Why are Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion different skills?

[DarknessEternal]

They all do exactly the same thing; use Charisma to convince other people to act in a way you direct. They're all Persuasion in effect.

Deception lies to make people change their minds. Intimidation scares people to change their minds. Persuasion just makes them change their minds.

The result of using any of those skills is exactly the same mechanically. It's like describing how you swing your sword. Yeah, it's great to add character, but it has no impact on mechanics.

There's no reason to use more than one of these skills.

[Constructman]

Why are Arcana, History, and Religion different skills?

They all do exactly the same thing; use Intelligence to recall information you learned about the world long ago. They're all History in effect.

Arcana lets you remember magic stuff. History lets you remember mindane stuff. Religion lets you remember religious stuff.

The result of using any of those skills is exactly the same mechanically. It's like describing how you swing your sword. Yeah, it's great to add character, but it has no impact on mechanics.

There's no reason to use more than one of these skills.

🤔

[Kane0]

I think you're mixing up methods with results.

They don't all do the same thing, the DM can determine the results to be the same. That would be something like an illusion of choice. The DM can just as easily determine that different approaches result in different outcomes, such as attempting to bully a lord triggering very different responses than sweet-talking him.

Mind you, I think the three skills could be collapsed down to two or even one, but then again Animal Handling and Performance are skills...

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are people who are great bullies, but suck at lying. There are great liars who can't persuade using reason. There are very persuasive people who can't lie or bully very well. As well as people who can do two but not all three.

So making them different skills helps portray that. Plus, the DCs and outcomes of each approach can be really different.

[Witty Username]

They were different skills, so I expect that is a big part of why they are now.

I would say the best reason is that while they accomplish the same goals they have different effects. Using intimidate to get what you want will leave different impressions than persuasion or deception.

There is something to be said for variant rules like being able to use str for intimidation instead of cha which gives some spread to the social capacities to different character types. This would more mean fighter types would intimidate while others would persuade or deceive, so I guess that is in line with your point that a char doesn't need more than one.

I would personally argue readability helps too. If one skill covered all of it I could see that skill getting bogged down in detail that could complicate its use.

I think the KOTOR games use persuade as a single skill and have persuade/intimidate and persuade/lie tags in its dialog, so it is not unheard of for them to be the same skill if you wanted to do that.

[No brains]

Part of it could be different fantasy cultures replying differently to different cultural 'manners'.

Most people use persuasion to converse and convince. They feel safe in their lives and don't want to be threatened or lied to.

Pirates could probably be swayed by anything plus money. If you pay and make friends with a pirate, they'll forgive getting off on a wrong foot. You put your heart and wallet into dealing with them and that's what matters.

Goblins and Orcs say good morning by threatening each other. Persuasive compliments and gestures come off as weak or desperate. When it comes to deception, they will continue accepting a lie if it was told to them by someone stronger, but if they learn they were tricked by someone weaker, they will be out for blood.

Demons and other creatures of bizarre morality may respect the art put into intimidation and deception. It doesn't matter if they believe or see through threats or lies, they respect the imagination, art, and power that goes into misshaping the truth. Persuasion could work too- they probably love being worshiped.

Finally, it's sort of fluff that describes the character using the skill. A forthright knight is persuasive, maybe intimidating in their zeal. A silver-tongued trickster can tempt people's egos with anything but intimidation, lulling people with comfort. A brutal barbarian lets anyone know that they will be crushed if they oppose them and will never deign to speak with civility.

[Tanarii]

In theory, because different approaches might have different DC, be modified by different things, and have different outcomes.

Of course, the DMG section on social interaction kind of backs up your point of view. DM decides which skill is rolled based on approach which is dandy, but suggested DCs depend purely on 'friendliness' and risk of what you're requesting / demanding.

[Witty Username]

Not to mention that the most common use of deception is to get into a place where you are not allowed while giving as little info on who you are as possible. Persuasion could be alot harder to do that.

[Hytheter]

They all do exactly the same thing; use Charisma to convince other people to act in a way you direct. They're all Persuasion in effect.

That's roughly true in the immediate short term (assuming a given target will even respond to all three equally) and if you succeed, but I think you're missing the bigger picture.

If you go around intimidating people all the time, you're going to end up with a reputation as a bully and a thug. People might hold grudges or even come after you. And if you try to intimidate someone but fail they might take immediate hostile action.

Likewise, deception can have ongoing repercussions. It's all fine as long as nobody finds out what you did, but that's no guarantee, especially if you find yourself in circumstances that require you to maintain the facade and start piling up lies. And of course if you get found out the best case scenario is that you only get branded a liar, but there could be more severe consequences depending on who you deceived and why.

Persuasion is obviously less likely to backfire, but the possibility exists, and there could also be positive consequences going forward if you get a reputation for reasonable negotiation.

And again, that's assuming all three approaches are even valid. Not everyone will respond to intimidation, not everyone can be reasoned with, and a lie isn't guaranteed to get you what you want even if you deceive them.

[Millstone85]

They all do exactly the same thing; use Charisma to convince other people to act in a way you direct. They're all Persuasion in effect.

Deception lies to make people change their minds. Intimidation scares people to change their minds. Persuasion just makes them change their minds.
They all do exactly the same thing; use Intelligence to recall information you learned about the world long ago. They're all History in effect.

Arcana lets you remember magic stuff. History lets you remember mindane stuff. Religion lets you remember religious stuff.I think that parallel doesn't work.

IRL, history is not physics is not theology, even if you can study the history of physicists and theologians. I would expect the same to hold if you replace physics with arcana.

Meanwhile, I can see deception and intimidation being forms of persuasion.

So a better parallel would be if, in addition to Arcana, History, Nature and Religion, there was a skill called Knowledge.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are people who are great bullies, but suck at lying. There are great liars who can't persuade using reason. There are very persuasive people who can't lie or bully very well. As well as people who can do two but not all three.
This. It allows for more differentiation of social characters, making the role of "face" more nuanced and letting multiple people be good at talky things without overlapping.

[Tallytrev813]

Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation are all persuasive methods. Yes they are similar, yes they fall under the same umbrella of overall persuasion.

The reason, i believe, they are different is 2 fold.

1.) To provide character depth.

To ask a hulking Barbarian who just squeezed a bartenders hand so hard while asking a question and shaking hands for the same Persuasion check that you ask the slick rogue who convinces the bartender that the townsfolk are in peril due to whatever top secret mission if he doesn't help him with this information kills a lot of character depth and flavor, which is a really big fun part of the game for many people (myself included).

2.) To provide skill balance.

To attribute all of these to 1 skill would make said skill much more desirable than the majority of other skills. Everyone would take Prof in Persuasion if it included Intimidation, Persuasion, AND Deception. It would also make Charisma seem stale.

[Karnitis]

Because people like to feel unique.

This thread reminds me of one just last week that said paladins were basically clerics, and my response is basically the same.

Yes, you could combine all 13 (13, right?) classes into maybe 4, with a lot more subclasses. Similarly, you could combine 3/4 charisma checks into 'Diplomacy,' combine 3/5 intelligence checks into 'Knowledge and combine Animal/Nature/Survival in the Wisdom category.

Point is, they're different enough as shown in some of the previous examples, and at the end of the day, people like to personalize their characters to be good at specific things, rather than old school 'Melee vs Magic' and 'Stealth vs Combat vs Utility'

[jas61292]

I think all these skills are different enough to be separate. The reason for this is that they all have different situations when they are applicable, ans different consequences for their use, even when they are all applicable.

What I mean by this is that they are not simple alternatives. There will be situations where one or more will be usable but others will not.

A loyal guard who is not likely to risk their job by allowing the party to pass when they have been explicitly told to only let certain people through. That is to say that Persuasion is either impossible, or incredibly difficult. But convincing them that you are supposed to be allowed through with deception is quite reasonable, as may be intimidating them by making them weigh whether keeping their job is worth risking injury or worse.

Alternatively, a minion who fights for an evil guy because the evil guy is holding a loved one hostage and threatening to hurt or kill them, is unlikely to be receptive to intimidation. What could you do that would be worse than their current situation? However persuading them that you could help them might work.

And, of course as others have pointed out, how people react to you can vary widely. Intimidation won't make you friends, while persuasion can easily do just that.

While they are similar, they are different enough in application, consequences, and narrative distinction that they work well as separate skills.

[Mjolnirbear]

In my view, consequences are a huge part of it.

You walk up to the guard and persuade him you need to speak to the prisoner. For persuasion, you simply need to find the right lever. You can appeal to logic, you can appeal to emotion, appeal to justice, offer a service, offer a bribe, or more. Very few of these have consequences; you're honest about what you want and why. The guard can say no, or take offense depending on if, say, you attempt to bribe an honest guard, but you're not throwing your charismatic weight around.

You walk up to the guard and threaten him if he does not let you speak to the prisoner. For Intimidation, you need simply find the right lever. You can appeal to logic (what's more important, letting me in or losing a hand?), appeal to emotion (what's more important, letting me in or your infant child?), offer a service (I'll stop with the pain magic if you let me in), offer a bribe (I'll kill you if you don't let me in... but if you do, I'll pay to keep your silence too). ALL of these have consequences, but you're honest about what you want and why. The guard can say no, but doing so has consequences (for him). You're throwing your charismatic weight around.

You walk up to the guard wearing fine clothes and looking like the son of the Noble that runs the military in the city. For deception, you simply need to find the right lever, and there are so. Many. Levers. You can lie about your intentions (I want to see prisoner A but you tell him you want to see B). You can lie about your authority. You can lie about who you are. You can lie about services, trades, threats or bribes you'll offer. You're not throwing your charismatic weight around so much as convincing the guard your power or authority is different than it is.


Persuasion is the friendly way to get what you want. If you succeed, you're building a relationship that may work in the future, possibly based on trust (that you're honourable, or that you'll always bribe generously). Most consequences depend on what you do with what you have gotten, such as if you kill the prisoner the guard was protecting.

Intimidation is mean way to get what you want. Guards tend to be tougher than your standard commoner and even if you succeed on your check they are not likely to enjoy what you're saying. They may stab you in the back, attempt to harm you, warn another guard, or lay a trap for when you come out.

Deception is the sneaky way to get what you want. Guards are often not the brightest bulbs, but they can be canny. The key to getting what you want is to knowing what would make the guard's resistance fold. This is true for persuasion and intimidation of course; knowing the guard has a vulnerable family is a potent weapon in your arsenal of threats. But if you know that the guards always let diplomats into the gates without searching them, or that the prince is known to boss the guards around, or that they are trained more to bow to authority than to exercise curiosity, then you have a way in, so long as your deception is never discovered.

[Luccan]

I think you're too concerned over the use of the word Persuasion for one of the skills. In 3.5 it was called Diplomacy which was a little more precise. Taking the fact that Deception and Intimidation are separate skills into account, it's clear that they're using Persuasion to mean convincing someone via non aggressive or purposefully deceitful means. As others have pointed out, not everyone who is good at one or two of those things is good at all of them. And also, if there was just one skill for all of those, everyone would take it. It would be one out of a minimum of four skills, almost everyone has at least one of these skills on their class skill list (so why wouldn't this new combo skill be there to represent a Barbarian's skill at Intimidation), and governing every Charisma-based interaction would make it too good to pass up.

I think a more apt comparison than knowledge skills would be combining Stealth and Sleight of Hand. Both are skills governed by Dex, both fall under the banner of Stealth and really there's no reason Sleight of Hand couldn't be Stealth. But then you run into the problem of Stealth being that much better for having Sleight of Hand as one of its uses. It's why I hate when tables let you substitute Investigation with Perception; Perception is already so good, giving it even more uses just means you'd be an idiot not to take it. It breaks down character variety and makes a skill so ubiquitous that it might as well just be assumed everyone has access and let them choose an extra skill.

[Bjarkmundur]

All valid points and I've got little more to add but how this bugged me too, and lead me to the following skill revision:
Each skill can be used with different ability scores for different narratives and different uses. Knowledge (intelligence) is not the same as Knowledge (Wisdom), just like Deduction (Int) is more like investigation and Deduction (Wisdom) is more like insight.
I also usually have checks based on Int have a lower DC, to reward players who don't mind the uselessness of the stat and really just want to play someone smart.


Arcana (Remember Magical Stuff, Disarm Magical Traps)
Athletics (Proactive physical actions)
Deduction (Deduce facts based on what you know.
Knowledge
Perception (See, hear, smell)
Leadership (Persuade, Intimidate)
Subterfuge (Sneak, lie and deceive)
Item Interaction (Manipulate ropes, manacles, lockpicks, traps or puzzles)
Medicine (Can tend wounds and reverse debilitating effects via a healer’s kit)

[Vogie]

They all do exactly the same thing; use Charisma to convince other people to act in a way you direct. They're all Persuasion in effect.

Deception lies to make people change their minds. Intimidation scares people to change their minds. Persuasion just makes them change their minds.

The result of using any of those skills is exactly the same mechanically. It's like describing how you swing your sword. Yeah, it's great to add character, but it has no impact on mechanics.

There's no reason to use more than one of these skills.

You see, what you're using in this post is just Persuasion. You are not using intimidation, nor deception in this post.


They all do exactly the same thing! JUST USE CHARISMA TO CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE TO ACT IN THE WAY YOU DIRECT. They're ALL THE SAME and a WASTE of SPACE.

Deception lies to make people CHANGE their MINDS. Intimidation SCARES people to CHANGE their MINDS. Persuasion just makes them CHANGE their MINDS.

The result of using ANY of those skills is EXACTLY the SAME mechanically. It's like f****ing describing how you swing your sword. OOh Yeah, it's great to "add character", but it has NO IMPACT on mechanics.

There's NO REASON to use ANY MORE THAN ONE of these. And if you do you're STUPID and also a WASTE OF SPACE

See, that's the exact same post. And so is this:


Now, let's face the fact - when it comes down to the very mechanical expression, they all do exactly the same thing - use Charisma to convince other people to act in a way you direct.

They all make people change their minds. "Lies", "Scares", "Convinces"... These are just words, just fluff, that do not really & truly impact this game we enjoy.

The result of using any of those skills is just the same. Describing words is like describing sword swings. Characters are built on the sheets, not on the rolls. If a character doesn't have points in charisma, they are simply indicating that they want to have no part in social discourse - it's plain as day.

Come now - There's no reason to use more than one of these skills, is there? There's no reason, whatsoever, why anyone would delineate between these.

[Luccan]

All valid points and I've got little more to add but how this bugged me too, and lead me to the following skill revision:
Each skill can be used with different ability scores for different narratives and different uses

-snip-


My Bolding

That's literally how the checks are supposed to work. If making a Strength (Stealth) check makes sense in the narrative (maybe you're trying to hold a heavy object perfectly still so no one notice you're there?) then you use Strength and not Dexterity. Now, that's also supposed to be dictated by the DM and I've noticed most would likely use a Strength (Athletics) and a Dexterity (Stealth) check in succession, but still.

Oh, and if anyone finds themselves wanting to collapse most of the skills, there is an optional rule for collapsing all skill proficiencies into ability check proficiencies in the back of the DMG. That might be a good place to start.

[Tanarii]

My Bolding

That's literally how the checks are supposed to work. If making a Strength (Stealth) check makes sense in the narrative (maybe you're trying to hold a heavy object perfectly still so no one notice you're there?) then you use Strength and not Dexterity.
That's not literally how they are supposed to work. You're decribing an optional rule.

[GreatWyrmGold]

There are two big reasons I can think of, and it's subjective as to which is more important.


1. The skills represent different approaches with different weaknesses.

Deception only works when you can think of a plausible lie that would get them to do what you want.
Persuasion only works if the other guy is open to negotiation.
Intimidation doesn't have any restrictions like that, but it's limited in what you can make people do once they're out of your (metaphorical) reach and overuse makes loads of enemies.

Yes, they can be used to do the same thing. So can lockpicking and door-kicking, or firebolts and crossbows. What's your point?


2. The skills fit different archetypes.

Why do we need sorcerers and wizards? There are some differences between them, but it wouldn't be that hard to roll them into one class with specific features divided amongst a dozen subclasses. Sorcerers and wizards play similar roles mechanically (with some extra preparation flexibility here and some metamagic there), but they play massively differently from a thematic standpoint. One is a scholar whose power comes from study and comprehension of the world around her; the other is a prodigy who works with natural talent.

Similarly, Deception fits the cunning rogue, Persuasion the kindly paladin, and Intimidation the hulking barbarian, but none can do everything. The rogue can try to be persuasive, but he'd be working against his crooked reputation. The paladin can try to be intimidating, but his threats don't sound believable coming out of his mouth. The barbarian can try to be deceptive, but she doesn't think things through well enough to pull it off.

D&D character creation isn't literally just picking an archetype; it's more like personalizing an archetype. But at the end of the day, D&D is built to be an archetypical fantasy game, in no small part because D&D itself is the archetypical RPG.

[Unoriginal]

Additional element:

what you're doing is a Charisma ability check.

You can then add a proficiency bonus if you are proficient in Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion and if (and only if) they're relevant to what you are trying to do. If you are trying to deceive someone, and are good at that, then it makes sense you have a bonus.

If you're trying to lie to the warlord who captured you about how long it'd take to repair their armor, a DM could say that you can make a CHA ability check and add your Smith's Tools proficiency to it, because the warlord doesn't share your metalworking skills.

[Kyutaru]

I believe it's meant to be similar to other RPGs. The video game Deus Ex: Human Revolution had various conversation attempts you would use to attempt to talk down a target or gather information. It's not okay to just use a single method. Sometimes force works better, sometimes lying or sympathizing or being honest works. Part of the skill split is so that DMs can force players to judge how they are going to react to the target without it automagically being governed by a single roll that works for everything.

So if you see a scared peasant who is holding the detonation rod to the magic vortex chamber, how are you going to convince him to put it down? By threatening him? By tricking him? By appealing to his good nature? What approach will you use? Sure you can lump these all under Charisma but then there's less ability to set different DCs or consequences depending on the method and less ability for characters to specialize in one form or the other.

It would be like instead of having various sports you had Skill: Sports. Your character is now a natural athlete that can play basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, water polo, fencing, gymnastics, chess, mutant arm-wrestling, Magic the Gathering, and any other weird thing he's never even heard of.

[Willie the Duck]

Yes, you could combine all 13 (13, right?) classes into maybe 4, with a lot more subclasses. Similarly, you could combine 3/4 charisma checks into 'Diplomacy,' combine 3/5 intelligence checks into 'Knowledge and combine Animal/Nature/Survival in the Wisdom category.

Point is, they're different enough as shown in some of the previous examples, and at the end of the day, people like to personalize their characters to be good at specific things, rather than old school 'Melee vs Magic' and 'Stealth vs Combat vs Utility'


Additional element:

what you're doing is a Charisma ability check.

Back in B/X, it was roughly equivalent to everything being an ability check or a skill system where everyone is omnicompetent. Strictly speaking, we could eliminate skills altogether (or give everyone all the skills, whichever makes the math work better). After all, the designers already reduced the skill list down to things that adventurers tend to know how to do and regularly use in their jobs of being wandering adventurers. Except then we've lost a component of character specialization.

[Kyutaru]

Back in B/X, it was roughly equivalent to everything being an ability check or a skill system where everyone is omnicompetent. Strictly speaking, we could eliminate skills altogether (or give everyone all the skills, whichever makes the math work better). After all, the designers already reduced the skill list down to things that adventurers tend to know how to do and regularly use in their jobs of being wandering adventurers. Except then we've lost a component of character specialization.

This for sure. Before skills, we had ability checks. Now we have skills and characters are more flavorful through specialization. What's important is ensuring that skills remain balanced and it was far too good for Charisma characters to rely on a single Diplomacy check to solve all problems.

It'd be like giving the Fighter a single skill: Fight. Depending on how well he rolls, he can beat anything.

[TrashTrash]

I've always been a fan of the so-calledtomato metaphor (https://imgur.com/gallery/WzhSq42), since it can be modified for whatever stat you need to show.
Deception: convince someone that they like tomatoes.
Intimidation: scare someone into eating a tomato.
Persuasion: convince someone to eat a tomato.

[GlenSmash!]

I've always been a fan of the so-calledtomato metaphor (https://imgur.com/gallery/WzhSq42), since it can be modified for whatever stat you need to show.
Deception: convince someone that they like tomatoes.
Intimidation: scare someone into eating a tomato.
Persuasion: convince someone to eat a tomato.

I like that one too. Though for my deception I'd use convince someone it's an apple.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another thought--

half-orcs are supposed to be better at scaring people into compliance, because half-orcs are scary (hence the racial Intimidation proficiency). If you merge them, then you're saying that half-orcs are racially better at lying (which goes against the straight-forward brutal savage archetype) and at using sweet reason (which...really but no).

[DarknessEternal]

Additional element:

what you're doing is a Charisma ability check.

You can then add a proficiency bonus if you are proficient in Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion and if (and only if) they're relevant to what you are trying to do.

What your trying to do is convince someone to think other than they already think. It doesn't matter what name the skill has, they do exactly the same thing.

The problem is that the game hard codes checks under different skills. This is exactly the same as 3rd using both Hide and Move Silently as skills, but 5th wisely consolidated it to Stealth.

Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception do exactly the same thing. How you describe what you're doing and the impact of how you do that is the RP part of RPG. The G part is the dice rolling.

There's no reason to clog up someones limited number of skills in a game which already doesn't provide enough skill proficiencies with 3 different skill which do the same thing.

[DarknessEternal]

I've always been a fan of the so-called tomato metaphor since it can be modified for whatever stat you need to show.
Deception: convince someone that they like tomatoes.
Intimidation: scare someone into eating a tomato.
Persuasion: convince someone to eat a tomato.

Attack roll: I swing my sword horizontally.
Attack roll: I swing my axe with an overhand chop.
Attack roll: I poke with my spear.

Game mechanic: the same.

[DarknessEternal]

It would be like instead of having various sports you had Skill: Sports. Your character is now a natural athlete that can play basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, water polo, fencing, gymnastics, chess, mutant arm-wrestling, Magic the Gathering, and any other weird thing he's never even heard of.

Right, who would ever put Athletics as a skill in D&D?

[DarknessEternal]

There are people who are great bullies, but suck at lying. There are great liars who can't persuade using reason. There are very persuasive people who can't lie or bully very well. As well as people who can do two but not all three.

One need only look at the world's history of politicians or actors to see that someone great at one of those things is also great at the other two.


So making them different skills helps portray that. Plus, the DCs and outcomes of each approach can be really different.

Find the section of the rules that say they'd have different DCs.

[DarknessEternal]

Part of it could be different fantasy cultures replying differently to different cultural 'manners'.

Most people use persuasion to converse and convince. They feel safe in their lives and don't want to be threatened or lied to.

Pirates could probably be swayed by anything plus money. If you pay and make friends with a pirate, they'll forgive getting off on a wrong foot. You put your heart and wallet into dealing with them and that's what matters.

Goblins and Orcs say good morning by threatening each other. Persuasive compliments and gestures come off as weak or desperate. When it comes to deception, they will continue accepting a lie if it was told to them by someone stronger, but if they learn they were tricked by someone weaker, they will be out for blood.

Demons and other creatures of bizarre morality may respect the art put into intimidation and deception. It doesn't matter if they believe or see through threats or lies, they respect the imagination, art, and power that goes into misshaping the truth. Persuasion could work too- they probably love being worshiped.

Finally, it's sort of fluff that describes the character using the skill. A forthright knight is persuasive, maybe intimidating in their zeal. A silver-tongued trickster can tempt people's egos with anything but intimidation, lulling people with comfort. A brutal barbarian lets anyone know that they will be crushed if they oppose them and will never deign to speak with civility.

This is all fluff, like describing what gestures you make when casting a spell. The effect is making someone think something that you want them to think.

[DarknessEternal]

Of course, the DMG section on social interaction kind of backs up your point of view. DM decides which skill is rolled based on approach which is dandy, but suggested DCs depend purely on 'friendliness' and risk of what you're requesting / demanding.

Exactly the point.

[DarknessEternal]

Persuasion is persuasion. Deception and Intimidation are means of persuasion. If you're going to contend these skills are somehow different, you need to drop the pretense that Persuasion is an appropriate name and description for a skill.

[Kyutaru]

Right, who would ever put Athletics as a skill in D&D?

Being good at jumping, climbing, running, etc does not make you an excellent pitcher or a keenly experienced practitioner of deck magic. These are different skills. Athletics only exists to lump together skills that were previously much weaker options than better choices.

[DarknessEternal]

Being good at jumping, climbing, running, etc does not make you an excellent pitcher or a keenly experienced practitioner of deck magic. These are different skills. Athletics only exists to lump together skills that were previously much weaker options than better choices.

Thanks for agreeing with me. Deception and Intimidation are weaker skills compared to Persuasion since it can be used to accomplish anything either of the other two do, while the former have limitations.

[Kyutaru]

Thanks for agreeing with me. Deception and Intimidation are weaker skills compared to Persuasion since it can be used to accomplish anything either of the other two do, while the former have limitations.

I have not agreed with you and the disrespect has resulted in this being my final address. Athletics was merged because the skills it merged were weaker compared to all other skills in the system, such that they were seldomly taken at all. Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion are all useful social skills that are taken fairly often, especially compared to Animal Handling or History.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. One need only look at the world's history of politicians or actors to see that someone great at one of those things is also great at the other two.

2. Find the section of the rules that say they'd have different DCs.

1. You can be good at all three, but you don't have to be. I know lots of very persuasive people who suck at lying or intimidating. And lots of politicians suck at persuasion and intimidation. They're great at reading canned scripts, but can't bully their way out of a paper bag.

2. The rule is that the DM sets the DC however they see fit. The tables are explicitly just suggestions. And they have to be able to be different.

Consider a particular NPC from my campaign world. She's the high priestess of the goddess of justice and truth. As such she can summon an avatar of the goddess, who cannot be lied to. In fact, it is impossible to knowingly lie or mislead in its presence. The DC to do so is DC: No, automatic failure. She can be persuaded just fine. Intimidating her would be difficult, since she has one of the local area's strongest organizations (an Order of paladins and clerics) at her beck and call.

Or consider a certain paladin, known to the players as Sparkles. She hates deception and will smite anyone who she believes is trying to deceive her. Trying to bully her will not end well either. She will accept all sorts of penalties and punishment to smite someone who tries.

Contrast that with a certain guild-leader. He's a spineless wimp who only loves money. Credibly threaten to cut off his funding and he'll fold like a cheap suit. He's pretty much immune to persuasive attempts (trying to appeal to his better nature is going to fail, trying to use facts and figures will get ignored). He can be deceived normally, however.

Other guards will take bribes but can't be reasoned with. Others can be reasoned with but won't take bribes.

So the DC for any particular attempt depends on both what they're trying to get the person to do and on the method they choose to use. And it will range from DC: Auto-success to DC: Auto-fail.

[detro]

Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation are all persuasive methods. Yes they are similar, yes they fall under the same umbrella of overall persuasion.

The reason, i believe, they are different is 2 fold.

1.) To provide character depth.

To ask a hulking Barbarian who just squeezed a bartenders hand so hard while asking a question and shaking hands for the same Persuasion check that you ask the slick rogue who convinces the bartender that the townsfolk are in peril due to whatever top secret mission if he doesn't help him with this information kills a lot of character depth and flavor, which is a really big fun part of the game for many people (myself included).

2.) To provide skill balance.

To attribute all of these to 1 skill would make said skill much more desirable than the majority of other skills. Everyone would take Prof in Persuasion if it included Intimidation, Persuasion, AND Deception. It would also make Charisma seem stale.

I think the problem is that WotC had the concept of using different attributes for skills when it makes sense, but then decided to disregard it and went with static attributes for skills
The Barbarian example is solved entirely by just calling for a Persuasion (Strength) check, with the rogue doing a Persuasion (Charisma) check. It would also open the game up for things that make a lot more sense, like a Persuasion (Intelligence) check if you have a really solid argument on why someone should do something or a Persuasion (Wisdom) to convince someone not to do something dumb.
As the game is right now it basically implies Persuasion (Charisma) is all that exists, despite giving a token example of Intimidation (Strength) check as a variant rule in a section rarely read.
Stuff like that should be a CORE rule.

It's not balanced at all as is, because right now the major skills are persuasion, deception, stealth, perception (I would add athletics, but a lot of spells let you bypass those). The other skills range from situational to nearly outright ribbons. Animal Handling, really? This is D&D, if an animal needs handling it gets pacified with a sword. That's not getting into how expertise breaks the skill system entirely.

[Composer99]

Attack roll: I swing my sword horizontally.
Attack roll: I swing my axe with an overhand chop.
Attack roll: I poke with my spear.

Game mechanic: the same.

This seems to undercut your point far more than it supports it.

Unless, I suppose, your next thread is going to advocate for collapsing all weapons into one melee and one ranged option, because who cares about variety, thematics, and characterisation when game mechanics are identical?

[Constructman]

What your trying to do is convince someone to think other than they already think. It doesn't matter what name the skill has, they do exactly the same thing.

The problem is that the game hard codes checks under different skills. This is exactly the same as 3rd using both Hide and Move Silently as skills, but 5th wisely consolidated it to Stealth.

Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception do exactly the same thing. How you describe what you're doing and the impact of how you do that is the RP part of RPG. The G part is the dice rolling.

There's no reason to clog up someones limited number of skills in a game which already doesn't provide enough skill proficiencies with 3 different skill which do the same thing.

Have you nothered to read the thread at all, or are we talking to a birck wall here?

[Tanarii]

What your trying to do is convince someone to think other than they already think.
The Mutant Zero / Forbiddan Lands game system embraces this concept, calling it's social manipulation skill "Manipulation".


Additional element:

what you're doing is a Charisma ability check.

You can then add a proficiency bonus if you are proficient in Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion and if (and only if) they're relevant to what you are trying to do. If you are trying to deceive someone, and are good at that, then it makes sense you have a bonus.

Right. "They're all the same" is Cha mod (which is natural talent and training), and "they're a little bit different" is
Proficiency (which is 'focus')

[Lupine]

Because I could probably lie directly to your face and make it realistic enough you'd believe me, but when I try to persuade you, it quickly devolves into
"please?" "NO.""please?" "NO.""please?" "NO."

Make "Annoy" a skill

[Krobar]

Because using truth, logic, and reason to convince you of something is entirely different than lying to you to convince you of the same thing. And both of those are entirely different from telling you to do what I say or I'll beat you to death with a shovel.

[Arkhios]

Simple answer to simple question:

Diversity isn't always a bad thing.

If every similar skill was clumped as one, character diversity would suffer. Multiple characters with same skill training would begin to feel too similar, taking away the point of having different in-party-roles.

[Bjarkmundur]

Simple answer to a simple question:

Diversity isn't always a bad thing.

If every similar skill was clumped as one, character diversity would suffer. Multiple characters with the same skill training would begin to feel too similar, taking away the point of having different in-party-roles.

I agree with this. The only reason I see to have the skill system as it is now is to emphasize character archetypes. Nature is not History because we have rangers, and Persuasion is not Deception because we have LG Paladins. I guess they don't trust players to not use their Half-Orcs 'Socialize' skill only for intimidation. So to make sure the Half-Orc can't attempt to woo the princess with a sweet song, they made a different social skill for that.
I for one combined them all, and if someone tries something I'll just say "You're a mean, ruthless, barbarian half-orc, and have shown us your true colors over the last 5 levels. You try to sing to the princess and in your attempt to impress her you start describing the lifeless eyes of decapitated heads... She starts to cry and runs away ".
In DM speech that's "I increased the DC by 5, because I know this Half-Orc never ever thought about taking Performance as background skill."

[patchyman]

I agree with this. The only reason I see to have the skill system as it is now is to emphasize character archetypes. Nature is not History because we have rangers, and Persuasion is not Deception because we have LG Paladins. I guess they don't trust players to not use their Half-Orcs 'Socialize' skill only for intimidation.

I don’t think it is a question of not trusting the players. During character creation, if my rogue takes Persuasion, I’m saying something very different about him than if he takes Deception. And if he takes multiple social skills, I’m also saying something about him.

Dragonborn make natural paladins, and paladins benefit from high Cha. A dragonborn Paladin that takes Intimidation is a very different character from one who takes Persuasion.

[Karnitis]

One idea I've garnered from this that I quite like is to keep the skills, but throw out the attribute backing. So the system of 'proficiency' still stands, but that way it opens the player to being more creative.

Because y'all are right, if I'm trying to explain to a mob that this woman is a witch because ducks float and so does she, that's more an INT than a CHA, because I'm trying to use science/logic.

Maybe 8/10 times persuading a shopkeeper to give you a discount is pure CHA and the old system stands, but even 2/10 times it encourages the player to play creatively rather than mechanically.

[greenstone]

Meanwhile, I can see deception and intimidation being forms of persuasion.

So a better parallel would be if, in addition to Arcana, History, Nature and Religion, there was a skill called Knowledge.

There is - it's called an INT check.

Let's take this back to the fundamental rules of an RPG. (1) The GM describes a situation. (2) The players state their goal and approach. (3) The success or failure is determined (perhaps with a die roll). (4) The GM and/or players narrate the outcome and consequences.

Persuasion and Intimidation are different approaches to the same goal ("get this person to do what I want them to do"). They both have the same outcome ("the person does what I want") but different consequences.

Intimidating a guard to let you pass has the same outcome as negotiating a bribe or pretending to have valid credentials - you get past the guard. However the consequences of threatening the guard are wildly different to those of bribing the guard.

[Millstone85]

There is - it's called an INT check.They are all Int checks.

Yes, a DM can call for an Int check, to recall information on a subject, and not let you add your proficiency bonus, judging that neither Arcana, History, Nature nor Religion is relevant in this case.

Being proficient in Knowledge would be the complete opposite, as it should let you add your proficiency bonus when trying to recall information on any subject.


Intimidating a guard to let you pass has the same outcome as negotiating a bribe or pretending to have valid credentials - you get past the guard. However the consequences of threatening the guard are wildly different to those of bribing the guard.What if you told the guard that evil is afoot and they need to let your heroic party barge in, all of which you believe to be true? This would have different consequences than offering a bribe, despite also being a Cha (Persuasion) check. Maybe one or the other turns the guard hostile ("How dare you try to buy me with such a paltry sum?" or "Do I look like a theater-loving idiot?"). Maybe one or the other makes them raise an alarm ("Bob, we have got ne'er-do-wells at the door!" or "Bob, you should go check inside, just in case.").

Different consequences do not require different skills.

[napoleon_in_rag]

There is something to be said for variant rules like being able to use str for intimidation instead of cha which gives some spread to the social capacities to different character types. This would more mean fighter types would intimidate while others would persuade or deceive, so I guess that is in line with your point that a char doesn't need more than one.


I used to feel that Intimidation should should be a strength skill instead of charisma. But then I remembered these movie quotes:

Weird Science:
Chet - I eat pieces of s#$t like you for breakfast!
Gary - You eat s@#t for breakfast?

A Knight's Tale:
Wat - I will fong you! FONG YOU!!!!

Or look at Joe Pesci in Goodfellas and Casino. He is not big, he is not particularly strong, but he says and acts the right way to be intimidating. He also turns it on and off like a switch.
Whadiya mean I'm funny? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E84VqqCPI7w)
I think I want my money back. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZzAS53gcDg)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Persuasion is persuasion. Deception and Intimidation are means of persuasion. If you're going to contend these skills are somehow different, you need to drop the pretense that Persuasion is an appropriate name and description for a skill.
I can see this argument. "Diplomacy" is a bit too specific (and formal), but "Persuasion" might be a bit too broad.



What your trying to do is convince someone to think other than they already think. It doesn't matter what name the skill has, they do exactly the same thing.
That's technically true. Then again, hold person and scorching ray are both spells that make people stop moving, so why do you need both spells?
Deception makes people believe lies. Intimidation makes people believe you're making an offer they can't refuse. Persuasion makes people believe your ideas are good. They can be used to accomplish some of the same goals, but that doesn't make them all the same.



One need only look at the world's history of politicians or actors to see that someone great at one of those things is also great at the other two.
Correction: Someone great at one of those things can also be great at the other two. (Presumably, they have high Charisma scores.) There are also examples of liars who weren't intimidating or persuasive, diplomats who weren't good at lying or scaring people, and of course strongmen who weren't good at lying or persuasion but didn't need to be.


Find the section of the rules that say they'd have different DCs.
5e has rules about skill DCs?



I used to feel that Intimidation should should be a strength skill instead of charisma. But then I remembered these movie quotes:
[examples redacted]
Yeah, Intimidation should be Charisma-based. But I do wish that there was some way to get Strength involved, for three reasons.
1. It makes intuitive sense. A threat to bash someone's skull in is a lot more convincing when it comes from someone with biceps the size of your head.
2. It fits the archetypes. Short, witty guys aren't always bad at intimidation, but intimidators are usualy big and burly.
3. Intimidation is, in my opinion, the most limited of the three social skills; its influence doesn't extend past your (metaphorical) reach, and you're basically guaranteed to leave social collateral damage (which can happen with Deception if you're careless, but not as quickly or often).
Maybe some kind of feat that lets you add your Strength and Charisma bonus to Intimidate?



Because y'all are right, if I'm trying to explain to a mob that this woman is a witch because ducks float and so does she, that's more an INT than a CHA, because I'm trying to use science/logic.
I wish it were that easy IRL. Maybe I could have convinced my coworker that the Earth is round...or at least that circumference wasn't measured in square inches per mile. (Okay, that technically works out as a linear measurement, but still, no.)

[Kyutaru]

Yeah, Intimidation should be Charisma-based. But I do wish that there was some way to get Strength involved, for three reasons.
1. It makes intuitive sense. A threat to bash someone's skull in is a lot more convincing when it comes from someone with biceps the size of your head.
2. It fits the archetypes. Short, witty guys aren't always bad at intimidation, but intimidators are usualy big and burly.
3. Intimidation is, in my opinion, the most limited of the three social skills; its influence doesn't extend past your (metaphorical) reach, and you're basically guaranteed to leave social collateral damage (which can happen with Deception if you're careless, but not as quickly or often).
Maybe some kind of feat that lets you add your Strength and Charisma bonus to Intimidate?


You can simply have Intimidation able to use both. For example, there was an edition where this was the case:

Your Fortitude save is the better of your Strength and Constitution save bonuses.
Your Reflex save is the better of your Dexterity and Intelligence save bonuses.
Your Will save is the better of your Wisdom and Charisma save bonuses.

Have Intimidation be the better of Strength and Charisma bonuses. Now your super strong fighter can influence people with muscles or glares. It's also not something I'd use in social situations much. Intimidation is for using on the bad guys to get them to spill the beans.



Oh and similarly, on topic, the split is important because Persuasion is for good cop approach, Intimidation is for bad cop approach, and Deception is for flat out trickery. Deception may seem like a weak choice until you notice it's also used for disguises, forgery, and flat out lying to someone's face. Try Persuading the king with the truth he doesn't want to hear or Intimidating him in his palace full of guards.

[Hail Tempus]

5e has rules about skill DCs? It does. The DM looks at the totality of the situation (who is speaking, who are they speaking to, and what are they trying to get that person to do) and assigns a DC to it.

A neutral evil Necromancer trying to intimidate a military leader who is a high-ranking Paladin of Tyr in order to cause him to retreat might have a DC of "Impossible."

On the other hand, a lawful good Fighter trying to Persuade that same Paladin to change his army's attack plans to avoid civilian deaths might have a DC of 10.

[GlenSmash!]

On the other hand, a lawful good Fighter trying to Persuade that same Paladin to change his army's attack plans to avoid civilian deaths might have a DC of 10.

That'd likely be a no roll required in my game since the DM doesn't just set DCs but also determines when checks are called for in the first place.

[OvisCaedo]

Ehhh. Maybe it's just deliberate to try and force the "social pillar" to be spread out over more skills instead of being too easy to "dominate" with a limited number of proficiencies, or something. Some comments about how the proficiencies can say something fundamentally different about your character have a fair enough point, too.

There's a difference between diplomacy and lying, but I think it's a lot less of one than the difference between swimming and climbing and jumping, and those got collapsed into one skill. That's also probably on the flip side of game balance of trying to be nicer to athletic/martial types.

[Karnitis]

Your Fortitude save is the better of your Strength and Constitution save bonuses.
Your Reflex save is the better of your Dexterity and Intelligence save bonuses.
Your Will save is the better of your Wisdom and Charisma save bonuses.



I used to play KOTOR as a kid, and equated Wis = Force, STR = melee, and DEX = ranged, and that was the extent of character building as I knew it until I was 23 and started playing dnd.

Then I kicked myself for being so dumb and not realized DEX affected AC, learned what CON/WIS/DEX savings throws did, and the difference of 'attack bonus' and 'damage bonus.'

Now, three more years later, I feel like an idiot again as I never realized that's what fort/reflex/will saves meant. Also, I like that system. Makes sense, even if its a tiny smidgen more complicated to new players.

[Hail Tempus]

That'd likely be a no roll required in my game since the DM doesn't just set DCs but also determines when checks are called for in the first place. Agreed. I like to reward role-playing. The PC with the highest Charisma might not be the best face of the party in every situation. Sending the pretty-boy bard to try and convince the grizzled warrior-king through flattery and songs will require a tougher roll (or be impossible) then having the scarred Fighter talk directly soldier-to-soldier.

I think the best reason to have three separate social skills is to encourage players to think about their social encounter tactics, the same way they do about their combat encounters.

[Themrys]

There's a difference between diplomacy and lying, but I think it's a lot less of one than the difference between swimming and climbing and jumping, and those got collapsed into one skill. That's also probably on the flip side of game balance of trying to be nicer to athletic/martial types.


I don't think so. Explaining facts to someone is very different from lying, the latter requires creativity and also the ability to disguise the body language that tells others you are lying. Granted, I am bad at both, but for different reasons, and could probably learn to be good at persuasion, but not lying.

And added to that, there is a moral difference.

Swimming, climbing and jumping require different muscle groups and of course, practising one doesn't make you much better at the others in real life. But I'd argue that in a game where there's rules for whether you are good or evil, the moral difference is probably more important to gameplay than the logic problem of "my character grew up next to the sea and can swim, but why would she be good at climbing?"

[Kyutaru]

I think the best reason to have three separate social skills is to encourage players to think about their social encounter tactics, the same way they do about their combat encounters.

I like to see it as Rock Paper Scissors. I generally give one approach a favorable DC, one approach a neutral DC, and one approach a Roll Initiative DC.

Persuasion works best on the wise, Deception on the gullible, and Intimidation on the meek.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It does.
Oh, right, people on this forum can't recognize a joke unless it's colored blue.



I like to see it as Rock Paper Scissors. I generally give one approach a favorable DC, one approach a neutral DC, and one approach a Roll Initiative DC.

Persuasion works best on the wise, Deception on the gullible, and Intimidation on the meek.
Where would Persuasion cause a Roll Initiative DC? I can see Intimidation and (if detected/suspected) Deception, but why Persuasion?
Also, I'd argue that with some tough guys, you'd need a moderate Intimidate roll just to convince them you were worth listening to. More of a "Alright, that's impressive" than "Alright, I'll do whatever you say!", but they're both getting someone to do what you want by threatening them.

[Arkhios]

Oh, right, people on this forum can't recognize a joke unless it's colored blue.

Sometimes I wonder if even that helps.

[Constructman]

Where would Persuasion cause a Roll Initiative DC? I can see Intimidation and (if detected/suspected) Deception, but why Persuasion?
Maybe if somebody's already hostile to you, and isn't interested in listening to reason. Say you stole something important to them, maybe a jade statue, earlier that day and they (rightfully) suspect you. A successful Charisma (Intimidation) check can get them to back off, while passing a Charisma (Deception) check can let you point them in another direction and throw some poor bloke under the bus long enough to get out of there. But Charisma (Persuasion)? What would you persuade them of? That you were justified in stealing their precious artifact?