As far as I know, you don't actually know if it works or not unless you roll Sense Motive and pass.
Dominate does let you know if it works because it sets up a mental link when it does. You would know right away because a passed save would not set the link. That said, there is a feat that lets you pretend that a domination spell passed when it in fact didn't.
I imagine that the foolish might assume anything (or almost anything) said under the zone to be truth, while the clever would use it to make it that much harder to lie.
I've never used it though, since RAW, succeeding a Coerce or Request gives you garanteed information; while zone of truth just foils lying, so you still have to actually persuade them. Since spells cant get bonuses at all, and skills can, the skill check is way more likely to work
We utilized it at one point in Agents of Edgewatch for completing quest as well as a fun little RP-moment, when my low-wisdom goblin unknowingly (but with my consent) was in the circle. But it's usage was quite little.
This came up recently in a game I run. I treat zone of truth like a polygraph test, it gets used in investigations, but it's not admissible in most courts, on account of its subjective results, limited accuracy, and available countermeasures.
No. Coercion mostly does the trick.
I guess it has its place. To me it seems like a GM only spell. Just not useful or effective enough.
Takes up word space in the book. Coercion or Diplomacy work better. Or a charm spell if you have downtime anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People keep mentioning coercion but it literally says:
"The target gives you the information you seek or agrees to follow your directives so long as they aren't likely to harm the target in any way."
So that doesn't appear like you can force a suspect to confess.
Also, it doesn't say the target tells the truth. If you try to demand that person A admits that person B was at X location, then if you intimidate A they'll give you the information you seek...even if it's a lie. Because they're scared of you and will agree with your incorrect conclusion to protect themselves.
"Gives you the information you seek" is telling you the truth (to their knowledge) on a subject.
In game turns, if you pass the check, you get what you want; if you fail the check; thats when they'll keep their mouths shut or attempt a deception check (or maliciously comply and give you the bare minimum). Punishing a player for passing is against the spirit of the rules.
That said, the person complies to their ability, so like a grunt that really only does know only surface level stuff can't give you more than that no matter how good you roll.
The "as long as they aren't likely to harm the target" is really only based on player behavior. If they have a history of executing/torturing/etc people even after they get what they want, then yeah, they'll lie or whatever if that'll help, but otherwise they'll work with you. Even the most wicked parties I've been in let people go after intimidation specifically because letting people if they comply is a great way to get more people to comply in the future
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "as long as they aren't likely to harm the target" is really only based on player behavior. If they have a history of executing/torturing/etc people even after they get what they want, then yeah, they'll lie or whatever if that'll help, but otherwise they'll work with you. Even the most wicked parties I've been in let people go after intimidation specifically because letting people if they comply is a great way to get more people to comply in the future
If it's part of an official legal inquiry, though, openly admitting that you were responsible for committing whatever the crime was or otherwise scheming against the state is highly likely to result in harm. Like, Coerce is great for leaning on potential informants. It can be useful for getting witnesses to squeal on their buddies (as long as those buddies aren't likely to come back to punish them for it). It's really not great for getting people to confess that they were the ones who did The Objectionable Thing.
How important this is is going to vary greatly by campaign.
The "as long as they aren't likely to harm the target" is really only based on player behavior. If they have a history of executing/torturing/etc people even after they get what they want, then yeah, they'll lie or whatever if that'll help, but otherwise they'll work with you. Even the most wicked parties I've been in let people go after intimidation specifically because letting people if they comply is a great way to get more people to comply in the futureIf it's part of an official legal inquiry, though, openly admitting that you were responsible for committing whatever the crime was or otherwise scheming against the state is highly likely to result in harm. Like, Coerce is great for leaning on potential informants. It can be useful for getting witnesses to squeal on their buddies (as long as those buddies aren't likely to come back to punish them for it). It's really not great for getting people to confess that they were the ones who did The Objectionable Thing.
How important this is is going to vary greatly by campaign.
Thus why I only see the combat rules as worth discussing in terms of power balance.
You are exactly right. How much you get out of coercion or diplomacy completely defends on how the GM views both actions. Can you coerce someone into a confession? I would say yes, you can. Can you guarantee that confession is the truth? No, you cannot.
A party that leans too heavily into coercion could easily be set up for lies in a game like this one. Therein comes the use of your Perception in association with Coercion to see if the person is lying. If they're better than you at Deception, you can get set up.
Thus it is likely easier to do some kind of mind probe or charm spell.