That's one of two outcomes. The other outcome is that no roll is required.

Yes yes, well done, you can fill blank space with context that changes the scenario. Generally though, when a guard asks a PC an important question and the PC lies, that will call for deception roll, and players know this.

There's nothing wrong with the DM just letting the players make their own rolls, and ignore them when they don't apply.

[mephnick]

If you have that little trust in your PCs, having them anticipate what rolls their actions will require is the least of your concern.

Knowing whether you will pass or fail your Stealth check when you encounter anything will subconsciously change your methods going forward. It has nothing to do with trust, it's how people work.

[Boci]

Knowing whether you will pass or fail your Stealth check when you encounter anything will subconsciously change your methods going forward. It has nothing to do with trust, it's how people work.

Yes, but you're the one telling players whether or not a monster is there by selectivly asking for a stealth. If you ask/let the player roll the dice whenever they enter stealth, a low roll will be less likely to change things, because the player doesn't know if the result is even going to matter.

If you're worried about subconcious metagaming, Id be more worried about what would result from the playerrs learning there is a monster present when they go into stealth and you ask for a stealth check.

Plus, how does the player know that they passed/failed a stealth check? They don't know the DC.

[mephnick]

Yes, but you're the one telling players whether or not a monster is there by selectivly asking for a stealth. If you ask/let the player roll the dice whenever they enter stealth, a low roll will be less likely to change things, because the player doesn't know if the result is even going to matter.

Plus, how does the player know that they passed/failed a stealth check? They don't know the DC.

There is no DC. Stealth checks are opposed with Perception. If you roll poorly or well you've probably got a good idea of where you stand. But you do have a point on selectively asking for checks. If you roll when there is a failure state (like every other roll in the game) then a fail means you've been spotted..but you might not want the player to know when they've been spotted. The only thing that fixes both our problems is probably using Passive Stealth if being used for a while..but players might not like that.

[Elbeyon]

Or, rolling behind cover.

[Thrudd]

Yeah, the OP didn't actually say that's what happened/ is happening. The player might have said what they were doing, the dm asked for a roll, and things progressed as normal.

True, the DM could be applying the result of checks unrealistically or calling for them when it isn't necessary or appropriate. Either way, the issue is entirely in the DM's hands, it isn't a result of there being a rules exploit that lets players get away with these shenanigans. The DM doesn't need to house rule anything, only to enforce the rules as written and intended, in order to straighten this thing out.

[Boci]

There is no DC. Stealth checks are opposed with Perception. If you roll poorly or well you've probably got a good idea of where you stand. But you do have a point on selectively asking for checks. If you roll when there is a failure state (like every other roll in the game) then a fail means you've been spotted..but you might not want the player to know when they've been spotted. The only thing that fixes both our problems is probably using Passive Stealth if being used for a while..but players might not like that.

I think you as a DM might dislike that more with expertise. If not then, yeah its an all round medicore system for both sides.

I still say that between players subconciously altering their actions based on a stealth roll result and players subcontiously altering their actions based on the DM indirectly telling them that there is a monster nearby, the latter will have the bigger impact on the game.

[JNAProductions]

Need to be careful with that to prevent the socially awkward player* from never getting anywhere while the charismatic charming player gets away with everything, not that that's what happening for this thread topic. Here's it's raw numbers. As was said, a Natural 20 Persuasion does not make the king give you his throne as much as a Natural 20 Athletics does not let you jump to the moon.

*Still, even the socially awkward player needs to say something to get the idea across what he wants to accomplish and how.

My personal rule for socially awkward players would be this: Give me a general idea of WHAT your character is doing, and the die roll is how well they do it.

For instance, you cannot just say "I persuade the guard to let us in," and roll Persuasion. You'd have to say something along the lines of "I persuade the guard to let us in by explaining that we're here to help, and it's in the kingdom's best interest to let us in." Because that right there is Persuasion, but if they said "I persuade the guard to let us in by telling him that we're supposed to be here, and just got knocked off the list," that's Deception. Though if they said "I persuade the guard to let us in by giving him a 10 GP bribe," that's back to Persuasion.

The reason for that is both so I can make sure you're rolling the appropriate check, and so that way I can determine how hard the check is. If the guard is fiercely loyal to the throne, and genuinely has the kingdom's best interests at heart, persuading him via the first bit is an easy check (assuming he knows the kingdom is in need of help). If, on the other hand, the guard doesn't give two whits about the kingdom, and is just collecting his money, it's hard to move him with "helping the kingdom" as your reason. Not impossible-but not easy. Whereas the third example wouldn't sway the first guard unless the player rolled hot, but would easily persuade the second guard.

[strangebloke]

Yes, but you're the one telling players whether or not a monster is there by selectivly asking for a stealth. If you ask/let the player roll the dice whenever they enter stealth, a low roll will be less likely to change things, because the player doesn't know if the result is even going to matter.

If you're worried about subconcious metagaming, Id be more worried about what would result from the playerrs learning there is a monster present when they go into stealth and you ask for a stealth check.

Plus, how does the player know that they passed/failed a stealth check? They don't know the DC.

They can conjecture about the DC, and any roll less than 10 has a good chance of being a failure. If they think there's a good chance of failure, they might backpedal immediately.

As to why the DM needs to call for skill checks:

Scenario A(DM calls for skill checks):Joe is sneaking about the enemy camp. He has a cloak of elvenkind. This gives him advantage on stealth checks made to remain unseen. If he stays well clear of anyone, he won't have to roll stealth at all. If he gets close, but he's too far away to be heard, any stealth checks the DM requires will have advantage. If he gets close enough to be heard, he won't have advantage. If he gets upwind of the enemy werewolf, the wolf will have advantage on perception rolls against him.

Scenario B: Joe is sneaking about the enemy camp. He decides to roll stealth once at the start of his sneaking. Presumably, he chooses to do so with advantage. Does the DM require new stealth checks if he gets close enough to be heard?

[Boci]

Scenario B: Joe is sneaking about the enemy camp. He decides to roll stealth once at the start of his sneaking. Presumably, he chooses to do so with advantage.

Or, or, or, Joe, being smart and understanding that advantage can come and go, rolls twice, and informs the DM of the results with and without advantage.

[Coffee_Dragon]

And the DM just told the player "there is no monster in the vicinity/there is one but it doesn't care about your stealth result". Which is a wierd thing for a stealth check to reveal, regardless of what the rules say about the topic.

If you have that little trust in your PCs, having them anticipate what rolls their actions will require is the least of your concern.

These two replies read a little weirdly back to back. In the first you frame your case around the problem of giving meta-information to the player. In the second you pooh-pooh the idea that giving out meta-information to the player is a problem. Am I missing something?

(Parenthetically, a DM giving a result without asking for a roll may also mean they resolved a passive check.)

[JNAProductions]

I'll add that, in a lot of cases, you can tell the players an approximate DC. Not always-Stealth, for instance, would be usually unknown if you're scouting, but if you're Stealthing into a scouted area, you might know there's two sleepy guards playing cards and one bloodhound that's nice and alert, so the DM could say "The guards appear to be pretty inattentive-DC shouldn't be higher than 11 or 12 to get by them. But the dog is clearly alert, and has a keen nose, so unless you have a way around that, it might easily be DC 18 or 19 to get by him."

Likewise, if there's a sheer cliff, characters are generally assumed to be competent. Assuming the cliff is tough enough to merit a check, you can (and probably should) give them the exact DC, since the characters should know how good at climbing they are. So, in this instance, I might say "DC 18 for climbing the cliff. If you fail on a 13-17, you stay in place or slip only slightly, but if you fail on a 12 or less, you fall from however far up you managed to get. It'll be three checks total to make it up, each one bringing you up 30'." So the scrawny Wizard (-1 Athletics) waits for his friends to climb and toss a rope down, or casts Fly if that can't happen. Whereas the burly Fighter (+9 Athletics) decides that a 3/20 chance of falling ain't that bad, and climbs it (although, over the course of the climb, there's a just under 40% chance of him falling). The Rogue, meanwhile, has Expertise and a decent strength, so is rocking +12, and cannot fall unless outside circumstances make him, so climbs like a monkey. If they were smart, they'd have the Rogue either climb on his own (can't fall) and drop a rope, or Help the Fighter climb it, for a 2.25% chance of falling per check, and only a total of about 7% chance of falling overall.

[Boci]

These two replies read a little weirdly back to back. In the first you frame your case around the problem of giving meta-information to the player. In the second you pooh-pooh the idea that giving out meta-information to the player is a problem. Am I missing something?

Two things: 1. I'm not convinced how much players will metagame a stealth check. They knew why they rolled for stealth ("I'll go scout ahead/set up an ambush"), if they're honest they should be able to do a roughly the same thing. Now entering an area and knowing a monster is there, no, they didn't know exactly what they were going to do in that room, so its harder to not let it effect you.


And ultimatly:

"I still say that between players subconciously altering their actions based on a stealth roll result and players subcontiously altering their actions based on the DM indirectly telling them that there is a monster nearby, the latter will have the bigger impact on the game."

[strangebloke]

Or, or, or, Joe, being smart and understanding that advantage can come and go, rolls twice, and informs the DM of the results with and without advantage.

And disadvantage, since that can happen as well.

And now Joe metagames, because he can't help it, and, noting that he rolled well both times, he is very bold in his movements. Or he rolled very poorly both times and so he's very conservative. Or he rolled once very well and once very poorly so he tries very hard to stay out of hearing range.

"Oh," but you say, "don't you trust your players?"

Well, I do, but I also ask them to roll on the table where everyone can see it. Besides that, the best way to head off metagaming, in my experience, is to make it impossible. Anytime a player says "Well, I clearly know this bit of out-of-game information, but I am not allowed to use it because that would constitute metagaming." he is being taken out of the game. That is bad.

"But if you only ask for a stealth roll when he could be perceived, aren't you giving him information?"

Well, yes. But not much. He could be rolling stealth against a squirrel, for all he knows. Heck, it could be a DC 5 because there's a sleeping guard 50 feet away that might wake up if he rolls a nat 1.

[Boci]

And disadvantage, since that can happen as well.

Not if Jow has advantage, but yeah sure, if he doesn't, then he can roll twice for that. Easily done.


Well, yes. But not much.

I disagree. I think you're giving him more information by calling for checks, as I explained above. An honest player knowns why they are hiding and can carry out a general plan regardless of the stealth result. An honest player doesn't know how the knowledge of a creature being there effects their plan. Its no longer about honestly, its about not being able to unlearn something.

I'm sorry to hear your expirience with players has been they cannot help but metagame.

[GlenSmash!]

Yeah, I think after a few minutes of this I'd just hand the GM my character sheet, tell him to have fun playing my character for me, and go find another D&D table.

You're of course free to do as you will, but I fail to see how a DM deciding if an ability check is called for amounts to playing for the player.

It was after all the player's description of their choice of goal and approach that determined whether or not the check is called for.

[Boci]

It was after all the player's description of their choice of goal and approach that determined whether or not the check is called for.

To me it seems redunant. When we played 5th ed players anticipated what skills would acompany their attempts, and I don't recall it being a reocuring issue that they misjudged which skill was to be used. When he were unsure we were asked, but we didn't need to be told to roll perception after we described our characters looking for something.

[JNAProductions]

You're of course free to do as you will, but I fail to see how a DM deciding if an ability check is called for amounts to playing for the player.

It was after all the player's description of their choice of goal and approach that determined whether or not the check is called for.

I'd say that, oftentimes, players CAN call for a check. If the player is lying to the king, I don't need to approve them rolling Deception. I might ask them to roll an extra die (for dis- or advantage), but the situation is CLEARLY Deception time.

In other cases, though, such as when rolling for knowledge on a new monster, players should generally wait for me to call for a check. They can say "I look at the monster and search my brain for any knowledge on it," but they can't then say "I roll Arcana,". Because what if the monster can't be identified with Arcana?

[Boci]

In other cases, though, such as when rolling for knowledge on a new monster, players should generally wait for me to call for a check. They can say "I look at the monster and search my brain for any knowledge on it," but they can't then say "I roll Arcana,". Because what if the monster can't be identified with Arcana?

Then the roll, and the 5 seconds of time it took, is wasted (beyond telling you its not an arcana creature). Then again I play alot in online games, where making assumptions can save a lot of time.

[JNAProductions]

Then the roll, and the 5 seconds of time it, took is wasted.

Fair enough, but it's a bad habit to be in. I don't want to be constantly telling my players "No, that roll meant nothing," especially if it was a good roll.

Edit: You added in a bit about online games. DEFINITELY agree there-Play by Post is slow enough as is. In a real game, there's no major issue with waiting for me to call for a check, but yes, by all means, be proactive in a PbP. It can lead to "Sorry, your nat 20 means nothing," but it's better than waiting three days for one roll to resolve.

[Boci]

Fair enough, but it's a bad habit to be in. I don't want to be constantly telling my players "No, that roll meant nothing," especially if it was a good roll.

If the player is rolling arcana without the DM okay it, then they accept that they roll could be wasted. Argualy it still tells them something, that this creature isn't from the arcana group, which does narrow down, especially now that monsters have, what, 4 group knowledgewise?

Also I play alot in online games, where making assumptions can save a lot of time.

[JNAProductions]

If the player is rolling arcana without the DM okay it, then they accept that they roll could be wasted. Argualy it still tells them something, that this creature isn't from the arcana group, which does narrow down, especially now that monsters have, what, 4 group knowledgewise?

Also I play alot in online games, where making assumptions can save a lot of time.

I noticed you edited that in, and edited in a response to that, Boci. I agree on PbP games, not as much in real time games.

[Boci]

I noticed you edited that in, and edited in a response to that, Boci. I agree on PbP games, not as much in real time games.

I saw, didn't want to edit any firther least the cycle continues.

[JNAProductions]

I saw, didn't want to edit any firther least the cycle continues.

Fair enough.

I'll say this: Assuming the player is okay with a roll being potentially wasted, I don't mind them rolling a check before I call for one. BUT! If they do do that, they give up any rights to be salty about rolling well and not having it count, since ultimately, the DM is the one who decides when an ability check is called for, not the player.

[Boci]

Fair enough.

I'll say this: Assuming the player is okay with a roll being potentially wasted, I don't mind them rolling a check before I call for one. BUT! If they do do that, they give up any rights to be salty about rolling well and not having it count, since ultimately, the DM is the one who decides when an ability check is called for, not the player.

Absolutly, and as you and I both said, players know that you look for stuff with perception and lie with deception, they generally know when their actions will call for a specific roll, and they also know monsters can be identified of one of several skills, so they also know when to ask. And even if they don't and just assume, its really not a big deal in my expirience at least.

[2D8HP]

Where do I find one of the DM's in this thread who lets me play a character instead of a character sheet?

Just saying what my PC does instead of having to guess/say what I'm rolling sounds great to me!

[LankyOgre]

Fair enough.

I'll say this: Assuming the player is okay with a roll being potentially wasted, I don't mind them rolling a check before I call for one. BUT! If they do do that, they give up any rights to be salty about rolling well and not having it count, since ultimately, the DM is the one who decides when an ability check is called for, not the player.

But then, to be devil's advocate, if we are complaining about metagaming, wouldn't this be a situation in which the DM can metagame? The DM sees the die roll and then purposefully sets the DC higher or lower. Really, the DM should probably just say its not possible or not impossible, but some DMs don't like to own their decisions.

I guess a lot of it to me boils down to "if you can't trust the people you are rolling dice with (on either side) then stop rolling dice with them."

[Boci]

Where do I find one of the DM's in this thread who lets me play a character instead of a character sheet?

Just saying what my PC does instead of having to guess/say what I'm rolling sounds great to me!

Literally any DM ever? If you don't tell them what you're rolling and just describe your character's actions, they will tell you what to roll. That's not the question, its can the PCs take agency and roll perception when looking for something without waiting for the go ahead from the DM.

[Asmotherion]

I generally require a player to deliver a belivable, good or passable RP in order for either of those skills to work (as I do for all skill checks btw).

The check represents how good was the delivery, as well as the non-controlable aspects the character could not have forsawn (for example, attempting a persuation check could fail because of mentioning knowing someone the NPC secretly hates, or receive a "bonus" and succeed, because of a secret handshake done unintentionally (lowering the DC), but the PC or the Player would have no means of knowing this. I generally like including those realism factors that reward/punish a good or bad approach to problem solving, be it speaking to a stranger, going across the broken bridge or domesticating a pack of starved wolves instead of fighting them head on.

The same holds true for even using a simple rope. Just standing there with a length of rope in front of a wall won't cut it for example. I want you to describe to me exactly what you do in order to use it, and climb said wall.

Or, caltrops. I think they are cool too, but I want you to describe me how you use them without hurting yourself.

I also require some cool description on attack rolls, and spell casting. It's more fun this way. I am already doing the descriptions for everything else, so you get to deside what your actions look like.

[greenstone]

it strikes me that Persuasion and Deception are far too powerful skills in this game.

Persuasion and deception skills are incredibly useful, both in game and in real life. They aren't, however, automatic "I win" skills.

As a GM, you have two "defences" against them.

First, nothing says you have to roll. If the players does something that has no chance of success, you just say "no". If the player says, "Don't I get to roll?" you repeat "no."

Something that has no chance of success automatically fails with no die roll; just like something that has no chance of failure automatically succeeds with no die roll.

Player agency doesn't mean they get to roll for everything. Agency means that they are in control of their characters actions; you are still in control of the world's reactions to the character's actions.

Second, eventually liars get caught. The longer the deception, the worse the consequences. Think Nixon or Clinton.


a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it

Yes you can. Just say "no". :-)

The guards respond, "No, you are not the king, get out of here before we put your head on a pike."

But... If the character has spent time learning the king's mannerisms and has stolen some of the king's clothes to wear and has planned for a time when the king is away then yes, the deception should work. Kudos to the player for having their character try something really ambitious.

However, at some point the real king is going to turn up…

[Unoriginal]

Worth nothing that you can give proficiencies to NPC statblocks because, you know, the ones in the book are generic ones for convenience's sake and not a 100% fitting representation of everyone.

[Contrast]

The same holds true for even using a simple rope. Just standing there with a length of rope in front of a wall won't cut it for example. I want you to describe to me exactly what you do in order to use it, and climb said wall.

Considering I don't know how to do almost anything a D&D adventurer would use their skills for on a day to day basis, if I was playing in your game social skills would be OP given they'd be the only ones which didn't require years of real life experience to use effectively :smallwink:

[GlenSmash!]

To me it seems redunant. When we played 5th ed players anticipated what skills would acompany their attempts, and I don't recall it being a reocuring issue that they misjudged which skill was to be used. When he were unsure we were asked, but we didn't need to be told to roll perception after we described our characters looking for something.

I think it fosters a belief that one shouldn't be shooting for success without rolling by describing a goal and approach very well. I find if players are thinking about how their character would approach a scenario and describe that as well I like to have that just succeed.

If that doesn't work, sure we'll roll for it, but hopefully they at least described it so well as to get situational Advantage.

[2D8HP]

Literally any DM ever?[...]


Everyone?

No most of my DM's in the 20th century let me play a character not a sheet, but sadly that hasn't been true of my 21st century DM's.

[Boci]

Everyone?

No most of my DM's in the 20th century let me play a character not a sheet, but sadly that hasn't been true of my 21st century DM's.

So what happens when you describe what your character does without referencing a skill? They just stare blankly at you until you mention which skill you're trying to use?

[Malifice]

OP.

As DM you're required to set the DC for tasks that are possible, and to forbid a check at all if something is impossible.

A PC cant make an Dex (Acrobatics) check to tumble over a mile of water for example, and you cant make a Strength (Athletics) check to climb a wall made of sheer glass.

Same deal with Charisma skills. Some lies are just impossible to believe no matter how slick the salesman. Some people simply cany be persuaded to do something when they have thier heart set on something else.

You're missing this step in allowing Charisma checks in the first place. When a player wants to persuade or decieve a NPC first ask yourself if the NPC could be persuaded or decieved in this circumstance. If it's possible, you then move to setting a DC.

All things being equal, persuading the King to hand over the throne is [DC: infinite, dont roll]. Unless you as DM have determined that the King is tired of his job, and wants to hand over the kingdom to a worthy person (and even then the check might have a catch; such as requesting the PC do a task for the king first).

Think about what the NPC wants, and believes. Then let the interaction and skill checks (if any) flow from that premise.

[RazorChain]

So, this is more of a 'what am I doing wrong' sort of thread, rather than a 'this is broken' sort of thread.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble working with a character who has built strongly into Persuasion and Deception. Specifically, I think he's a multiclass Whispers Bard 6 Rogue 1. Like any class, he uses his class features as often as he can, but it strikes me that Persuasion and Deception are far too powerful skills in this game.

NPC interaction is one of the primary ways that you can deliver lore, give players a way to spend their gold, develop story, and build a world, but it seems that when any amount of brief conversation would lead to a richer experience, the conversation is bypassed with a Persuasion or a Deception roll. With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics or telling the Wizard that there's no way he could discern the identity of a magic item with Arcana.

Am I misinterpreting how these skills work? How do you run a game where a single Persuasion or Deception roll won't break things? I'm not very good at improvisation, so I tend to prepare games by planning instead. I'm sure if I could improvise everything, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

This post just really made my day. I'm sure you will allow that barbarian to jump over that one mile chasm as well and the Wizard to identify that evil artifact that was hidden and struck off the pages of history and nobody knows anything about.

[RazorChain]

Everyone?

No most of my DM's in the 20th century let me play a character not a sheet, but sadly that hasn't been true of my 21st century DM's.

Just find a GM that started to run games in the 20th century!

[MadBear]

I'm definitely going to throw my hat behind walking in to the thrown room being multiple checks, if it's allowed at all. With the right amount of prep and roleplaying I can see it being interesting and plausible.

Let be clear though, this is not what I'm talking about:
Player: I walk into the throne room, declare myself king
DM: Roll check
Player: I rolled a 20! Ha I'm king bitches


Now instead if it went something like:

Player: I bust into the thrown room demanding to speak to the captain of the guard regarding a matter of utmost importance.
DM: The kings guard attempt to stop you.
Player: I tell them that I am the true high king and I've brought proof
DM: Roll persuasion to convince them to take you seriously
Player: I roll a 21
DM: Ok, they'll hear you out, but they're suspicious
Player: I pull out a note with the last true kings handwriting stating that I was the next in line to the throne
DM: Wait when did you make this?
Player: Remember, I asked about making this last session, you had me roll a charisma check using forging tools
DM: Ah ok, let me roll their insight. Ok, they seem to think this is legitimate. They tell you to wait while they pass it to the king sitting on the throne. The king takes one look at it before ripping it to shreds and throwing it onto the ground. He says "how dare you use a piece of trash paper like that to question my authority. Just who do you think you are anyway".
Player: I'm Sir Benjin Snow the 2nd, you stole this throne from me, and I'm hear to reclaim it
DM: Ok, roll a charisma check using persuasion to convince the court to listen to you
Player: Holy Cow! I rolled a natural 20.
DM: Ok, the members in court are looking between you and the king confused, not sure what to do.
Player: I say "guard to my side, time to arrest this treasonous king". Also, remember, I've been secretly bribing the guards for the last month, getting them onto my payroll.
DM: Ok, roll one final persuasion roll, this time with advantage.


Now in this case, I'm still not even sure I fully like how it've gone, but at least we have: a roll to convince the guards to let you in, a roll for false documents, a roll of persuasion to get the court on your side, and a roll to get the guards to join you. And all of this would have been happening with them having had to put in some serious work. Keep in mind, the player is playing with fire, since even a single bad role would result in some jail time.


Finally, I'm also totally fine with:
Player: "I declare myself king and rightful ruler of this city"
DM: "ummm ok, persuasion roll"
Player: "Natural 20!"
DM: Ok, you find the guards approaching to arrest you.
Player: but I rolled a 20.
DM: I know, and they totally believe that, you believe your king. They're not taking you to jail. They're taking you to the insane asylum.

[Malifice]

Player: I bust into the thrown room demanding to speak to the captain of the guard regarding a matter of utmost importance.
DM: The kings guard attempt to stop you.
Player: I tell them that I am the true high king and I've brought proof
DM: ...

...the King respondes with a demand that you be arrested for treason and sedition, and hung, drawn and quartered. The guards comply.

Seriously. The greatest used car salesman that ever lived himself couldnt walk into Buckingham palace and insist that Elizabeth was not (in fact) the Queen, and have anything come if it (other than being arrested).

If he had've done so afew hundred years ago, he could expect his head on a spike.

[MadBear]

...the King respondes with a demand that you be arrested for treason and sedition, and hung, drawn and quartered. The guards comply.

Seriously. The greatest used car salesman that ever lived himself couldnt walk into Buckingham palace and insist that Elizabeth was not (in fact) the Queen, and have anything come if it (other than being arrested).

If he had've done so afew hundred years ago, he could expect his head on a spike.

I'm inclined to agree. To be fair, the part your quoting is what would happen prior to entering the court. And even then, I'm inclined to just say "sorry no". But being as generous as possible, if the players had put in the ground work (spreading rumor of a true heir, forging documents, paying off guards, etc. etc.) I might be inclined to let the dice fall where they may, and even in that absurd scenario, you better hope the dice gods rule in your favor.

Actually, even while typing this I couldn't help but be reminded of Game of Thrones. Ned learned quick, and even with genuine documentation, things don't always go your way.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind, getting someone who's indifferent to you (ie not hostile nor friendly) to do something that has a chance to slightly inconvenience them is already DC 20, by the book.

[Reynaert]

Knowing whether you will pass or fail your Stealth check when you encounter anything will subconsciously change your methods going forward. It has nothing to do with trust, it's how people work.

Why shouldn't a character know how well he succeeded at stealthing?

[sithlordnergal]

So, this is more of a 'what am I doing wrong' sort of thread, rather than a 'this is broken' sort of thread.

I'm having quite a bit of trouble working with a character who has built strongly into Persuasion and Deception. Specifically, I think he's a multiclass Whispers Bard 6 Rogue 1. Like any class, he uses his class features as often as he can, but it strikes me that Persuasion and Deception are far too powerful skills in this game.

NPC interaction is one of the primary ways that you can deliver lore, give players a way to spend their gold, develop story, and build a world, but it seems that when any amount of brief conversation would lead to a richer experience, the conversation is bypassed with a Persuasion or a Deception roll. With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics or telling the Wizard that there's no way he could discern the identity of a magic item with Arcana.

Am I misinterpreting how these skills work? How do you run a game where a single Persuasion or Deception roll won't break things? I'm not very good at improvisation, so I tend to prepare games by planning instead. I'm sure if I could improvise everything, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.


I actually have a similar issue with a player that was playing a Bard. They try to use Persuasion to get through every single encounter to gain allies and mooks to help them in their quest. It was fun for the Bard, but I noticed the potential danger of letting the Bard hog all the spotlight early on. My fix was pretty simple too. When the Bard rolled a 30 on their persuasion to get a Red Wizard of Thay to do what they wanted, I simply said "It isn't going to work." It should be noted they rolled before I had called for a roll, so there wasn't a chance they'd succeed.

They asked why, and I told them "It's your persuasion vs. a direct order from Szass Tam and Valinda Shadowmantle. It doesn't matter how high you roll persuasion, your words are not going to change their mind or stop them." A similar situation occurred when they fought against Frost Giants looking for the Ring of Winter, I simply told them that there was no possible way to change the giant's course of action through words alone.

As other people have stated, persuasion isn't a magical ability, nor is it the Suggestion spell. It doesn't matter how high they roll, sometimes persuading people to do things simply won't work. And unlike Arcana or Athletics, you can easily justify it by saying "These people are so focused/dedicated to their cause that they are unwavering", or something similar. And the same methods can be used for deception. Are they trying to deceive someone? They failed not because of their lie, but because the person they lied to has a higher then average knowledge of what they're lying about. For example, they can try to lie about a prisoner transfer to the guard, only to find out the guard knows the schedule by heart and gets told about all prisoner transfers before hand. Meaning it won't matter how high they roll, that guard will know they're lying.

[GlenSmash!]

Keep in mind, getting someone who's indifferent to you (ie not hostile nor friendly) to do something that has a chance to slightly inconvenience them is already DC 20, by the book.

It's almost like game developer actually foresaw this kind of thing happening?

[Unoriginal]

It's almost like game developer actually foresaw this kind of thing happening?

You mean that the 5e designers might be competent?

Internet would have lied?

[GlenSmash!]

You mean that the 5e designers might be competent?

Internet would have lied?

Perish the thought.

[Tanarii]

You mean that the 5e designers might be competent?
I'll tell ya, I was shocked when I finally allowed myself to realize the a-hole developer who quite obviously set about intentionally killing the edition I was in the middle of enjoying could actually produce. And had a solid big picture concept to produce around.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Why shouldn't a character know how well he succeeded at stealthing?

What the character ultimately notices is whether a guard calls out, not whether they're moving "18" silently or "7" silently this particular minute. The roll resolves an abstract aggregate of actions and circumstances, many or most of which are not immediately available or quantifiable to the character.

[Contrast]

Snip

My favourite part of this hypothetical is that a player made a forged declaration from the previous king proclaiming them as the true heir last session while also having been bribing the palace guards and apparently there were so many other wacky shenanigans going on in this campaign that the DM forgot :smallbiggrin:

[MadBear]

My favourite part of this hypothetical is that a player made a forged declaration from the previous king proclaiming them as the true heir last session while also having been bribing the palace guards and apparently there were so many other wacky shenanigans going on in this campaign that the DM forgot :smallbiggrin:

lol, yeah... basically, I was trying to stretch the bounds of reality as far as they'd go to make what the OP declared even marginally possible in a campaign I'd run.

[Zalabim]

And disadvantage, since that can happen as well.

And now Joe metagames, because he can't help it, and, noting that he rolled well both times, he is very bold in his movements. Or he rolled very poorly both times and so he's very conservative. Or he rolled once very well and once very poorly so he tries very hard to stay out of hearing range.

"Oh," but you say, "don't you trust your players?"

Well, I do, but I also ask them to roll on the table where everyone can see it. Besides that, the best way to head off metagaming, in my experience, is to make it impossible. Anytime a player says "Well, I clearly know this bit of out-of-game information, but I am not allowed to use it because that would constitute metagaming." he is being taken out of the game. That is bad.

"But if you only ask for a stealth roll when he could be perceived, aren't you giving him information?"

Well, yes. But not much. He could be rolling stealth against a squirrel, for all he knows. Heck, it could be a DC 5 because there's a sleeping guard 50 feet away that might wake up if he rolls a nat 1.
I don't think it's unreasonable for a character that can perceive a character that is attempting to be stealthy to have some concept of how stealthy that character is being. Or to paraphrase:

Why shouldn't a character know how well he succeeded at stealthing?
Why not indeed? It also gets those heartpounding moments where every footfall seems like a cannon and you just know the guard is going to show up around the next corner (because you rolled a low stealth check). But in the end, you don't know the guard's passive perception or if there even is a guard at all. It likewise opens the opportunity for the confident rogue to slip through the halls ghostlike, open the door to the dining hall like a pro, only to come face to face with another rogue that's already carefully packed up the silverware, because you don't know how well a creature you can't perceive is hiding.

All this is to say it's not some great crime against roleplaying for a player to roll their stealth attempt in the open. I'm more and more convinced that accusing something of being metagaming is the worst common roleplaying fallacy. Whatever the accused, it's probably not actually metagaming, and even if it's definitely metagaming, it's not necessarily bad.

[Dimers]

The bard claims he is the king? Make him show irrefutable proof, and then put him in line for succession.

And by completely convincing the current king of this, he's become a legitimate threat, and about half the rulers in history would order said bard imprisoned or killed. :smallwink:

[FreddyNoNose]

Where do I find one of the DM's in this thread who lets me play a character instead of a character sheet?

Just saying what my PC does instead of having to guess/say what I'm rolling sounds great to me!

Roll d20 for character over character sheet check.

[Reynaert]

What the character ultimately notices is whether a guard calls out, not whether they're moving "18" silently or "7" silently this particular minute. The roll resolves an abstract aggregate of actions and circumstances, many or most of which are not immediately available or quantifiable to the character.

The character has ears, doesn't he? He can hear how much noise he makes when he makes it. Also, he can judge the circumstances in which he is stealthing (gravel on the ground, acoustics of the surroundings, ambient noise, light level, visibility, abundance of hiding places, tnbaf.) which means that he does know a significant part of the 'abstract aggregate'. IOW: I may agree with 'many' but certainly not with 'most'.

Also, there are two rolls. The roll the character makes to be stealthy represents the stuff that *is* available and quantifiable. The (perception) roll the guard makes is the rest of the stuff.

[sir_argo]

The character has ears, doesn't he? He can hear how much noise he makes when he makes it. Also, he can judge the circumstances in which he is stealthing (gravel on the ground, acoustics of the surroundings, ambient noise, light level, visibility, abundance of hiding places, tnbaf.) which means that he does know a significant part of the 'abstract aggregate'.

I disagree with this. Does a character also know whether they succeed or fail Perception check? I don't think characters should know success/fail unless the consequences are immediate (trust me, you know when you fail an Acrobatics check).

Back to Stealth, my group has started to do something that is working out pretty well and that is not rolling the dice until needed. So let's say your scout is using Stealth while sneaking through a dungeon. We don't roll the dice yet. When he crosses paths with a mob, that's when we roll the dice. Success means the monster didn't see you. Failure means we roll initiative.

I also have made a suggestion to my group in regards to Perception rolls. There is a bit of meta gaming when you fail a Perception check. Suppose you try to search for traps on a door and roll a 3. DM says, "You find nothing." Players are then hesitant to proceed. But if you rolled a 25 and find nothing, they confidently open the door. I suggested that players state what they will do if they find nothing before rolling the dice. It goes like this...




DM:
You come across a very ornate door of dwarven craftsmanship.


Player:
I search for traps.


DM:
If you find nothing, what will you do?


Player:
If I find nothing, I'll open the door.


DM:
Go ahead and roll Perception.


Player:
Ugh... I rolled a 3. Please tell me it's not trapped.


DM:
Sorry. When you open the door, a trap does go off... dwarves don't mess around.

[johnbragg]

some players will feel the need to push the limits just to see what they can get away with. Some DMs too but that's an entirely different subject.

but as a DM sometimes you just have to put your foot down and say "dice bedamned this thing just cannot be done!" Or at least cannot be done in that manner.

the example given earlier of walking into a court making a ridiculously high roll and proclaiming yourself the rightful king- the roll is inconsequential. the absolute best result they could hope for is laughter and a new job opportunity as court jester, but more likely its going to be shackles, and a "conversation" with the royal guard and possibly executioner.

The roll is not inconsequential, though. IT's less of an issue in 5th, because the numbers make it harder to do the real-world impossible. But if you can rock a 35 on your roll saying "I'm the king", some people will believe you, at least for a while. "Skills aren't magic"? Horsefeathers. It's a magical universe--everything is magical, it's just a question of degree and a question of power.

So some people will believe, at least for a few rounds, that you are the king and the real king is an impostor. Other people will realize immediately that you are not the king. Some people will be confused by the situation, because you've beguiled them into thinking you're the king, but they also know that King Flufferbutt is the real king and has been since the death of his father King Butterchurn. Come up with a rubric for who does and who doesn't, unless you want to roll an opposed check for everyone in the courtyard. And--now things happen.

[Eric Diaz]

With this build, a character can literally walk into a throne room and declare themselves king, and you can't do anything about it because they have a +9 to Deception and working against the results of the dice would be hurting player agency, equivalent to telling the Barbarian that he cannot attempt to jump over a chasm with Athletics or telling the Wizard that there's no way he could discern the identity of a magic item with Arcana.

Scenario: PC wants to buy a new sword. The (female) blacksmith says it costs 100 gp.

Example 1:
PC: "100 gp? I only have 10 gp. Could she give me a discount?"
GM: "Nope. She says she will go out of business if she does"
PC: "Can I roll diplomacy?"
GM: "No need, she already refused your offer".
PC: "Can I try to convince her?"
GM: "Okay, what are you going to say?"
PC: "Madam, I will pay you when we come back from the dungeon! With 10% interest!"
GM: (after thinking for a second): "Nope, she just met you".

Example 2:
PC: "100 gp? I only have 70 gp. Could she give me a discount?"
GM: "Nope. She says she will go out of business if she does"
PC: "What? We just saved the village!"
GM "Yeah, you're right. I remember what you did, brave adventures. We will forever be grateful! I will give the sword for your gold! I have mouths to feed, but it is the least I can do!"

Example 3:
PC 1: "100 gp? I only have 70 gp."
PC 2: "Wait, I have 15 gp here"
PC 1: "Could she give me 15 gp discount?"
GM: "What are you saying to her?"
PC 1: "Madam, I do not have the gold you need at this moment, but I will come back with the difference after we defeat the goblin horde!"
GM: "Okay, roll diplomacy".

Same thing with the chasm.

Example 1:
PC: "I can automatically jump a distance of 30 feet! What about 300 feet? Can I roll athletics?"
GM: "Nope".

Same deal.

[Unoriginal]

The roll is not inconsequential, though. IT's less of an issue in 5th, because the numbers make it harder to do the real-world impossible. But if you can rock a 35 on your roll saying "I'm the king", some people will believe you, at least for a while.



So some people will believe, at least for a few rounds, that you are the king and the real king is an impostor. Other people will realize immediately that you are not the king. Some people will be confused by the situation, because you've beguiled them into thinking you're the king, but they also know that King Flufferbutt is the real king and has been since the death of his father King Butterchurn. Come up with a rubric for who does and who doesn't, unless you want to roll an opposed check for everyone in the courtyard. And--now things happen.

Not really.

Some will consider the possibility the king was magicked to look like you currently do and that the king is an impostor, but at best they will just check if what you say is true by the means at their disposal. Probably starting with a "this is a grave accusation, explain yourself and the evidences you have", while the spymasters/advisors/court casters check if there is any sign it could be true.

Note that it's different to go "I'm the kind under a curse, this guy is an impostor" (plausible) and to go "I'm the rightful king, this man is not" (not possible).

[Reynaert]

I disagree with this. Does a character also know whether they succeed or fail Perception check?

Of course not. The DC of the check is not known. But I see no reason why they shouldn't know the result of their roll. (This roll is, after all, an aggregate of all* the circumstances surrounding the skill usage, most of which should be apparent to the character)

*) or half, if there is an opposed roll.


I don't think characters should know success/fail unless the consequences are immediate (trust me, you know when you fail an Acrobatics check).

You are welcome to your opinion, although you misspelled 'the result of their roll' as 'success/fail'.


Suppose you try to search for traps on a door and roll a 3. DM says, "You find nothing." Players are then hesitant to proceed. But if you rolled a 25 and find nothing, they confidently open the door.

I see no problem with this. Can you explain to me what the problem is you see with it? (Other than 'players should not know/act on the result of their rolls', which seems arbitrary, and I assume is based on some deeper reason which you have yet to explain)

[kardar233]

With regard to the knowledge of your stealth roll: in my games at home, when a character is rolling Stealth, if their total is lower than any of the nearby party members’ Passive Perception, they can tell them more-or-less “I can see you”. The hiding person gets to reroll (basically being assisted) and it also gives an in-character baseline for how well they’re hidden. If the Perception-proficient Cleric or Druid can’t spot you, you’re probably safe.

This actually brings something to mind: one of the parts of being skilled at something is being able to assess how well you’re doing at it. In that light, I think it actually makes sense for a character to have a rough idea of how they rolled, of how confident they should be in their result. Shouldn’t the thief know “that wasn’t my sneakiest pickpocketing, his friend might have been able to see”?

[Pex]

The player needs to learn that rolling low does not mean an autofail. You can still succeed with a low roll. The opponent you're worried about might not exist, rolled low himself, or you beat the DC anyway.

The DM needs to learn it's not a crime against gamedom for players to know things such as how their character performs.

[MadBear]

With regard to the knowledge of your stealth roll: in my games at home, when a character is rolling Stealth, if their total is lower than any of the nearby party members’ Passive Perception, they can tell them more-or-less “I can see you”. The hiding person gets to reroll (basically being assisted) and it also gives an in-character baseline for how well they’re hidden. If the Perception-proficient Cleric or Druid can’t spot you, you’re probably safe.

This actually brings something to mind: one of the parts of being skilled at something is being able to assess how well you’re doing at it. In that light, I think it actually makes sense for a character to have a rough idea of how they rolled, of how confident they should be in their result. Shouldn’t the thief know “that wasn’t my sneakiest pickpocketing, his friend might have been able to see”?


The player needs to learn that rolling low does not mean an autofail. You can still succeed with a low roll. The opponent you're worried about might not exist, rolled low himself, or you beat the DC anyway.

The DM needs to learn it's not a crime against gamedom for players to know things such as how their character performs.

While I overall agree with both of you, one thing I'd point out, is that a low stealth roll doesn't necessarily mean that being obvious about how you hide/move. It could easily represent a scenario where although you are being quite stealthy a step of yours knocks a pebble that reverberates down a tunnel unexpectedly revealing your location at a crucial moment. A skilled ranger rolling a 3 doesn't have to mean that his butt is sticking out from behind every tree.

[sir_argo]

You are welcome to your opinion

Hence, why I said I disagree with you. Btw, I still do.



With regard to the knowledge of your stealth roll: in my games at home, when a character is rolling Stealth, if their total is lower than any of the nearby party members’ Passive Perception, they can tell them more-or-less “I can see you”.

That doesn't make sense to me. You cannot hide from someone who can see you. When the rogue next to me starts sneaking, I can literally see him when he starts. By the rules, his sneak automatically fails against me. I see him just fine regardless of his skill roll.


The hiding person gets to reroll (basically being assisted)

You provided the counter to your own point. When another character gives you advice on using a skill, that's the Help action. You don't roll twice, you just roll with advantage. (On a side note, I'm not a big fan of the Help action for skill checks. I don't get how someone who has no knowledge of lockpicking helps the super-skilled rogue gain advantage on lockpicking. But like I said, that's a side note.)

And if you allow re-rolls based on a fellow party member seeing you, than logically you allow re-rolls. And if you allow re-rolls, what stops a player from re-rolling until they get something good? Surely your fellow party members who still "see" you can alert you to that fact until you roll good enough to be "hidden" from them.

PC: I try to hide.
DM: Roll Stealth
PC: Yuck. I rolled a total of 7. Well, I'm sure Joe the Wiz can see I'm not hidden well and he let's me know.
Joe: Yeah. I let him know.
DM: Sure. That works. Go ahead and re-roll.
PC: Oh yeah, rolled 15 plus my bonuses are 19! But y'know what, Joe has a 22 passive perception. He can still see me.
Joe: Yeah, I tell him that I can still see him.
PC: I keep trying until Joe can't see me anymore.

And that doesn't even count the fact that if I'm allowed to metagame off the die roll, why can't I just decide to re-roll on my own? You even said, "I think it actually makes sense for a character to have a rough idea of how they rolled."

So if I know that wasn't my best Stealth, and I'm allowed to re-roll... I just do it. I re-roll until I feel confident that I'm sneaking well.


I don't like that at all.

[kardar233]

You provided the counter to your own point. When another character gives you advice on using a skill, that's the Help action. You don't roll twice, you just roll with advantage. (On a side note, I'm not a big fan of the Help action for skill checks. I don't get how someone who has no knowledge of lockpicking helps the super-skilled rogue gain advantage on lockpicking. But like I said, that's a side note.)

And if you allow re-rolls based on a fellow party member seeing you, than logically you allow re-rolls. And if you allow re-rolls, what stops a player from re-rolling until they get something good? Surely your fellow party members who still "see" you can alert you to that fact until you roll good enough to be "hidden" from them.

It’s the same thing. If you find it more mechanically palatable, consider the party member to be assisting, rather than allowing a reroll. We don’t allow you to reroll more than once, because that’s advantage. The idea that, say, your Rogue has forgotten to dull the shine on one of his knives, which you notice as he attempts to slink into the shadows, is an IC reason that you can assist, as well as a way to set a benchmark for how stealthy they end I being. Can the Fighter (low Wis, no Perception proficiency) notice you? You’re not going to have a good time. Can only the Cleric (high Wis, Perception proficiency) see you? You’re probably still fine, most enemies are less perceptive than they are.

[Aelyn]

It’s the same thing. If you find it more mechanically palatable, consider the party member to be assisting, rather than allowing a reroll...
So you're talking about a situation where one character is spending a little bit of time and effort to improve the work of another party member?

That is literally the Help action, and the effect is to provide Advantage to the character making the check.

EDIT: To clarify, I agree that this is a suitable way to resolve this situation; it sounds to me like the two of you are agreeing about the effect while disagreeing on terminology.

[Tanarii]

Bad example. Proficiency is actually a requirement here.
Also generally not used in Stealth. One character doesn't usually help another stealth. If that's happening, it's usually a group stealth check instead. But more commonly each is rolling their own stealth check individually.

I mean, it totally is possible to help another stealth. For example, when you have to suddenly hide behind a curtain because the husband just got home, she can certainly help you make your stealth check by adjusting it so your shoes aren't showing. :smallbiggrin:

[Millstone85]

On a side note, I'm not a big fan of the Help action for skill checks. I don't get how someone who has no knowledge of lockpicking helps the super-skilled rogue gain advantage on lockpicking. But like I said, that's a side note.Huh, this is the PHB's example of not being able to help with a check.
Lock. A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves' tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Your DM may decide that better locks are available for higher prices.
A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task.

Edit: Sorry Tanarii. I really have to lose that habit.

[Tanarii]

Edit: Sorry Tanarii. I really have to lose that habit.
All good. Just makes me look like a mind reader or master of time magic or the like :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

While I overall agree with both of you, one thing I'd point out, is that a low stealth roll doesn't necessarily mean that being obvious about how you hide/move. It could easily represent a scenario where although you are being quite stealthy a step of yours knocks a pebble that reverberates down a tunnel unexpectedly revealing your location at a crucial moment. A skilled ranger rolling a 3 doesn't have to mean that his butt is sticking out from behind every tree.

Of course. It's not slapstick. The player who knows he rolled low would know he knocked the pebble. He doesn't know and shouldn't at that moment whether there was someone down the tunnel to hear it so he hopes no one did, but the character knows he knocked that pebble as the player knows he rolled that 3.

[Willie the Duck]

It would be hard for them not to, given that they too, can hear the kicked pebble or snapped twig or other failure of auditory stealth, but what about visual stealth? In general, the way you find out that you didn't hide in the bushes well enough is when your opposition reaches in after you.

[MadBear]

Of course. It's not slapstick. The player who knows he rolled low would know he knocked the pebble. He doesn't know and shouldn't at that moment whether there was someone down the tunnel to hear it so he hopes no one did, but the character knows he knocked that pebble as the player knows he rolled that 3.

I just realized I could have been a bit clearer, my apologies. What I meant to say was, that the character could have started out being extremely stealthy to him and his colleagues, to the point they genuinely didn't see him. It was only at that inopportune moment a minute later that he made the noise (or whatever).

My main point was that if you roll a 2 on stealth, your party doesn't necessarily notice the moment you start hiding, because you might have actually started off well hidden. Now, once you alerted the guards (or whatever) sure you and the rest of the party are aware you've been outed.

[Coffee_Dragon]

My main point was that if you roll a 2 on stealth, your party doesn't necessarily notice the moment you start hiding, because you might have actually started off well hidden. Now, once you alerted the guards (or whatever) sure you and the rest of the party are aware you've been outed.

This is part of what I mean about a skill challenge being an abstract envelope containing an entire situation. It's not that rolling a 2 translates directly into something specific happening; the inexplicable twig broken is merely how you narrate the established outcome. The cases of sneak 5 versus watch 8 and sneak 15 versus watch 18 don't necessarily correspond to different specific world states. This is in a way related to people complaining that the d20 mechanism doesn't make sense because they see a bad roll as someone bizarrely underperforming at something they are supposed to be good at. But that issue only appears if you see the roll as a concrete measure of performance that corresponds linearly to a set of game realities, instead of an arbitrary die mechanism used to resolve a pass/fail contest. And it's largely the same here: questions like "why would the sneaker be content with rolling a 5" are only relevant if you insist on that type of low-abstraction, low-granularity crunch-fluff correspondence where the roll simulates "did you kick that pebble" instead of "are you pulling off this sneakery".

[JackPhoenix]

Of course. It's not slapstick. The player who knows he rolled low would know he knocked the pebble. He doesn't know and shouldn't at that moment whether there was someone down the tunnel to hear it so he hopes no one did, but the character knows he knocked that pebble as the player knows he rolled that 3.

Thing is, you keep the result of your Stealth check until you're discovered or you stop sneaking. That could, in theory, mean that the fact you've rolled 3 (and kicked a pebble) wouldn't matter if you keep sneaking for an hour and say 2 miles before you happen upon a creature and the result of a roll becomes relevant. It is absurd that the creature would discover your presence because you've kicked a pebble a hour ago, but it is likewise absurd to say that you keep kicking pebbles the whole time. No matter when you start sneaking, the result of the roll (and the kicked pebble) is irrelevant until you get near a creature that would notice your presence... so the pebble-kicking doesn't happen until then.

Problem is that the player knows the result of the roll when he starts sneaking, NOT when he meets the creature. He'll essentially know upfront that he'll kick a pebble if he encounters someone... unless he stops hiding right now. He can then start sneaking again, and in essence fish for a desired check result. He doesn't know if there's anyone when he stops sneaking, and risks discovery if there is, but the creature in this scenario is a hour and two miles away, which means he could try to roll stealth as many times as he wants.

To avoid that kind of metagaming, the original result should stay relevant even if he stops hiding when there's nobody around, and then tries to re-enter "stealth mode".

[Pex]

I agree a player should not be rerolling the die until he gets the result he wants in however way he wants to justify the ability to reroll. When to roll and when it applies is the DM's purview. There is nothing wrong with the player knowing what he rolled, and again, he needs to learn that a low roll is not an autofail. I see players bemoan the low roll all the time. I keep trying to remind them they didn't autofail, and they're genuinely surprised those times they succeed anyway. It's a player issue. It's not easily fixed.

[Ganymede]

I just have players tell me their passive stealth and contest it against secret perception rolls for NPCs. No fuss, no muss.

[Tanarii]

Thing is, you keep the result of your Stealth check until you're discovered or you stop sneaking. That could, in theory, mean that the fact you've rolled 3 (and kicked a pebble) wouldn't matter if you keep sneaking for an hour and say 2 miles before you happen upon a creature and the result of a roll becomes relevant.
The problem I have with this is the whole concept of "sneaking for an hour and say 2 miles". If a stealth check is being used for something like that, it's clearly not an attempt to Hide. The situation isn't one where in-game time = table time. But rather an abstract roll for overall result of a large period of in-game events being determined instantly at the table time, which the DM has decided it's appropriate to allow Stealth skill proficiency to apply to the check. So roll & resolution are going to be immediate.

Personally I do this for things like successfully Tailing in a busy city street.

[Pelle]

To avoid that kind of metagaming, the original result should stay relevant even if he stops hiding when there's nobody around, and then tries to re-enter "stealth mode".

Or just wait rolling until it is relevant, i.e. a failed attempt will have consequences.

The player already knows how good at sneaking he is, it's right there on the sheet. He knows the odds of succeeding against different DCs. It's when it counts you need to realize a value from the RNG. Much better for dramatic tension at the table. You just need to avoid rolling for every single guard, so that you don't roll to failure.

[Reynaert]

Thing is, you keep the result of your Stealth check until you're discovered or you stop sneaking. That could, in theory, mean that the fact you've rolled 3 (and kicked a pebble) wouldn't matter if you keep sneaking for an hour and say 2 miles before you happen upon a creature and the result of a roll becomes relevant. It is absurd that the creature would discover your presence because you've kicked a pebble a hour ago, but it is likewise absurd to say that you keep kicking pebbles the whole time. No matter when you start sneaking, the result of the roll (and the kicked pebble) is irrelevant until you get near a creature that would notice your presence... so the pebble-kicking doesn't happen until then.

I already covered this, bet here goes again:
There are two rolls involved, the stealth roll and the perception roll.
In this case, the kicking of the pebble would be fluffily equivalent to the perceptor rolling very high on their roll.

If it weren't like this, why would the rules state that you make a single roll when starting to sneak or hide?

[braveheart]

in my games I typically require my players to address their approach to a social interaction, if not have them say exactly what their character is saying. That allows me to apply advantage/disadvantage to the role or augment the DC based on how effective their approach is for the NPC's aound them.

[Tanarii]

If it weren't like this, why would the rules state that you make a single roll when starting to sneak or hide?
Hide. Not "sneak". This, I think, is where part of the disconnect is coming in.

Also, pretty sure the rules say to do it that way exactly because it doesn't give the player info about if enemies are near. And the assumption is a resolution roll only matter for the question being resolve right now, in terms of table time. So no "metagaming" can happen based on the die roll result. Of course, the question being resolved right now in terms of table time might be a period of tims, such as someone "sneaking" in game. With the player decision that led to the question of resolution covering that entire time frame. If the player makes a new decision to interact with something or do something different, they may very well still need to be unaware that there was or wasn't a creature there. But they will stop "sneaking" to do so. (Also Hiding, but that's more obvious.)

[sir_argo]

Or just wait rolling until it is relevant

This is what I recommended earlier. There is no need to roll Stealth until you actually run across bad guys. So a player says I'm going to go sneaking through the woods.

10 miles and 4 hours later, the character runs into a patrol of goblins. NOW roll the character's Stealth and check against the goblins' Perception. No re-rolls. No metagaming. Very clean.

[Pex]

This is what I recommended earlier. There is no need to roll Stealth until you actually run across bad guys. So a player says I'm going to go sneaking through the woods.

10 miles and 4 hours later, the character runs into a patrol of goblins. NOW roll the character's Stealth and check against the goblins' Perception. No re-rolls. No metagaming. Very clean.

The problem is what to do when the player doesn't know there's a patrol of goblins or some creature nearby maybe even being stealthy itself. If you only roll when there's someone who has a chance to notice you the act of rolling tells you someone is there.

[sir_argo]

The problem is what to do when the player doesn't know there's a patrol of goblins or some creature nearby maybe even being stealthy itself. If you only roll when there's someone who has a chance to notice you the act of rolling tells you someone is there.

I see no problem. If the goblins are also being stealthy, and both you and the goblins succeed in hiding from the other, the two of you pass by without ever noticing each other. The possible outcomes are all very plain and can be depicted in a matrix..




Goblins Stealth fails
Goblins Stealth succeeds


Character Stealth fails
Both sides see each other. Roll Initiative.
Goblins surprise character. Roll Initiative.


Character Stealth succeeds
Character surprises Goblins. Roll Initiative (or just hide and let patrol pass).
Neither side sees each other. No combat, the two sides pass without incident.




It should be noted that in the last box, both sides fail to see each other, the DM wouldn't even tell the players what passed by. He wouldn't say, "Well a goblin patrol and you fail to see each other and you pass by without incident." He would say instead, "Well, there was the potential for an encounter, but neither party saw each other."

[Pex]

I see no problem. If the goblins are also being stealthy, and both you and the goblins succeed in hiding from the other, the two of you pass by without ever noticing each other. The possible outcomes are all very plain and can be depicted in a matrix..




Goblins Stealth fails
Goblins Stealth succeeds


Character Stealth fails
Both sides see each other. Roll Initiative.
Goblins surprise character. Roll Initiative.


Character Stealth succeeds
Character surprises Goblins. Roll Initiative (or just hide and let patrol pass).
Neither side sees each other. No combat, the two sides pass without incident.




It should be noted that in the last box, both sides fail to see each other, the DM wouldn't even tell the players what passed by. He wouldn't say, "Well a goblin patrol and you fail to see each other and you pass by without incident." He would say instead, "Well, there was the potential for an encounter, but neither party saw each other."

The character may not know where the goblins are, but the player knows there is someone in the vicinity. The act of rolling told him so. His further actions are affected by that. He may take a defensive posture. He may try to search for the someone. He will be on his guard. The someone has already lost half the point of being stealthy just because a die was rolled.