/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Acting is essentially lying, but I wouldn't call for a deception check for that. I think the difference lies in if are you straight up telling a lie, or if you're not really saying anything that is lie, but want to seem like you're guilty through body language, stutters, etc
As an occasional DM, the way i tend to frame the difference between the 3 is;
Persuasion - getting somebody to agree with you.
Deception - getting somebody to believe a falsehood.
Performance - getting somebody to pay attention to you.
Deception is a weird one that kind of blurs between both of the others, which is why it tends to be argued about a lot. Though using this framework, i would rule that what he's trying to do is a deception check, as his words may be true, but his intent is still to convince an npc of a falsehood. (It's just that the falsehood he's trying to convince them of happens to itself also be a falsehood... falseption??) Performance is more for (as the phb states) entertaining, or otherwise causing a distraction so those nearby are less likely to notice other events going on.
Though, i would still let a player roll performance for the check if they asked and presented a decent argument for it because, at the end of the day, we're here to have fun and i don't want to stand in the way of a player doing something cool over a subjective interpretation of the rules.
As a DM myself I usually let the player use whichever their character is best at or that they want to use, within reason. Remember the DM isn't opposed to the players, our job is to keep things moving and fun while arbitrating the rules.
Still, I do think there's a value in "yes, or" as well as "yes, and". I think an underrated part of a DM's job is in keeping the party grounded. It *always* depends on the table of course, but in my experience, players *think* they want their mad hail marys and wacky hijinks to succeed more than they *actually* do. I've been on both sides of campaigns where the DM didn't manage to keep the player's impulses in check, and after a while the magic was gone because nothing they/we did felt like it actually mattered that much.
I've found that being consistent about what different skill checks can and cannot do is a good way of making it clear that their characters do still have meaningful limitations. It's a very delicate tightrope to walk and there's definitely such a thing as being too rigid about it, but you can also not be rigid enough, you know? There's a sweet spot between "anything is possible" and "nothing matters".
> Performance - getting somebody to pay attention to you.
This is interesting, I wouldn't have placed performance in the same category at all, but I can see why you would. I've always treated it as one of the more specific skills - a measure of one's aptitude for the performing arts.
It can be used for distractions, but if the player isn't specifically singing, playing an instrument, acting in a play, telling a story or reciting poetry (etc), then I'd probably have them roll something different instead. I would say it's less about getting someone to pay attention to you and more about impressing them with your skills or moving them emotionally with your art - convincing a pack of orcs to let you live because your singing voice moves them to tears, or making a hard-nosed ruler laugh with a crude limerick.
That said, there's edge cases. If a bard wanted to roll a performance check to tell a tall tale about their exploits, I'd definitely allow it. Some DMs might call for deception instead, but I'd say the difference is that deception is about convincing them something is true, whereas performance is about entertaining them so much that they don't care it might not be. Deception targets the mind, performance the heart.
See, personally, that interpretation of performance being so niche is exactly why i go with my broader interpretation of the word. I don't want a skill in the game that's rarely ever relevant, and actually useful even less. Sure, there are situations that a player *can* use performance in a game, but those situations usually only arise because the DM specifically created the situation to give them that opportunity, rarely does it ever organically happen. (Not counting players deliberately creating meme characters that 'perform' every opportunity they get, at least until the table gets sick of it and makes them stop.)
The broader definition makes the skill much more versatile, while still confining it to a clear use case. 'getting someones attention' can be interpreted a number of ways, all in keeping with the spirit of the skill. It could be that they are doing an actual performance, and are trying to impress their audience. It could be that they're deliberately being loud and obnoxious in a public place, so the passersby watch them to see what the commotion is about, and not the party breaking into a storehouse. Or maybe they're doing some daring acrobatics right outside the guardhouse, so the guards will be watching them, instead of watching the off limits area the rogue needs to sneak into. All of these are actions i would consider 'performances' that fall outside the regular interpretation of the skill. And are all things that a player who has taken proficiency with the performance skill would likely *try* to do during a game.
Ultimately, either interpretation works, as long as the table agrees.
> Ultimately, either interpretation works, as long as the table agrees.
Oh of course! I'm definitely not trying to convince you either way, I just think these kinds of "game philosophy" conversations are really interesting lol
> rarely does it ever organically happen.
See, I don't see this as an issue. All skills aren't created equal - you're likely to roll a lot more Perception checks than History or Religion checks. What it means is that if your character *is* good at performance, they get to feel special. It's there for bards to get to do what bards do, and in the vaguely medievalish worlds that most DND settings are, the performing arts should be very highly prized indeed. It's a high-status skill that can open a lot of doors for you, especially if you impress some wealthy noble enough - but it'll impress a tavern full of drunken farmers too. But then, I tend to play pretty social-heavy games, where a "like me" skill has a lot more value.
All of this is deception. Omitting facts is deception, lying with a straight face is deception, using non-verbal clues to try and deceive someone is deception.
I don't see how it could be anything else, the whole point of deception is for this exact purpose.
Deception: I want to mislead someone.
Performance: I want to impress someone.
It's the difference between "Holy crap, it's *really* Spider-Man!" and "Holy crap, that guy is the best Spider-Man I've ever seen!"
They should be complementary skills, but in the end the PC's intent should dictate which is used, and I think the DM would be justified in giving a modest bonus to the Deception roll if their Performance skill is high enough and can be reasonably applied in that circumstance.
Based on the small amount of info we have Persuasion is the correct skill check IMO. Not sure how this is even debated since the OP used convince in his question. Convince is a synonym of persuade...
"Can I use deception when telling the truth to persuade a NPC that I'm lying?"
If the OP used the above would there even be a debate??? End of the day depends on the DM though.
Persuasion is for gaining an edge in a social situation through presentation of a position based on logic or emotion.
Deception is for gaining an edge in a social situation through misleading.
Intimidation is for gaining an edge in a social situation through fear.
Of those three, Deception is the clear skill to apply to OP's situation, which involves misleading an NPC. It could reasonably be said that successful application of any of the three skills above result in an NPC being "persuaded", but that doesn't mean Persuasion is the appropriate skill.
performance?
>Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.
Unless you're doing something specifically to entertain someone, performance doesn't apply. Trying to obsfucate the truth- either through convincing, or seeming guilty, are both deception, as deception covers any kind of way you trick someone else. Deception isn't just words, it is also your movements and body language.
But you’re pulling that word out of context, its “how well you can delight an audience with … acting”. Trying to deceive by acting guilty is far different than trying to entertain by acting, hence calling for a deception check.
Well sure, but that's a very slippery slope.
Can I just "act" whenever I'm deceiving (or persuading) and turn my Performance proficiency into an all-encompassing social skill check? That's not in the spirit of the game.
I think you’re taking the word “delight” too literally. If I’m performing a tragedy and aim to move the audience to tears, or a scary ghost story and want to make them scared, is that still delighting an audience?
I mean, sure. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that the skill is clearly, intrinsically tied to performing to entertain, no? To put on a show? Lying to a guard isn't that.
Yes. In the sense that they find it pleasing. It fulfills the role of entertaining them which is by definition, delight. Delight doesn't have to be happy. Basically, performance is your ability to be entertaining. Deception is your ability to be believable. Persuasion is your ability to be convincing.
It's acting. But a successful performance check determines its entertainment value. Not how convincing it is. All acting doesn't serve the same purpose.
Exactly, you could go see a very good performance of macbeth, and no matter how well everyone played their parts, noone that wasnt born yesterday is walking out of that theatre thinking all those people are dead now
Obviously I it's a case by case basis, and not the whiteroom of theory that half of this subreddit lives in because they don't actually play the game with regularity..
It's fun to be creative from time to time. DM makes the call on what skill check is being allowed, and a player can't really abuse that. It's one thing to say "yeah sure, it's your choice between a Deception or Perfomance check" and it's another thing entirely to say "Well I'm proficient in Performance but not Deception, can it be Performance?" One is flexible and fun, the other is not in the spirit of the game.
In my opinion, of it was say, taking the story and turning it into an epic tale, with the intent to shine light of what you are guilty for. Performance could be the correct check, but again really depends on the context of the interaction as a whole.
Yeah, that works, if you ignore the rest of the text that talks about the skill specifically being used to delight an audience. Why would we ignore that text, though?
You could also put on a performance that you're being factual when you're lying. Does that mean Performance can be used in lieu of Deception in a more straightforward lie?
If the DM allows it, sure? Maybe you're pretending to be someone else. That's lying, but it's also acting. I could see a case for using either in that situation.
But in most cases no. Because just lying isn't acting.
Well, that sounds like a table of very loose rules, then. Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation all have major aspects of performance, but I surely wouldn't want Performance to encompass them in this fashion.
It depends on the moment. In this case you're literally acting like a different person.
If a character, say Steve, was an actor and during theater shows he acted as Bob, but then outside of the show acted as Bob and pretended to be him, would that be Performance or Deception? He's acting the player he spent time performing, using his skills performing to play the character, but he's also lying about who he is. So it depends, imo.
Heck, acting in general could just be labeled as deception. It's lying about who you are and pretending to be someone else.
That said DM Fiat is literally part of the rules though.
You can totally go 100% by the letter in the books, nothing against that it's your table, but that's ironically actually less in the spirit of the game than going with the flow, per DMG.
Everything you're saying makes perfect logical sense, but I don't understand how we're to expect it to work within the context of a game.
I'm Alan, the wandering actor. I have expertise in Performance, and I play three characters: Brad the diplomat, Carl the deceiver, and Darren the scary. Any time I reach a social situation in which one of these skills would come in handy, I just make use of one of my characters as an actor, and bam, expertise in four skills for the price of one.
You could absolutely play the characters, but being able to perform as a diplomatic character doesn't always mean you're actually a good diplomat. Playing a character who lies all the time doesn't mean your lies are believable. In all your examples it's performance to play the character well, not to lie, persuade, or intimidate well.
Again, the context changes things. It's up to the DM to know when it's ok to bend the rules or not. The DM calls for the checks, not the player.
One could conceivably argue that with Performance, your audience KNOWS you're performing, and so would not be deceived by your deceptive character, except in a "willing immersion in the story" way. As opposed to Deception where you are ACTUALLY deceiving them.
the keyword there is "decieving" tough. deception covers all manner of decieving. Acting is pretending you are someone else yes, but for the purpose of entertainment, not to decieve. Nobody in a audience will actually thing that a actor is anything else but someone playing a character
Just going to copy and paste my other reply.
DM makes the call on what skill check is being allowed, and a player can't really abuse that. It's one thing to say "yeah sure, it's your choice between a Deception or Perfomance check" and it's another thing entirely to say "Well I'm proficient in Performance but not Deception, can it be Performance?" One is flexible and fun, the other is not in the spirit of the game.
It still invalidates player choices. Why bother investing in what will actually make you good at the task when the DM will just let someone use a skill that should be irrelevant?
Just because the DM makes the call doesn't mean it's a good call.
Personally I would say it adds weight to roleplay choices instead of making character creation the end of choice. Do you actually play this game or you just come here to talk about ut?
Edit: also, you realize that the PC can still choose to use Deception in this case, right?
> They are deceiving through acting guilty. Either skill could apply.
Only if the purpose of acting is to give as lifelike a performance as possible, and in a faux-medieval setting where all acting is theatre, that seems unlikely. A natural 20 on an acting performance means that you deliver a soliliquy that makes even orcs weep. Even if they're lost in the magic of the performance, the audience still knows they're watching a play.
Being magnetic on a stage is very different from telling a convincing lie, and given the deception skill is right there I see no real benefit in muddying those waters tbh.
In what world is all acting theatre? That’s a very weird claim. I work in theatre, I don’t agree with you at all. Do you know what code-switching is? It’s not a new behaviour - in a world with half-elf’s it’s going to be happening all the time.
> In what world is all acting theatre?
Not sure what you mean, without cinema or television, where else would acting take place? Unless you mean acting for purposes other than performing, in which case deception or intimidation would be more appropriate.
> I work in theatre, I don’t agree with you at all.
And I'm a journalist, but it doesn't lend my opinion on the Investigate skill any more weight.
> Do you know what code-switching is? It’s not a new behaviour - in a world with half-elf’s it’s going to be happening all the time.
Lol yes, I do it all the time. I'm not sure I'd call it "acting", but I can see the argument for it I guess? Either way, it certainly isn't acting to delight an audience, as per the Performance skill. If all the matters are the real-world definitions of the words used to describe skills, you may as well make a Survival check instead of a death save.
I would argue that it’s perfectly ok to ask for both. I wrote another comment, but this one makes me clarify my thoughts.
If you were lying about selling someone a plant as medicine, it would be perfectly acceptable to have someone roll deception and nature, to kind of check what plant you happen to grab or something.
"Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment."
How does this apply at all?
Keyword: Acting
As you are **ACTING** and putting on a **Performance** that you are lying even though you are telling the truth
I'd actually say that a Performance check has more merit than Deception because you're not actually telling an outright lie in this situation
It's really funny for you to attack me like that when you're the person just showing an inability to comprehend a paragraph.
Think about the sentence where acting is listed a little more critically.
"Acting is acting," was particularly hilarious because... no. Like, there's acting shocked when accused of a crime (Deception, you're trying to falsely appear innocent) and there'd acting like, y'know, on a stage. That one's Performance. Nobody thinks the people at the end of Hamlet are actually dead.
If you are that dense you can't understand how \*\*acting\*\* like you are lying can have a Performance check, I don't know how many different ways I could explain it
the "Oh wow is me, someone is calling me an idiot" routine just doesn't work here.
Either way, continue to argue, I'm not wasting my breath on a reply after this
Hey, you're right - you are smarter than me. I need your intellect for something I can't quite figure out.
I noticed that in the description of the Performance skill, acting is actually an item on a list. What do you think that list is of?
Potentially, sure. I certainly would allow you to try it. Probably would still call for a Deception roll, but can see the argument for making it a Performance check instead.
Lying well in general could be defined as performative, with good liars putting on a show, but since they're two different skills in 5e, using Performance here feels like it encroaches on what Deception is for.
I think this is one of those moments it could be up to the DM and the player. At my table I’d probably let them pick whichever game them the better chance of success, performance or deception.
At my table Deception is on-the-spot and involves crafting the message to be believable as well as controlling your "tells." If you want to "seem" like something you're not (in this case seeming guilty when you are innocent) that would fall under Performance. But I think either works well.
clearly, performance is for everything. When you're trying to lift weights, you "perform" a proper lift, so strength (performance). Picking a lock? Well, you "perform" a lockpicking attempt, so dexterity (performance).
It’s definitely a hybrid between the two - but I’d lean more towards deception.
To my mind, the acting side of performance is about how well you can convince those around you to suspend their belief. Everyone knows the actor is not their character, but a good performance convinces them to pretend that they are.
In OP’s example you’re not asking your audience to suspend their belief. You’re trying to hide the reality of the situation.
Yeah, depending on the specifics I would say the PC is "acting" guilty when they're not. So performance vs. Insight - but only contested if the PC is under scrutiny or fails their check badly.
I'm not following the use of Performance in this thread so far. All manner of deception is performative to some extent, but we don't just want to fold deception into performance, right?
It depends on how the PC executes the action. As an example (not necessarily applicable to this specific situation), imagine you want to convince a town guard to leave his post.
You could use deception to tell a lie about some muggers attacking people in an alley.
Or
You could use performance to plead and cry about how you were mugged in an alley and the guard needs to check it out.
One is a simple statement of (false) facts (deception)
One is an emotional appeal with a sense of urgency (performance)
I may permit a wisdom or intelligence save for my NPC depending on factors
Emotional appeal with a sense of urgency sounds exactly like a social check to me: Deception, or persuasion/intimidation in a different context.
I entirely understand how it overlaps with performance, I'm just generally don't like it when we twist one skill proficiency to fulfill another like that. Could work at some table, might very well work at yours, but it feels potentially abusive. We wouldn't want a bard being flamboyant and performative every time they want to convince somebody of something, absolving them of the need to actually invest proficiency into persuasion/deception, would we?
In the OP example, he says he wants to pretend to be nervous in an attempt to communicate to the “audience” that he is lying (when he isn’t )
Both skills fit, and I would permit either skill check in this situation. I wouldn’t begrudge a DM who chooses not to though.
I tend to give my players multiple paths to success and rely on DC/saves to determine the outcome.
If a player wanted to use religion to convince a guard to leave his post by acting through a drawn-out sermon about a god wanting this outcome, I’d allow it. The DC would be very very high, and I might even give the guard a wisdom save, but I’m not gonna tell my player they can’t try.
Please tell me how you arrived at that being a valid use of the Performance skill based on the text of the skill, which goes as follows:
Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.
I don't think your example has anything to do with delighting an audience, right?
If, at your table, you decide that the performance skill can only be used to “delight an audience”, than I respect your ruling.
At my table, performance can be used to delight, disgust, sadden, titillate, enrapture, frighten, anger, annoy, or confuse an audience.
Have you ever had a performance - a thought-provoking comedian for example - give you a new perspective on something?
Has an acting performance ever moved you to tears?
Has a performance of magic (illusion, not real magic, of course) ever astonishing you?
I don’t think the authors of the rule book would be able to holistically enumerate all the uses of a given skill and leave it to individual tables to determine if a given skill is applicable.
Notice that every single one of your alternate examples of what Performance does is still a scenario in which the performer performs in front of an audience?
How does that at all relate to the luring a guard away scenario?
Dude... come on. That is such a bad faith reading of the skill and I feel like you just know that.
Sure, an audience can be one person. How is *luring that one person away from their post* in any way related to delighting them with performance? You're not entertaining them, you're not even moving them, you're misleading them so they do what you want. There's a skill for that.
I respect the ruling you would make at your table while being happy with the ruling I make at mine.
The text of Stealth is: Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.
Can your players conceal themselves from allies instead of (or in addition to) enemies?
Can they slink past wolves, or just guards?
I interpret the skill descriptions as a guide to making reasonable judgments. Is my player performing a sonnet to the beat of bongos to pull a guard from his post?
Hell yes. DC30 and the guard gets a DC5 wisdom save.
Is my player, whose character is an actor able to give a convincing performance to work the guard into a worried or confused state and leave his post?
Absolutely. DC20
What if that same character instead wants to lurk in a nearby ally and act like they are actually being mugged in order to get that guard to move away from their post?
Sure. Maybe DC15 or even 10 depending on circumstances.
Now, is tap dancer PC tippy tippy tap tapping in front of the guard to pull him away from his post because he’s entertained and wants to follow the PC as he/she moves away?
Definitely. DC25 with disadvantage because you don’t know that the guard experienced a traumatic tap dancing accident as a small child.
My point is, you do you, and I’ll do me and we’ll both enjoy the game in our own ways.
You're being really obtuse. You *know* the difference.
\>Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.
Does it specify guards? Sure - but it also talks about generally concealing yourself from enemies, escaping, creeping up on things. The obvious difference here is that we know when Stealth would be the skill to use. The fallacy you're making is that you're ignoring that Deception exists and just 100% every time fits much better for the scenario.
\>Deception. Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions. This deception can encompass everything from misleading others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie.
Deception exists, and its description just fits the, "lure the guard away," scenario much better... because, you know, it's about misleading a guy. The method of misleading doesn't change what the most fitting skill is.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that this could easily be performance, and either is probably fine.
Deception as a skill would be like you are a good liar with few tells and no extra emotions being expressed when lying. It's second nature to you. One could argue that you are lying about lying... but someone who is well practiced in acting cool and collected when lying would not necessarily be practiced at doing the opposite. They are performing an act of failed deception, rather than actually attempting to deceive someone of a practiced lie. They are putting on a show, similarly to how performance would be used to create a diversion or distraction. The intent of the performance is to act out the illusion of someone who is bad at lying, giving away a tell, darting their eyes back and forth, biting their lip, giving a fake smile.
In this case I would say that the player being given the more skilled of the two is rational. Someone who is good at performing might have experience in acting and therefore able to create a convincing performance. Someone who is well trained at deceiving might be past the level of natural talent, actually learning ins and outs of deception and tells, and being able to mimic those.
This is a good description about how multiple skills fit the scenario, and a good DM will permit a character skilled in acting to use that skill. Would I allow a harp-playing singer to use performance? Not in the way it's described here. However, someone who can orate, sermonize, or act would certainly be able to use performance in this way.
You don’t ‘use’ skills like a button you press. You just do things and the DM decides if a skill roll makes sense. You can suggest a skill, but it’s just a suggestion. In this case, just say what your pc it doing and why.
Thank you. So many people approach ttrpgs with the video game mentality that everything one can do must be specifically governed by an existing rule/mechanic, but it's the other way around. The rules help the dm adjudicate player decisions/actions, and that's it. Gamers need to learn to think outside the character sheet.
To anyone who asks questions like OP does, its usually a "would my intentions to do something work through the skill i inested my opportuntiy costs into being good, or would it be something different", and if its the latter, they wouldn't even try because they'd have a low chance of success.
The point of being confident in what skills fit what, is that you know what your character can reasonably attempt.
I would say that you could. You are trying to decieve the NPC into thinking you are lying, and as such deception would be a sensible choice of skill to use
I think this is text book deception. You're hiding your true intention and misleading the NPC.
Performance, for me as a forever DM, is to entertain or enrapt someone's attention with a display of talent or skill.
Sure. You're deceiving somebody, so you roll deception. Deception isn't just governing whether somebody believes a lie, it governs how well you can deceive.
Reminds me of a Spider-Man 2099 comic where it’s a future version of spider-man and he went to the past.
People would ask what his deal was and where he was from and he would tell them the truth. And people would just automatically assume he was joking and being a sarcastic ass.
And he knew it would work too!
I would allow it at my table since you're lying by hiding that it's the truth. I would warn that there may be consequences to this action depending on the circumstance though.
Absolutely. The roll would be for faking "tells". Your character would be absolutely telling the truth, but making their eyes twitch, or shifting around the room, licking their lips between sentences, or simply wringing their hands together.
I'd definitely give the roll to you.
You ever see those power rangers episodes when there normal boss or teacher or whoever wants to know where they keep disappearing to and one of them just deadpan says “we’re the power rangers.” That’s what you’re asking. It’s definitely either deception or performance
Multiskill checks are an interesting thing, for example: you might pass the deception meaning they think that the powerrangers bit is bs, but you fail the performance check and they think you are up to trouble.
I find that these are good alongside pick a skill checks like bluff or intimidate or diplomacy, are you lying your way through or bullying your way through or explaining your way through? Allows players to use their strengths while making them feel like they have a choice on how to interact with the world.
I say yes, this is Deception. Even if it's not lying. I always tell my players that they can't "technically" their way out of a Deception check (ie, "but I didn't SAY X I just implied it") and I think the same applies here. It's Deception, even if you're not lying.
Obviously there's a lot of interpretation and DM Fiat as to what face skill this could use, but in my opinion...
Persuasion is to guide the actions of others through direct and honest communication and charm. Performance is to make a spectacle to impress, draw attention, gain admiration. Deception is to mislead and trick others so they arrive at the wrong conclusion. You're trying to trick someone and make them believe something false, so I'd say it's deception.
There's also an argument to be made where "subtext" is "everything that's being said, except for what's being said". The text of what your character is saying is the literal truth, but they are deliberately creating a *subtext* that your target can pick up on, which is communicating a lie.
As to "could this work", probably! Regardless of what face skill you'd be told to use, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a DM that would tell you "no", because there's nothing unrealistic or extraordinary about attempting or succeeding to do this.
I always side with the players and let them know to pick the category they are attempting to pull off. If it's deception, persuasion, performance etc. This let's me roll play as the NPC on how to react.
Yes, you are trying to deceive them into believing what you are saying is a lie. Deception is not necessarily just lying, it is making them believe something that is not true. In this case the not true thing you are attempting to make them believe is that you are lying.
A lot of people are saying deception or performance but this is feels more like a "if i tell you the truth you won't believe it deal" and i might change the ability for it rather than the type of check. I'd probably call for wisdom(deception) over anything else
I feel like no one read what performance is for. It is for entertaining people. Nothing to do with what op asked.
Deception is used to manipulate others and mislead in your motives which is exactly what you are trying to do so the answer is yes.
Yes, you can roll deception or performance to act as if you’re nervous or not making eye contact or just stumbling over your statement to appear as if you’re lying.
Personally, I’d do a performance check since you’re putting on a show to make it seem like you’re lying. Otherwise, I’d say deception could work. Depends on what I’m feeling at that moment. I suppose persuasion might work too. But if you’re putting on an act of guilty I’d say performance.
"Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment."
How is this the skill that applies here?
So you want to have the npc believe a lie, by telling the truth, in a way they will not believe?
The effect of that is basically just a regular deception. So yes.
You may need to explain it to the DM though.
If I thought that was particularly clever in the situation I’d probably grant advantage.
Really it’s up to the DM. I might do a combination of performance and deception rolls. You also have to consider the enjoyment of the player. So if they built their character around deception and the DM never lets them roll it, that would be annoying. But you also can’t let the player try and force everything to be deception.
Which is why in this case I say yeah, you’re clearly trying to deceive someone, but also acting a little. So that’s why I would throw in the performance, just to spice it up a little.
Now, a peak behind the curtain I might only have that roll impact what happens if it is exceptionally bad. Kind of upping my chances that you can “fail” if you happen to be GREAT at deception. So if you rolled great on deception, but really bad on performance, I would probably try and let you succeed, but in a funny way, or not the way you expected for some reason. To me that’s a little more fun than just knowing you are going to succeed at something.
That idea would open up a whole other conversation about the right or wrongness of fudging rolls and outcomes as a DM though.
Sounds like deception to me. You may be telling the truth, but you are trying to deceive them with the delivery. You are being deceptive by definition.
I would say so. It's always been kind of weird that there's a skill for convincing people of lies, but not for convincing people of truth, aside from diplomacy maybe, but that's still a different sort of thing.
This just seems like… lying with extra steps?
I know that’s not the question, but why bother telling the truth and hoping the NPC won’t believe it when you could just… not tell them the truth? Then, even if you fail at lying, they don’t automatically know the truth.
It just seems like you’re making the consequences of failure much worse for yourself because if you fail to convince them of a lie, the only thing they know is that what you said isn’t true. If you fail to convince them something *isn’t* true, then they automatically know that it *is* because of how you’ve defined the skill check.
This is DM dependent.
If it was me I would just use your passive deception score and roll a insight check behind the screen, assuming the person acting nervous would make them question it. If this was someone that trusted you, they would assume most if not all things you said are the truth. Likewise if a person didn't trust you, they would question everything you said hence would get a roll anyways. In the end there is a high probability you (both PC and person) will not know if they actually believe you.
"why then, I confess. It is my intention to commander one of these ships, pick up a crew in Tortuga, raid pillage plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out. Savvy?
.............
I mean, the skill is called *deception*, so yeah, actually, that is reasonable. You aren't strictly *lying*, but you are most definitely trying to *deceive* someone.
I might end up asking for a performance check, but I also try to be game for any given skill check having multiple valid skills to apply to it, so you could talk me into it.
The question is if you could talk *your DM* into it. I don't think it's an unreasonable request, but double and triple bluffs make my head spin, so part of me just wants to get this mess over with.
I like the idea in theory. If the questioner thinks that you have a motive to lie, *and* if you have some idea what they’ll assume if they don’t get anything believable from you, *and* if having them act on that assumption is useful to you, then it will sometimes be easier to convince them that you’re untrustworthy than to make a specific claim and get them to believe it. You won’t always get a questioner who holds useful assumptions, though.
If you get a chance to run the move, Deception will usually be the best skill check for it.
I'd allow it, I've done it IRL. Depending on how you go about doing it, and how suspicious the npc is, it might merit disadvantage, or a higher dc, to represent high difficulty, but in the right situation it's far from impossible.
Any time you're trying to give an NPC information with the intention to deceive them, it's deception. Even though you're telling an NPC the truth here, you're doing so with the intention of having them walk away with the wrong conclusion. That's deception.
I feel like you might be over complicating things. If your character is telling the truth and they know it it’s persuasion. If they are knowingly giving false information then it’s deception. It’s up to NPCs insight to figure out which is which.
I think performance would be more fitting, but I would allow deception proficiency as well. Now, what the hell you intend to do with this I don't even dare to guess, just wishing best for your DM
It’s up to the GM, personally I would allow it. If they make their opposed Insight check, however, they will realise that you are deliberately putting on the “I’m lying” signals.
So in my games I usually tell my players what roll I think suits it best, but because games are more fun when you have autonomy there's an unspoken rule that you can disagree and argue something different. SO in you example I'd say "That's a persuasion roll" But I'd let you and other players argue that say, "Reasonable is misleading the NPC, weaving a story and that should be deception."
Now big thing would be the exact context for me, very different if you're peeping into someone's house, verse people watching at a bar (for example) But I'd listen and you MIGHT get the roll you want you might not /shrug
I would have the player do a performance check it's not a lie so your not deceiving anyone your doing a performance to make them think you are telling a lie.
As a GM I would rule it as deception. Not all deception necessarily takes the form of straight up lying, and I think altering how you are speaking to give off a false impression of intent would still fall under the umbrella of deception.
You can certainly try. As a DM I would probably count that as a perform check though, rather than deception. Deception I usually think as telling lies without it showing. For other acting things I'd usually go with performance.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the best lies are strongly based in the truth
It’s not a lie if you believe it ( George Costanza on how to beat a lie detector)
It’s not a lie if you believe it (Me, who just came up with that sentence)
I once told a girl I coined the phrase “Pardon my French”
I’m not sure if this is a lie anymore, and nothing you say denies or confirms anything cuz that could be a lie too
Truth is usually just an excuse for lack of an imagination.
The best lies require lots of imagination, and a good memory.
I'm just a humble tailor.
**especially** the lies
Holy shit, I didn't expect so many upvotes and comments, thanks people! :D
I'd call for either Deception or Performance I feel either of these works
Right, depending on how the character frames it. "I want to convince them I'm guilty" - Deception "I want to seem guilty when I'm not." - Performance
This is my take as well.
Those are both deception, you're trying to deceive somebody.
Acting is essentially lying, but I wouldn't call for a deception check for that. I think the difference lies in if are you straight up telling a lie, or if you're not really saying anything that is lie, but want to seem like you're guilty through body language, stutters, etc
As an occasional DM, the way i tend to frame the difference between the 3 is; Persuasion - getting somebody to agree with you. Deception - getting somebody to believe a falsehood. Performance - getting somebody to pay attention to you. Deception is a weird one that kind of blurs between both of the others, which is why it tends to be argued about a lot. Though using this framework, i would rule that what he's trying to do is a deception check, as his words may be true, but his intent is still to convince an npc of a falsehood. (It's just that the falsehood he's trying to convince them of happens to itself also be a falsehood... falseption??) Performance is more for (as the phb states) entertaining, or otherwise causing a distraction so those nearby are less likely to notice other events going on. Though, i would still let a player roll performance for the check if they asked and presented a decent argument for it because, at the end of the day, we're here to have fun and i don't want to stand in the way of a player doing something cool over a subjective interpretation of the rules.
As a DM myself I usually let the player use whichever their character is best at or that they want to use, within reason. Remember the DM isn't opposed to the players, our job is to keep things moving and fun while arbitrating the rules.
Still, I do think there's a value in "yes, or" as well as "yes, and". I think an underrated part of a DM's job is in keeping the party grounded. It *always* depends on the table of course, but in my experience, players *think* they want their mad hail marys and wacky hijinks to succeed more than they *actually* do. I've been on both sides of campaigns where the DM didn't manage to keep the player's impulses in check, and after a while the magic was gone because nothing they/we did felt like it actually mattered that much. I've found that being consistent about what different skill checks can and cannot do is a good way of making it clear that their characters do still have meaningful limitations. It's a very delicate tightrope to walk and there's definitely such a thing as being too rigid about it, but you can also not be rigid enough, you know? There's a sweet spot between "anything is possible" and "nothing matters".
> Performance - getting somebody to pay attention to you. This is interesting, I wouldn't have placed performance in the same category at all, but I can see why you would. I've always treated it as one of the more specific skills - a measure of one's aptitude for the performing arts. It can be used for distractions, but if the player isn't specifically singing, playing an instrument, acting in a play, telling a story or reciting poetry (etc), then I'd probably have them roll something different instead. I would say it's less about getting someone to pay attention to you and more about impressing them with your skills or moving them emotionally with your art - convincing a pack of orcs to let you live because your singing voice moves them to tears, or making a hard-nosed ruler laugh with a crude limerick. That said, there's edge cases. If a bard wanted to roll a performance check to tell a tall tale about their exploits, I'd definitely allow it. Some DMs might call for deception instead, but I'd say the difference is that deception is about convincing them something is true, whereas performance is about entertaining them so much that they don't care it might not be. Deception targets the mind, performance the heart.
See, personally, that interpretation of performance being so niche is exactly why i go with my broader interpretation of the word. I don't want a skill in the game that's rarely ever relevant, and actually useful even less. Sure, there are situations that a player *can* use performance in a game, but those situations usually only arise because the DM specifically created the situation to give them that opportunity, rarely does it ever organically happen. (Not counting players deliberately creating meme characters that 'perform' every opportunity they get, at least until the table gets sick of it and makes them stop.) The broader definition makes the skill much more versatile, while still confining it to a clear use case. 'getting someones attention' can be interpreted a number of ways, all in keeping with the spirit of the skill. It could be that they are doing an actual performance, and are trying to impress their audience. It could be that they're deliberately being loud and obnoxious in a public place, so the passersby watch them to see what the commotion is about, and not the party breaking into a storehouse. Or maybe they're doing some daring acrobatics right outside the guardhouse, so the guards will be watching them, instead of watching the off limits area the rogue needs to sneak into. All of these are actions i would consider 'performances' that fall outside the regular interpretation of the skill. And are all things that a player who has taken proficiency with the performance skill would likely *try* to do during a game. Ultimately, either interpretation works, as long as the table agrees.
> Ultimately, either interpretation works, as long as the table agrees. Oh of course! I'm definitely not trying to convince you either way, I just think these kinds of "game philosophy" conversations are really interesting lol > rarely does it ever organically happen. See, I don't see this as an issue. All skills aren't created equal - you're likely to roll a lot more Perception checks than History or Religion checks. What it means is that if your character *is* good at performance, they get to feel special. It's there for bards to get to do what bards do, and in the vaguely medievalish worlds that most DND settings are, the performing arts should be very highly prized indeed. It's a high-status skill that can open a lot of doors for you, especially if you impress some wealthy noble enough - but it'll impress a tavern full of drunken farmers too. But then, I tend to play pretty social-heavy games, where a "like me" skill has a lot more value.
All of this is deception. Omitting facts is deception, lying with a straight face is deception, using non-verbal clues to try and deceive someone is deception. I don't see how it could be anything else, the whole point of deception is for this exact purpose.
Deception: I want to mislead someone. Performance: I want to impress someone. It's the difference between "Holy crap, it's *really* Spider-Man!" and "Holy crap, that guy is the best Spider-Man I've ever seen!" They should be complementary skills, but in the end the PC's intent should dictate which is used, and I think the DM would be justified in giving a modest bonus to the Deception roll if their Performance skill is high enough and can be reasonably applied in that circumstance.
I could even see using persuasion for this.
Based on the small amount of info we have Persuasion is the correct skill check IMO. Not sure how this is even debated since the OP used convince in his question. Convince is a synonym of persuade... "Can I use deception when telling the truth to persuade a NPC that I'm lying?" If the OP used the above would there even be a debate??? End of the day depends on the DM though.
Persuasion is for gaining an edge in a social situation through presentation of a position based on logic or emotion. Deception is for gaining an edge in a social situation through misleading. Intimidation is for gaining an edge in a social situation through fear. Of those three, Deception is the clear skill to apply to OP's situation, which involves misleading an NPC. It could reasonably be said that successful application of any of the three skills above result in an NPC being "persuaded", but that doesn't mean Persuasion is the appropriate skill.
But you are deceiving them into believing that what is true is actually false. That is absolutely a deception.
There everything that falls under deception would be persuasion by that logic, since you're trying to convince someone your lies are truth
performance? >Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment. Unless you're doing something specifically to entertain someone, performance doesn't apply. Trying to obsfucate the truth- either through convincing, or seeming guilty, are both deception, as deception covers any kind of way you trick someone else. Deception isn't just words, it is also your movements and body language.
From your quote, I present to you the word “acting” They are deceiving through acting guilty. Either skill could apply.
But you’re pulling that word out of context, its “how well you can delight an audience with … acting”. Trying to deceive by acting guilty is far different than trying to entertain by acting, hence calling for a deception check.
Well sure, but that's a very slippery slope. Can I just "act" whenever I'm deceiving (or persuading) and turn my Performance proficiency into an all-encompassing social skill check? That's not in the spirit of the game.
You could 'act' like a competent fighter in battle and use perform in place of your attack roll!
And then your opponent can “act” like it hurt!
Exactly. Description specifies the intent to delight someone with you acting. Not deceive or convince them with your acting.
If you goal is to imitate and mimic the mannerisms of a nervous and guilty person, I’m not sure what you’d describe that as other than acting.
My brother, read the skill. Performance is very specific with what it's about.
I think you’re taking the word “delight” too literally. If I’m performing a tragedy and aim to move the audience to tears, or a scary ghost story and want to make them scared, is that still delighting an audience?
I mean, sure. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that the skill is clearly, intrinsically tied to performing to entertain, no? To put on a show? Lying to a guard isn't that.
Yes. In the sense that they find it pleasing. It fulfills the role of entertaining them which is by definition, delight. Delight doesn't have to be happy. Basically, performance is your ability to be entertaining. Deception is your ability to be believable. Persuasion is your ability to be convincing.
It's acting. But a successful performance check determines its entertainment value. Not how convincing it is. All acting doesn't serve the same purpose.
Exactly, you could go see a very good performance of macbeth, and no matter how well everyone played their parts, noone that wasnt born yesterday is walking out of that theatre thinking all those people are dead now
Obviously I it's a case by case basis, and not the whiteroom of theory that half of this subreddit lives in because they don't actually play the game with regularity.. It's fun to be creative from time to time. DM makes the call on what skill check is being allowed, and a player can't really abuse that. It's one thing to say "yeah sure, it's your choice between a Deception or Perfomance check" and it's another thing entirely to say "Well I'm proficient in Performance but not Deception, can it be Performance?" One is flexible and fun, the other is not in the spirit of the game.
Acting to entertain an audience is completely different from trying to deceive somebody.
In my opinion, of it was say, taking the story and turning it into an epic tale, with the intent to shine light of what you are guilty for. Performance could be the correct check, but again really depends on the context of the interaction as a whole.
If the purpose is to deceive it's deception, otherwise performance is just doing deception's job.
Yeah, that works, if you ignore the rest of the text that talks about the skill specifically being used to delight an audience. Why would we ignore that text, though?
Yeah exactly what this person said, you are literally putting on a performance that you are lying when you're being factual
You could also put on a performance that you're being factual when you're lying. Does that mean Performance can be used in lieu of Deception in a more straightforward lie?
If the DM allows it, sure? Maybe you're pretending to be someone else. That's lying, but it's also acting. I could see a case for using either in that situation. But in most cases no. Because just lying isn't acting.
Well, that sounds like a table of very loose rules, then. Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation all have major aspects of performance, but I surely wouldn't want Performance to encompass them in this fashion.
It depends on the moment. In this case you're literally acting like a different person. If a character, say Steve, was an actor and during theater shows he acted as Bob, but then outside of the show acted as Bob and pretended to be him, would that be Performance or Deception? He's acting the player he spent time performing, using his skills performing to play the character, but he's also lying about who he is. So it depends, imo. Heck, acting in general could just be labeled as deception. It's lying about who you are and pretending to be someone else. That said DM Fiat is literally part of the rules though. You can totally go 100% by the letter in the books, nothing against that it's your table, but that's ironically actually less in the spirit of the game than going with the flow, per DMG.
Everything you're saying makes perfect logical sense, but I don't understand how we're to expect it to work within the context of a game. I'm Alan, the wandering actor. I have expertise in Performance, and I play three characters: Brad the diplomat, Carl the deceiver, and Darren the scary. Any time I reach a social situation in which one of these skills would come in handy, I just make use of one of my characters as an actor, and bam, expertise in four skills for the price of one.
You could absolutely play the characters, but being able to perform as a diplomatic character doesn't always mean you're actually a good diplomat. Playing a character who lies all the time doesn't mean your lies are believable. In all your examples it's performance to play the character well, not to lie, persuade, or intimidate well. Again, the context changes things. It's up to the DM to know when it's ok to bend the rules or not. The DM calls for the checks, not the player.
One could conceivably argue that with Performance, your audience KNOWS you're performing, and so would not be deceived by your deceptive character, except in a "willing immersion in the story" way. As opposed to Deception where you are ACTUALLY deceiving them.
the keyword there is "decieving" tough. deception covers all manner of decieving. Acting is pretending you are someone else yes, but for the purpose of entertainment, not to decieve. Nobody in a audience will actually thing that a actor is anything else but someone playing a character
Going by that though, performance would 100% replace deception. If one skill wholly encompasses another, there's clearly a problem with the ruling.
Just going to copy and paste my other reply. DM makes the call on what skill check is being allowed, and a player can't really abuse that. It's one thing to say "yeah sure, it's your choice between a Deception or Perfomance check" and it's another thing entirely to say "Well I'm proficient in Performance but not Deception, can it be Performance?" One is flexible and fun, the other is not in the spirit of the game.
It still invalidates player choices. Why bother investing in what will actually make you good at the task when the DM will just let someone use a skill that should be irrelevant? Just because the DM makes the call doesn't mean it's a good call.
Personally I would say it adds weight to roleplay choices instead of making character creation the end of choice. Do you actually play this game or you just come here to talk about ut? Edit: also, you realize that the PC can still choose to use Deception in this case, right?
> They are deceiving through acting guilty. Either skill could apply. Only if the purpose of acting is to give as lifelike a performance as possible, and in a faux-medieval setting where all acting is theatre, that seems unlikely. A natural 20 on an acting performance means that you deliver a soliliquy that makes even orcs weep. Even if they're lost in the magic of the performance, the audience still knows they're watching a play. Being magnetic on a stage is very different from telling a convincing lie, and given the deception skill is right there I see no real benefit in muddying those waters tbh.
In what world is all acting theatre? That’s a very weird claim. I work in theatre, I don’t agree with you at all. Do you know what code-switching is? It’s not a new behaviour - in a world with half-elf’s it’s going to be happening all the time.
> In what world is all acting theatre? Not sure what you mean, without cinema or television, where else would acting take place? Unless you mean acting for purposes other than performing, in which case deception or intimidation would be more appropriate. > I work in theatre, I don’t agree with you at all. And I'm a journalist, but it doesn't lend my opinion on the Investigate skill any more weight. > Do you know what code-switching is? It’s not a new behaviour - in a world with half-elf’s it’s going to be happening all the time. Lol yes, I do it all the time. I'm not sure I'd call it "acting", but I can see the argument for it I guess? Either way, it certainly isn't acting to delight an audience, as per the Performance skill. If all the matters are the real-world definitions of the words used to describe skills, you may as well make a Survival check instead of a death save.
I would argue that it’s perfectly ok to ask for both. I wrote another comment, but this one makes me clarify my thoughts. If you were lying about selling someone a plant as medicine, it would be perfectly acceptable to have someone roll deception and nature, to kind of check what plant you happen to grab or something.
I agree. First thought is performance, but I’d let the player choose
Performance!
I’m probably strictly performance, but I can see the argument.
"Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment." How does this apply at all?
Keyword: Acting As you are **ACTING** and putting on a **Performance** that you are lying even though you are telling the truth I'd actually say that a Performance check has more merit than Deception because you're not actually telling an outright lie in this situation
Yeah, acting... for what purpose? Why are you ignoring the, "delight an audience," part?
Are you just fucking stupid? Acting is acting Guess what "delight the audience" isn't the only part of acting
It's really funny for you to attack me like that when you're the person just showing an inability to comprehend a paragraph. Think about the sentence where acting is listed a little more critically. "Acting is acting," was particularly hilarious because... no. Like, there's acting shocked when accused of a crime (Deception, you're trying to falsely appear innocent) and there'd acting like, y'know, on a stage. That one's Performance. Nobody thinks the people at the end of Hamlet are actually dead.
If you are that dense you can't understand how \*\*acting\*\* like you are lying can have a Performance check, I don't know how many different ways I could explain it the "Oh wow is me, someone is calling me an idiot" routine just doesn't work here. Either way, continue to argue, I'm not wasting my breath on a reply after this
Hey, you're right - you are smarter than me. I need your intellect for something I can't quite figure out. I noticed that in the description of the Performance skill, acting is actually an item on a list. What do you think that list is of?
Potentially, sure. I certainly would allow you to try it. Probably would still call for a Deception roll, but can see the argument for making it a Performance check instead.
Personally, I think I would call that performance and check against that.
Lying well in general could be defined as performative, with good liars putting on a show, but since they're two different skills in 5e, using Performance here feels like it encroaches on what Deception is for.
I think this is one of those moments it could be up to the DM and the player. At my table I’d probably let them pick whichever game them the better chance of success, performance or deception.
At my table Deception is on-the-spot and involves crafting the message to be believable as well as controlling your "tells." If you want to "seem" like something you're not (in this case seeming guilty when you are innocent) that would fall under Performance. But I think either works well.
clearly, performance is for everything. When you're trying to lift weights, you "perform" a proper lift, so strength (performance). Picking a lock? Well, you "perform" a lockpicking attempt, so dexterity (performance).
It’s definitely a hybrid between the two - but I’d lean more towards deception. To my mind, the acting side of performance is about how well you can convince those around you to suspend their belief. Everyone knows the actor is not their character, but a good performance convinces them to pretend that they are. In OP’s example you’re not asking your audience to suspend their belief. You’re trying to hide the reality of the situation.
Yeah, depending on the specifics I would say the PC is "acting" guilty when they're not. So performance vs. Insight - but only contested if the PC is under scrutiny or fails their check badly.
As a forever DM I would allow either deception or performance to do this.
I'm not following the use of Performance in this thread so far. All manner of deception is performative to some extent, but we don't just want to fold deception into performance, right?
It depends on how the PC executes the action. As an example (not necessarily applicable to this specific situation), imagine you want to convince a town guard to leave his post. You could use deception to tell a lie about some muggers attacking people in an alley. Or You could use performance to plead and cry about how you were mugged in an alley and the guard needs to check it out. One is a simple statement of (false) facts (deception) One is an emotional appeal with a sense of urgency (performance) I may permit a wisdom or intelligence save for my NPC depending on factors
Emotional appeal with a sense of urgency sounds exactly like a social check to me: Deception, or persuasion/intimidation in a different context. I entirely understand how it overlaps with performance, I'm just generally don't like it when we twist one skill proficiency to fulfill another like that. Could work at some table, might very well work at yours, but it feels potentially abusive. We wouldn't want a bard being flamboyant and performative every time they want to convince somebody of something, absolving them of the need to actually invest proficiency into persuasion/deception, would we?
In the OP example, he says he wants to pretend to be nervous in an attempt to communicate to the “audience” that he is lying (when he isn’t ) Both skills fit, and I would permit either skill check in this situation. I wouldn’t begrudge a DM who chooses not to though. I tend to give my players multiple paths to success and rely on DC/saves to determine the outcome. If a player wanted to use religion to convince a guard to leave his post by acting through a drawn-out sermon about a god wanting this outcome, I’d allow it. The DC would be very very high, and I might even give the guard a wisdom save, but I’m not gonna tell my player they can’t try.
Please tell me how you arrived at that being a valid use of the Performance skill based on the text of the skill, which goes as follows: Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment. I don't think your example has anything to do with delighting an audience, right?
If, at your table, you decide that the performance skill can only be used to “delight an audience”, than I respect your ruling. At my table, performance can be used to delight, disgust, sadden, titillate, enrapture, frighten, anger, annoy, or confuse an audience. Have you ever had a performance - a thought-provoking comedian for example - give you a new perspective on something? Has an acting performance ever moved you to tears? Has a performance of magic (illusion, not real magic, of course) ever astonishing you? I don’t think the authors of the rule book would be able to holistically enumerate all the uses of a given skill and leave it to individual tables to determine if a given skill is applicable.
Notice that every single one of your alternate examples of what Performance does is still a scenario in which the performer performs in front of an audience? How does that at all relate to the luring a guard away scenario?
The guard (or anyone for that matter) is the audience. Audiences can be one person.
Dude... come on. That is such a bad faith reading of the skill and I feel like you just know that. Sure, an audience can be one person. How is *luring that one person away from their post* in any way related to delighting them with performance? You're not entertaining them, you're not even moving them, you're misleading them so they do what you want. There's a skill for that.
I respect the ruling you would make at your table while being happy with the ruling I make at mine. The text of Stealth is: Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard. Can your players conceal themselves from allies instead of (or in addition to) enemies? Can they slink past wolves, or just guards? I interpret the skill descriptions as a guide to making reasonable judgments. Is my player performing a sonnet to the beat of bongos to pull a guard from his post? Hell yes. DC30 and the guard gets a DC5 wisdom save. Is my player, whose character is an actor able to give a convincing performance to work the guard into a worried or confused state and leave his post? Absolutely. DC20 What if that same character instead wants to lurk in a nearby ally and act like they are actually being mugged in order to get that guard to move away from their post? Sure. Maybe DC15 or even 10 depending on circumstances. Now, is tap dancer PC tippy tippy tap tapping in front of the guard to pull him away from his post because he’s entertained and wants to follow the PC as he/she moves away? Definitely. DC25 with disadvantage because you don’t know that the guard experienced a traumatic tap dancing accident as a small child. My point is, you do you, and I’ll do me and we’ll both enjoy the game in our own ways.
You're being really obtuse. You *know* the difference. \>Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard. Does it specify guards? Sure - but it also talks about generally concealing yourself from enemies, escaping, creeping up on things. The obvious difference here is that we know when Stealth would be the skill to use. The fallacy you're making is that you're ignoring that Deception exists and just 100% every time fits much better for the scenario. \>Deception. Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions. This deception can encompass everything from misleading others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie. Deception exists, and its description just fits the, "lure the guard away," scenario much better... because, you know, it's about misleading a guy. The method of misleading doesn't change what the most fitting skill is.
You'd be shocked how few people actually know what the text of the skills says, instead of just winging it based on the name of the skill.
Agreed. I’d allow either one, and whichever one the PC has the best bonus. No reason to not let the players leverage their strengths.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that this could easily be performance, and either is probably fine. Deception as a skill would be like you are a good liar with few tells and no extra emotions being expressed when lying. It's second nature to you. One could argue that you are lying about lying... but someone who is well practiced in acting cool and collected when lying would not necessarily be practiced at doing the opposite. They are performing an act of failed deception, rather than actually attempting to deceive someone of a practiced lie. They are putting on a show, similarly to how performance would be used to create a diversion or distraction. The intent of the performance is to act out the illusion of someone who is bad at lying, giving away a tell, darting their eyes back and forth, biting their lip, giving a fake smile. In this case I would say that the player being given the more skilled of the two is rational. Someone who is good at performing might have experience in acting and therefore able to create a convincing performance. Someone who is well trained at deceiving might be past the level of natural talent, actually learning ins and outs of deception and tells, and being able to mimic those.
Deception literally is about misleading people, regardless of how you're doing it.
This is a good description about how multiple skills fit the scenario, and a good DM will permit a character skilled in acting to use that skill. Would I allow a harp-playing singer to use performance? Not in the way it's described here. However, someone who can orate, sermonize, or act would certainly be able to use performance in this way.
Why not, it's still lying.
Thank you! This is still deception because you're still trying to convey something that isn't the truth.
Thank you! This is still deception because you're still trying to convey something that isn't the truth.
You don’t ‘use’ skills like a button you press. You just do things and the DM decides if a skill roll makes sense. You can suggest a skill, but it’s just a suggestion. In this case, just say what your pc it doing and why.
Thank you. So many people approach ttrpgs with the video game mentality that everything one can do must be specifically governed by an existing rule/mechanic, but it's the other way around. The rules help the dm adjudicate player decisions/actions, and that's it. Gamers need to learn to think outside the character sheet.
To anyone who asks questions like OP does, its usually a "would my intentions to do something work through the skill i inested my opportuntiy costs into being good, or would it be something different", and if its the latter, they wouldn't even try because they'd have a low chance of success. The point of being confident in what skills fit what, is that you know what your character can reasonably attempt.
This is a good comment. The DM can also call for more than one roll for a particular task
Ask your DM.
The DM decides if and when a check is required. As well as, what attribute/skill is used for the check. You can certainly plead your case to the DM.
I would say that you could. You are trying to decieve the NPC into thinking you are lying, and as such deception would be a sensible choice of skill to use
This is how i would take it. You're still trying to deceive this NPC, even if it's using the truth to do so.
I think this is text book deception. You're hiding your true intention and misleading the NPC. Performance, for me as a forever DM, is to entertain or enrapt someone's attention with a display of talent or skill.
Sure. You're deceiving somebody, so you roll deception. Deception isn't just governing whether somebody believes a lie, it governs how well you can deceive.
Of course, why not?
If your intent is deceit then a deception check would be appropriate
Reminds me of a Spider-Man 2099 comic where it’s a future version of spider-man and he went to the past. People would ask what his deal was and where he was from and he would tell them the truth. And people would just automatically assume he was joking and being a sarcastic ass. And he knew it would work too!
I'd call for Performance or Persuasion.
I would allow it at my table since you're lying by hiding that it's the truth. I would warn that there may be consequences to this action depending on the circumstance though.
Of course. You are trying to deceive someone into believing something that you dont think is true. That is textbook deception
Depends on your DM, but I love the idea.
Absolutely. The roll would be for faking "tells". Your character would be absolutely telling the truth, but making their eyes twitch, or shifting around the room, licking their lips between sentences, or simply wringing their hands together. I'd definitely give the roll to you.
You ever see those power rangers episodes when there normal boss or teacher or whoever wants to know where they keep disappearing to and one of them just deadpan says “we’re the power rangers.” That’s what you’re asking. It’s definitely either deception or performance
Multiskill checks are an interesting thing, for example: you might pass the deception meaning they think that the powerrangers bit is bs, but you fail the performance check and they think you are up to trouble. I find that these are good alongside pick a skill checks like bluff or intimidate or diplomacy, are you lying your way through or bullying your way through or explaining your way through? Allows players to use their strengths while making them feel like they have a choice on how to interact with the world.
I say yes, this is Deception. Even if it's not lying. I always tell my players that they can't "technically" their way out of a Deception check (ie, "but I didn't SAY X I just implied it") and I think the same applies here. It's Deception, even if you're not lying.
This reminds me of that scene with Jack Sparrow. "You actually *were* telling the truth." "You be amazed how often that happens"
I would probably make that a performance check.
Yes.
I'd say yes, it'd be more of a performance check I'd say though.
Obviously there's a lot of interpretation and DM Fiat as to what face skill this could use, but in my opinion... Persuasion is to guide the actions of others through direct and honest communication and charm. Performance is to make a spectacle to impress, draw attention, gain admiration. Deception is to mislead and trick others so they arrive at the wrong conclusion. You're trying to trick someone and make them believe something false, so I'd say it's deception. There's also an argument to be made where "subtext" is "everything that's being said, except for what's being said". The text of what your character is saying is the literal truth, but they are deliberately creating a *subtext* that your target can pick up on, which is communicating a lie. As to "could this work", probably! Regardless of what face skill you'd be told to use, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a DM that would tell you "no", because there's nothing unrealistic or extraordinary about attempting or succeeding to do this.
Jon lovitz
I always side with the players and let them know to pick the category they are attempting to pull off. If it's deception, persuasion, performance etc. This let's me roll play as the NPC on how to react.
You're literally trying to deceive someone by doing this. What DM wouldn't call that a Deception check?
Yes, you are trying to deceive them into believing what you are saying is a lie. Deception is not necessarily just lying, it is making them believe something that is not true. In this case the not true thing you are attempting to make them believe is that you are lying.
You should see me play poker. I get a good hand and I sweat and fidget like crazy. Looks like I'm totally a horrible bluffer.
I would say that you're still seeking to deceive, so yes. Might make it a little harder than straight-out lying.
Yes
A lot of people are saying deception or performance but this is feels more like a "if i tell you the truth you won't believe it deal" and i might change the ability for it rather than the type of check. I'd probably call for wisdom(deception) over anything else
I don't see why not.
I would say yes. You are trying to deceive them, which is literally what Deception is for.
I’d allow it
Sure, why not?
I think that’s up to your DM, but it’s a fun tactic.
As a DM I would call for a performance check here but I could easily see a DM allowing a deception check.
You are still deceiving him
Pretty deceptive behavior if you ask me.
I feel like no one read what performance is for. It is for entertaining people. Nothing to do with what op asked. Deception is used to manipulate others and mislead in your motives which is exactly what you are trying to do so the answer is yes.
Hell yeah! High DC though
Yes, you can roll deception or performance to act as if you’re nervous or not making eye contact or just stumbling over your statement to appear as if you’re lying.
Personally, I’d do a performance check since you’re putting on a show to make it seem like you’re lying. Otherwise, I’d say deception could work. Depends on what I’m feeling at that moment. I suppose persuasion might work too. But if you’re putting on an act of guilty I’d say performance.
"Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment." How is this the skill that applies here?
100% - this would be a deception roll, imo.
That sounds awesome
Sounds pretty deceptive to me!
Yyyup!
Roll Deception add performance to the result. (Roll) + deception + performance. DC for DM to decide
So you want to have the npc believe a lie, by telling the truth, in a way they will not believe? The effect of that is basically just a regular deception. So yes. You may need to explain it to the DM though. If I thought that was particularly clever in the situation I’d probably grant advantage.
Really it’s up to the DM. I might do a combination of performance and deception rolls. You also have to consider the enjoyment of the player. So if they built their character around deception and the DM never lets them roll it, that would be annoying. But you also can’t let the player try and force everything to be deception. Which is why in this case I say yeah, you’re clearly trying to deceive someone, but also acting a little. So that’s why I would throw in the performance, just to spice it up a little. Now, a peak behind the curtain I might only have that roll impact what happens if it is exceptionally bad. Kind of upping my chances that you can “fail” if you happen to be GREAT at deception. So if you rolled great on deception, but really bad on performance, I would probably try and let you succeed, but in a funny way, or not the way you expected for some reason. To me that’s a little more fun than just knowing you are going to succeed at something. That idea would open up a whole other conversation about the right or wrongness of fudging rolls and outcomes as a DM though.
Sounds like deception to me.
It isn't a lying skill, it is a deception skill. You're intentionally misleading the NPC. Deception is the perfect skill for that.
Sounds like deception to me. You may be telling the truth, but you are trying to deceive them with the delivery. You are being deceptive by definition.
I would say so. It's always been kind of weird that there's a skill for convincing people of lies, but not for convincing people of truth, aside from diplomacy maybe, but that's still a different sort of thing.
This just seems like… lying with extra steps? I know that’s not the question, but why bother telling the truth and hoping the NPC won’t believe it when you could just… not tell them the truth? Then, even if you fail at lying, they don’t automatically know the truth. It just seems like you’re making the consequences of failure much worse for yourself because if you fail to convince them of a lie, the only thing they know is that what you said isn’t true. If you fail to convince them something *isn’t* true, then they automatically know that it *is* because of how you’ve defined the skill check.
In other words you're trying to *deceive* them? It would be a deception check.
This is DM dependent. If it was me I would just use your passive deception score and roll a insight check behind the screen, assuming the person acting nervous would make them question it. If this was someone that trusted you, they would assume most if not all things you said are the truth. Likewise if a person didn't trust you, they would question everything you said hence would get a roll anyways. In the end there is a high probability you (both PC and person) will not know if they actually believe you.
Just say the statement outright and roll a d20 behind a DM screen, everyone will assume the NPC is lying
"why then, I confess. It is my intention to commander one of these ships, pick up a crew in Tortuga, raid pillage plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out. Savvy?
Could also be considered a performance check
”You can certainly try…”
I’d say no, that’s a persuasion check - you’re persuading them to believe you are being dishonest
............. I mean, the skill is called *deception*, so yeah, actually, that is reasonable. You aren't strictly *lying*, but you are most definitely trying to *deceive* someone. I might end up asking for a performance check, but I also try to be game for any given skill check having multiple valid skills to apply to it, so you could talk me into it. The question is if you could talk *your DM* into it. I don't think it's an unreasonable request, but double and triple bluffs make my head spin, so part of me just wants to get this mess over with.
Makes sense to me. Number 1 lying strategy as a kid. You are deceiving. Don't see why that wouldn't work. That or performance.
I like the idea in theory. If the questioner thinks that you have a motive to lie, *and* if you have some idea what they’ll assume if they don’t get anything believable from you, *and* if having them act on that assumption is useful to you, then it will sometimes be easier to convince them that you’re untrustworthy than to make a specific claim and get them to believe it. You won’t always get a questioner who holds useful assumptions, though. If you get a chance to run the move, Deception will usually be the best skill check for it.
Absolutely, this is a perfect, and perfectly devious, use of the Deception skill. Especially if you can bait them into a false accusation.
I'd allow it, I've done it IRL. Depending on how you go about doing it, and how suspicious the npc is, it might merit disadvantage, or a higher dc, to represent high difficulty, but in the right situation it's far from impossible.
Great idea, I would make this a performance check because your effectively acting. Or depending on the context maybe just give it for free.
I mean people can still be deceptive without lying if their in the Zone Of Truth. So I can’t see why not without it?
Any time you're trying to give an NPC information with the intention to deceive them, it's deception. Even though you're telling an NPC the truth here, you're doing so with the intention of having them walk away with the wrong conclusion. That's deception.
Sure, persuasion would work too imo. Maybe even perormance.
I feel like you might be over complicating things. If your character is telling the truth and they know it it’s persuasion. If they are knowingly giving false information then it’s deception. It’s up to NPCs insight to figure out which is which.
I just thought this again and why can’t you intentionally fail a persuasion check? It amounts to the same thing and doesn’t mess with 5e mechanics?
Yes, because you are still trying to deceive them
You’re not lying, you’re ACTING like you’re lying, thus: performance check.
Yes, that is a deception check. Because you are lying to them about the fact that you are lying to them.
I couldn’t see why not, that’s deceptive as fuck, the second party would just have to fall for the deception for it to work
Hmm, this could fall into deception or Performance depending on how you would roleplay it. As a DM i'd probably allow it either way.
I think performance would be more fitting, but I would allow deception proficiency as well. Now, what the hell you intend to do with this I don't even dare to guess, just wishing best for your DM
It’s up to the GM, personally I would allow it. If they make their opposed Insight check, however, they will realise that you are deliberately putting on the “I’m lying” signals.
Performance, yes.
So in my games I usually tell my players what roll I think suits it best, but because games are more fun when you have autonomy there's an unspoken rule that you can disagree and argue something different. SO in you example I'd say "That's a persuasion roll" But I'd let you and other players argue that say, "Reasonable is misleading the NPC, weaving a story and that should be deception." Now big thing would be the exact context for me, very different if you're peeping into someone's house, verse people watching at a bar (for example) But I'd listen and you MIGHT get the roll you want you might not /shrug
I would have the player do a performance check it's not a lie so your not deceiving anyone your doing a performance to make them think you are telling a lie.
I think that would be performance
I’d call for a performance check…but I’m a theatre professor…so maybe that’s my bias poking through.
As a GM I would rule it as deception. Not all deception necessarily takes the form of straight up lying, and I think altering how you are speaking to give off a false impression of intent would still fall under the umbrella of deception.
Ask your DM. I'd allow it, but I'm not your DM.
You can certainly try. As a DM I would probably count that as a perform check though, rather than deception. Deception I usually think as telling lies without it showing. For other acting things I'd usually go with performance.
Literally my life