in 5e currently, what sort of action is trying to talk someone into something?

[huttj509]

I'll give more context in a spoiler, but I'm wondering if there's concensus:

In the current 5e rules, what sort of action is it to influence someone? Is there a general action requirement to use a skill? Action, Bonus Action, Not an Action?

In another setting got into a discussion about the ODnD rules compendium, and I pointed out that Influence, Search, and Study were basically setting the default as "using these skills is an Action, the GM may decide it takes less than that depending on dituation" as opposed to what I felt the currnt default is of "no guidance given."

Someone else said the current rules are that using a skill takes an Action already, and that most people would interpret it that way.

I'm wondering about the 'most people' part.

Edit: addendum: the referenced part of the Basic Rules is "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

[JackPhoenix]

Talking is not an action, you can just talk on your turn. If your speech takes more than 6 seconds or so, it's longer than a combat round anyway.

[GooeyChewie]

Technically by RAW using a skill is an Action and trying to influence somebody generally uses a skill (be it Intimidation, Deception, Persuasion or something else). In practice, many DMs will allow it with no action during combat, so long as the players do not abuse that freedom, since giving up a whole action is a high price to pay for something which likely has no chance of success anyway.

[Composer99]

Absent any specific "influence" or "parley" action, such as appears in the 1D&D playtest, the rules that cover this sort of thing in the 5e PHB are:



Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.

You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.

... [Other activities not related to communication]

The GM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle.


I am not aware of there being any consensus as to what sort of utterance or communication requires an action in 5e, other than "ask your DM" (for player-facing viewpoint) or "guess you'd better come up with an answer" (for DM-facing viewpoint).

(Personally, since the sending spell allows you to send a message of 25 words or less as an action but at least part of that might include the casting of the spell itself, for my own games I'd assume any utterance or combination of utterances of more than 6 words in length (with some care given to syllables if necessary) will require an action and allow up to 25 words in a single turn.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Technically by RAW using a skill is an Action and trying to influence somebody generally uses a skill (be it Intimidation, Deception, Persuasion or something else). In practice, many DMs will allow it with no action during combat, so long as the players do not abuse that freedom, since giving up a whole action is a high price to pay for something which likely has no chance of success anyway.

Citation? I'm not aware of any. Specific uses of specific skills, yes (the Search action, for example). But ability checks[1] in general? No. For example, balancing on an unstable beam (a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check) is just something you do. You make Dexterity (acrobatics) checks to not fall prone after falling. Without using actions. Etc.

[1] you do not use skills. Ever. You make ability checks, which may or may not add a source of proficiency, of which skills are one example.

[Mastikator]

Technically by RAW using a skill is an Action and trying to influence somebody generally uses a skill (be it Intimidation, Deception, Persuasion or something else). In practice, many DMs will allow it with no action during combat, so long as the players do not abuse that freedom, since giving up a whole action is a high price to pay for something which likely has no chance of success anyway.

RAW it's the DM's job to decide if any course of action calls for a ability (skill) checks. Skills are not buttons for players to push.
If a player character tries to talk an NPC into something, what they say and their relationship decides if a roll is needed and then what skill is used.

In the 1D&D experts playtest glossary they turn this upside down by giving specific DCs and actions for players to influence NPCs. In my opinion this is worse than free-forming it like the 2014PHB and DMG handles NPC interaction. It feels video-gamey and corrosive to roleplaying. It teaches players to not TALK to the NPCs.

[MoiMagnus]

I'll give more context in a spoiler, but I'm wondering if there's concensus:

In the current 5e rules, what sort of action is it to influence someone? Is there a general action requirement to use a skill? Action, Bonus Action, Not an Action?

The default requirement is an Action, because it is assumed that you focus on it. Having a discussion with someone while running or exchanging blows is quite unpractical.

However, talking itself doesn't cost any action, and the GM can for example judge that making an intimidation check while continuing to attack is reasonable. The action cost being the default doesn't mean every check has to use it.

I'm kind of sad that the current rules don't mention explicitly the possibility of giving to the player the choice between "make the check for free (or for a BA) with a disadvantage OR make the check for an action", because I find it to be a reasonable compromise in a lot of cases.

[stoutstien]

I'll give more context in a spoiler, but I'm wondering if there's concensus:

In the current 5e rules, what sort of action is it to influence someone? Is there a general action requirement to use a skill? Action, Bonus Action, Not an Action?

In another setting got into a discussion about the ODnD rules compendium, and I pointed out that Influence, Search, and Study were basically setting the default as "using these skills is an Action, the GM may decide it takes less than that depending on dituation" as opposed to what I felt the currnt default is of "no guidance given."

Someone else said the current rules are that using a skill takes an Action already, and that most people would interpret it that way.

I'm wondering about the 'most people' part.

Edit: addendum: the referenced part of the Basic Rules is "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Per the rules and any official support/citations this is 100% DM fiat. Remember there is actions and then there's Actions. For reference you can look under the 'other activities on your turns' on page ~190 and cross-reference that against the ability check section. However intimidation is vaguely referred to under the improvised and action sidebar as well.

Players can't actually take actions they can only describe what they want to do and the DM decides what's called for. For the most part tables prescribe to the general guidelines for the action economy when it's covered (attacking, casting spells) but in the end the DM makes the call.

*Using the word activity on page 174 in place of action probably would have gone a long way to avoid confusion.*

[Kane0]

Communicating doesn't use any actions by default, but making an ability check uses an action.

[JonBeowulf]

The way I interpret it is that there is a difference between taking an action and taking an Action.

Talking takes time and could consume your allotted 6 seconds (if done as part of your turn during combat) but I would argue strongly with any DM who told me that saying a few words meant I couldn't attack. Keep in mind that everyone is doing their stuff during that same 6 seconds.

Actually, I'm having a hard time thinking of any ability check that, by itself, is an Action. Dex(Acrobatics) and Str(Athletics) would consume your Action... but your real Action is trying to break/maintain a grapple. Dex(Stealth) is used as part of the Hide Action, but the check itself is not the Action. Perhaps a Wis(Medicine) check to attempt to stabilize someone could be considered an Action. I would discourage active Int(Investigation) or Wis(Perception) checks during combat because smacking the dude who's just standing there looking around is hard to resist.

[BaronCorvo]

Communicating doesn't use any actions by default, but making an ability check uses an action.

This.

There are class features that allow PCs to use bonus actions for Perception or Investigation (Inquisitive Rogue) or to use an attack to frighten someone (Battle Master Fighter), so my inclination would be that any attempt to use Persuasion or Intimidation in combat would require an action. If you could intimidate without using an action, then a charismatic fighter, paladin, bard, etc would just attempt to intimidate their target every round for free. Why not, since it costs nothing and can make enemies get disadvantage or flee? That's not quite the same as the Battle Master Maneuver (which adds a superiority die to the attack roll, uses STR or DEX for the save DC, and uses a limited resource), but it's close enough to seriously diminish the value of Menacing Attack. Similarly, using a Medicine check to stabilize someone shouldn't be free, because casting Healing Word or Spare the Living isn't free.

Want to tell your teammate to cover you, or that there's an orc around the corner, or to focus on stopping the warlock from completing their ritual? That's free. Want to convince the warlock not to go through with the ritual? That takes an action.

(There may still be edge cases where you don't need an action, per the DM's judgment, but that's my default assumption.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Communicating doesn't use any actions by default, but making an ability check uses an action.

Again...evidence for the general case? I can think of dozens of counter-examples and no general rules stating as much. There are specific ability checks that say they require actions. Search being one of them, as is breaking an established grapple (but only an action for the defender, not the initiator, who also makes a check). But many many others that do not.

For example, you make ability checks as part of falling (to avoid going prone). Those don't cost an action. You make ability checks as part of walking across slippery floors. Those don't require an action. You make ability checks if you're resisting a grapple being imposed. Those don't cost an action for ether person--the initiator pays an attack, the defender pays nothing at all.

There is no general rule that I'm aware of in 5e that ability checks have any default action cost. Specific examples of uses have specific action costs, but the general case does not.

[Kane0]

Again...evidence for the general case? I can think of dozens of counter-examples and no general rules stating as much. There are specific ability checks that say they require actions. Search being one of them, as is breaking an established grapple (but only an action for the defender, not the initiator, who also makes a check). But many many others that do not.

For example, you make ability checks as part of falling (to avoid going prone). Those don't cost an action. You make ability checks as part of walking across slippery floors. Those don't require an action. You make ability checks if you're resisting a grapple being imposed. Those don't cost an action for ether person--the initiator pays an attack, the defender pays nothing at all.

There is no general rule that I'm aware of in 5e that ability checks have any default action cost. Specific examples of uses have specific action costs, but the general case does not.

You're right, but I second BaronCorvo. We have enough examples and reasons to suppose that speaking freely without using an action during combat could be problematic.

[Mastikator]

Intimidation does not inflict conditions. You can not cause someone to be afflicted with frightened by intimidating them. Intimidating in combat can only change the attitude of the enemies toward your PC.

Making intimidation (or persuasion or deception for that matter) checks in combat is not problematic because talking is not mind control.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Intimidation does not inflict conditions. You can not cause someone to be afflicted with frightened by intimidating them. Intimidating in combat can only change the attitude of the enemies toward your PC.

Making intimidation (or persuasion or deception for that matter) checks in combat is not problematic because talking is not mind control.

I completely agree with this. And locking it behind actions means it will never happen. And I want people to talk (both intimidation and persuasion) in combat. I don't want everyone to go into "optimal chess player" mode.

[Mastikator]

I completely agree with this. And locking it behind actions means it will never happen. And I want people to talk (both intimidation and persuasion) in combat. I don't want everyone to go into "optimal chess player" mode.

Yeah, a successful charisma check in combat should change how the enemies view the PC(s), which may cause them to choose to flee, or accept negotiation, or change priorities, or switch tactics. But all of those outcomes must be reasonable and available to be possible at all. And it's more than just "say words equals boom" here, to talk a hungry troll down from trying to kill and eat you, you must basically give it something else. Like agree to give it your food in exchange for not fighting.

A persuasion must offer something, a deception must be something plausible, an intimidation must be credible. Or at least reasonably appear that way for a DM to call for an ability check.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, a successful charisma check in combat should change how the enemies view the PC(s), which may cause them to choose to flee, or accept negotiation, or change priorities, or switch tactics. But all of those outcomes must be reasonable and available to be possible at all. And it's more than just "say words equals boom" here, to talk a hungry troll down from trying to kill and eat you, you must basically give it something else. Like agree to give it your food in exchange for not fighting.

A persuasion must offer something, a deception must be something plausible, an intimidation must be credible. Or at least reasonably appear that way for a DM to call for an ability check.

Absolutely agree with all of this.

[GooeyChewie]

Citation? I'm not aware of any. Specific uses of specific skills, yes (the Search action, for example). But ability checks[1] in general? No. For example, balancing on an unstable beam (a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check) is just something you do. You make Dexterity (acrobatics) checks to not fall prone after falling. Without using actions. Etc.

[1] you do not use skills. Ever. You make ability checks, which may or may not add a source of proficiency, of which skills are one example.

Mea culpa, it appears I have taken the specific examples and incorrectly applied those specific cases to the general case. I tried to find the wording that I could have sworn was in the PHB and couldn't find it. Turns out I've been ignoring a rule that only existed in my own mind!

That said, I don't exactly agree with your examples. Balancing on an unstable beam would likely cause a Dexterity saving throw rather than an ability check. And you do not make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to avoid falling prone after falling; per page 183 of the PHB you fall prone if you take damage from the fall, with no roll to avoid going prone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Mea culpa, it appears I have taken the specific examples and incorrectly applied those specific cases to the general case. I tried to find the wording that I could have sworn was in the PHB and couldn't find it. Turns out I've been ignoring a rule that only existed in my own mind!

That said, I don't exactly agree with your examples. Balancing on an unstable beam would likely cause a Dexterity saving throw rather than an ability check. And you do not make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to avoid falling prone after falling; per page 183 of the PHB you fall prone if you take damage from the fall, with no roll to avoid going prone.

See phb 176 for balancing being a Dex (acrobatics) check.

Falling... Yeah. Guess you're right on that one.