What are the pairs of opposed skills?

[pwning doodes]

For example, Deception check would prompt an opposed Insight check to sniff out the lie. What do you you roll against Persuasion and Intimidation?

[KRSW]

If I were DMing and a player wanted to persuade or intimidate an NPC I would first let(make) them actually talk to the guard first, then have them role the appropriate skill. That roll would be opposed to an arbitrary set DC by me, the DM, based on what they said.

[strangebloke]

As with anything skill-related it, varies heavily from table to table, except for basic ones like stealth vs. perception, deception vs. insight, and athletics vs. athletics/acrobatics.

Persuasion is not something that should be rolled against the PCs, ever. Anything the PCs are trying to persuade an NPC of should be a fixed DC, decided by the DM. Same for intimidation. Honestly I'd usually make the DC for an intimidation check based off of the NPC's passive wisdom save.

10+prof(if relevant) +WIS

For persuasion, it'd be their passive charisma save, if the PC had a reasonable argument.

[Slipperychicken]

What do you you roll against Persuasion and Intimidation?

GM stares deeply into his hat, pulls from it a target number, and that number is the DC to persuade or intimidate a PC.


Of course for bargaining, persuasion would be opposed by itself. If it's important in combat (i.e. wants to give enemy frightened condition, reduce his morale, or scare him off), you could have intimidation opposed with a wisdom saving throw.

[Spore]

GM stares deeply into his hat, pulls from it a target number, and that number is the DC to persuade or intimidate a PC.

Honestly most of the time I feel it is the following:

*DM intently stares at you* "Make your roll."
"I got an 8, plus 5 is 13."
*thinks for a split second* "Yeah that is enough."

I am pretty sure the DM decides AFTER seeing my roll if it is enough or not. And most of the times it's better this way because if you just presented a great argument on a character meant for social interaction and then you roll 1 below the DC...well, that just ruins the immersion and shows the seams of the game right away.

[dreast]

When I DM, the, baseline DC is 15. If I think “this is easy”, it may be 10, or 20 for impressive displays of skill. That said, I’m always careful that skill check successes are not necessary to advance the plot, so to avoid that I make those “failure” states less debilitating (“you fail to persuade the town’s mayor of the kobold sewer engineer’s betrayal, but making the accusation forces him to begrudgingly investigate anyway”).

[Tanarii]

For example, Deception check would prompt an opposed Insight check to sniff out the lie. What do you you roll against Persuasion and Intimidation?
The rules for social interactions start on DMG p244. The table of target DCs for trying to get someone to do something are on DMG p245.

[Slipperychicken]

I am pretty sure the DM decides AFTER seeing my roll if it is enough or not.

That is true. In my own brief time in the GM chair, I was also guilty of setting target numbers after seeing the relevant roll. Or at least not having enough time to think it through until after the die came up.

And of course sometimes people do roll dice even when they know how events should proceed, using the perceived uncertainty of the die roll to help nurture stress and excitement. IMO it would make more sense do roleplay, determine without rolling what should happen based on that (what was said, situation, context, mind-state), and then only roll the dice if there's any uncertainty, hem-hawing, or disagreement in the matter.

[DarkKnightJin]

That is true. In my own brief time in the GM chair, I was also guilty of setting target numbers after seeing the relevant roll. Or at least not having enough time to think it through until after the die came up.

And of course sometimes people do roll dice even when they know how events should proceed, using the perceived uncertainty of the die roll to help nurture stress and excitement. IMO it would make more sense do roleplay, determine without rolling what should happen based on that (what was said, situation, context, mind-state), and then only roll the dice if there's any uncertainty, hem-hawing, or disagreement in the matter.

End of the first major fight in my first campaign. We fought a priest/cleric that had been possessed by a vengeful spirit. We knocked him out, got him back to his feet..

After the fight, I said my 7'4" Dragonborn Cleric sat beside him after the Fighter tried to intimidate the poor guy into giving us the pendant he'd taken from the girl he'd killed while possessed. Fighter failed miserably.
My dude sits down, and I RP out how I comfort the guy, and respectfully ask him to give us the pendant, so we can rest her soul, and the family left behind.

DM said she wasn't gonna make me roll for it, because there was no way it could've failed to put the guy at ease.

I know it's nothing to do with opposed checks, but I thought it'd be an example of a situation where a roll isn't going to be needed.

[Armored Walrus]

Honestly I'd usually make the DC for an intimidation check based off of the NPC's passive wisdom save.

10+prof(if relevant) +WIS

If it's a hard or deadly encounter, that makes sense. If it's an easy or medium encounter, then the higher the NPC's wisdom is the more likely it should be that they flee or negotiate or surrender, rather than keep fighting. It's wise to be intimidated by someone that actually is more powerful than you, and who is ready to back up the threat.

[strangebloke]

If it's a hard or deadly encounter, that makes sense. If it's an easy or medium encounter, then the higher the NPC's wisdom is the more likely it should be that they flee or negotiate or surrender, rather than keep fighting. It's wise to be intimidated by someone that actually is more powerful than you, and who is ready to back up the threat.

Well, I would argue that, typically, if the creature is wise and sees that you're stronger and isn't a cultist or something, there won't be an intimidate check needed.

For me, intimidate is an appeal to irrational fear that the enemy would normally ignore, for whatever reason.

Persuasion is an appeal to reason, changing the opponent's viewpoint by showing that they really agree with you, after all. ("You'd be much better off letting us pass; we can kill you and we're not the real enemy.")

Deception is an appeal to reason based in a lie. ("Our ship has 30 hired swords lying in wait for you.")

[Armored Walrus]

Well, I would argue that, typically, if the creature is wise and sees that you're stronger and isn't a cultist or something, there won't be an intimidate check needed.

That's a fair assessment, too.