It’s not vacuous at all, especially when the player is trying to weasel through the rule text for a gotcha.
A “direct response” is literally and exactly that, “must tell the truth or lie with no inbetween” is a restriction of your own making, it’s not mind control.
A simple “screw you” will suffice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But a simply "Screw you!" if neither truthful to the question you mowst likely asked or a lie because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand causing the *Investigator to know you're lying because of the context the only problem is :ying takes 3 actions aka 1 round.
But a simply "Screw you!" if neither truthful to the question you mowst likely asked or a lie because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand causing the *Investigator to know you're lying because of the context the only problem is :ying takes 3 actions aka 1 round.
Not how that works, “screw you” is apropos and truthful, if anything.
It has to be truthful or has to be lie is a fabricated restriction.
It just has to be a direct response. It’s on the GM for said response to make sense given the situation and character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Refusing to answer, or giving an answer (no matter how truthful or not) that has no information at all is not allowed if the Investigator succeeded at the check. That is in fact reducing the result to a failure on the check instead.
However, the critical success result is that the creature can answer untruthfully. Requiring the answer to be truthful is upgrading the check result to be something that is literally off the chart.
So yes, on a successful check, the target is allowed to lie without wasting their entire turn on it. Requiring wasting the turn in order to lie is too good to be true. Requiring truthful information is too good to be true. Giving a response like "I'm not telling the likes of you." is too bad to be true.
If not giving truthful information as the response of a successful check, the lie needs to have information in it that can be detected as a lie. There should be some in-game practical information gained even if it is ruling out a possibility by determining that it is false.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Refusing to answer, or giving an answer (no matter how truthful or not) that has no information at all is not allowed if the Investigator succeeded at the check.
Where is this stated?
Critical Success The target must directly answer your question. It doesn't have to answer truthfully, but you gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC if the creature attempts to Lie to you. Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.
Success As critical success, but the circumstance bonus to your Perception DC is +2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Refusing to answer, or giving an answer (no matter how truthful or not) that has no information at all is not allowed if the Investigator succeeded at the check.Where is this stated?
It is literally my next sentence. The sentence that you didn't include in your quote of my post.
"That is in fact reducing the result to a failure on the check instead."
Critical Success The target must directly answer your question. It doesn't have to answer truthfully, but you gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC if the creature attempts to Lie to you. Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.
Success As critical success, but the circumstance bonus to your Perception DC is +2.
The part that you also didn't put in your quote of the Pointed Question rules.
Failure The creature can refuse to answer you as normal.
Refusing to answer, or giving an answer (no matter how truthful or not) that has no information at all is not allowed if the Investigator succeeded at the check.Where is this stated?It is literally my next sentence. The sentence that you didn't include in your quote of my post.
"That is in fact reducing the result to a failure on the check instead."
Critical Success The target must directly answer your question. It doesn't have to answer truthfully, but you gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC if the creature attempts to Lie to you. Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.
Success As critical success, but the circumstance bonus to your Perception DC is +2.The part that you also didn't put in your quote of the Pointed Question rules.
Failure The creature can refuse to answer you as normal.
… we are talking about two completely different things/talking past each other.
Refuse to answer to me would mean not responding at all.
… we are talking about two completely different things/talking past each other.
Refuse to answer to me would mean not responding at all.
Not convinced on that.
If so, then explain how giving a meaningless answer whether true or not has any practical in-game difference from refusing to answer.
Because as a player playing the Investigator, I am going to consider "I'm not telling you." or "Screw you." to be 100% equivalent to refusing to answer.
Edit: Some things that I would accept would be "I can't tell you" (whether truthful or not), "You will have to beat the information out of me" (gives a plan of action that will be successful), "By tomorrow it will be too late and no one will care." (if untrue it indicates that the party has a few days at least before the big bad plan goes down).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a related but slightly different note:
It is clearly possible to refuse to answer by saying words. Literally saying, "I refuse to answer" is the most obvious example. Yes, you could try and argue that it is a response and a truthful one, but it is still also literally a refusal to answer.
Similarly, it is possible to answer the Pointed Question without words. If the Investigator asks, "Where are the hostages?" a truthful answer to the question could be to reflexively look at one of the several doorways leading from the room, but then not say anything.
|
On a related but slightly different note:
It is clearly possible to refuse to answer by saying words. Literally saying, "I refuse to answer" is the most obvious example. Yes, you could try and argue that it is a response and a truthful one, but it is still also literally a refusal to answer.
Similarly, it is possible to answer the Pointed Question without words. If the Investigator asks, "Where are the hostages?" a truthful answer to the question could be to reflexively look at one of the several doorways leading from the room, but then not say anything.
And if I purposefully look at the wrong doorway, it takes a full round of doing nothing else ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if I purposefully look at the wrong doorway, it takes a full round of doing nothing else ?
Are you asking me that? Or presenting that as an example of the difference between an untruthful response to Pointed Question and the Lie activity?
I'm pretty clearly on record saying that it shouldn't take an entire round to give an untruthful response.
As an example of why it is unreasonable to require the Lie activity in order to give an untruthful response, it is pretty good.
|
|
And if I purposefully look at the wrong doorway, it takes a full round of doing nothing else ?Are you asking me that? Or presenting that as an example of the difference between an untruthful response to Pointed Question and the Lie activity?
I'm pretty clearly on record saying that it shouldn't take an entire round to give an untruthful response.
As an example of why it is unreasonable to require the Lie activity in order to give an untruthful response, it is pretty good.
Well, if it takes a full round to Lie in a way that can convince your target, the mere instant look will not be enough.
Well, if it takes a full round to Lie in a way that can convince your target, the mere instant look will not be enough.
If the enemy voluntarily decides to spin a yarn about where the hostages are, then I could expect it to take at least a round worth of time.
But if the untruth is in response to an Investigator's Pointed Question, the Investigator's actions are already doing a lot of the work. The target is allowed to answer untruthfully as their response. No, I don't see why an untruthful answer would take more time than a truthful answer. And neither a truthful answer or an untruthful answer has a listed action cost required from the target.
Well, it is the exact same result as them using the Lie action on a successful Pointed Question and failing.
So why not just use the Lie activity?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the dude could say "Screw You" but you'd still "Glean something from it's body language" and you'd get information as if they lied and you got the bonus. While it somewhat depends on mystery construction, the most responsible thing would probably be to drop a clue through the goon without giving away the whole game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people still really trying to argue that some variation of "I will not answer your question" is definitely answering the question? Are you all actually that hostile with your players when you GM?
Like dude just ban the feat if you're that mad about the investigator interrogating someone for information.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s not vacuous at all, especially when the player is trying to weasel through the rule text for a gotcha.
A “direct response” is literally and exactly that, “must tell the truth or lie with no inbetween” is a restriction of your own making, it’s not mind control.
A simple “screw you” will suffice.
Do Fighters also lose proficiency in weapons? Rogues don't deal Sneak Attack because the enemies didn't feel like it? Because those would be equivalent here. Your major class feature doesn't do anything after a successful check.
"I attack. Natural 20!"
"The enemy decides he doesn't feel like being hit right now."
It also doesn't say "direct response," it says "directly answer your question." This ability isn't even that strong, since getting information from successful social checks is normal anyway. Why are people acting like answering a question will ruin everything forever? Heck, "I don't know," is the most common true answer to questions.
The issue at hand is the "Wait, does that technically use up their turn?" thing, not whether the feature does anything at all.
(To which I say, talking isn't a free action because it's instantaneous but because you can do it at the same time as you're doing other things.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people still really trying to argue that some variation of "I will not answer your question" is definitely answering the question? Are you all actually that hostile with your players when you GM?
Like dude just ban the feat if you're that mad about the investigator interrogating someone for information.
It's not a feat. It's your major class feature choice.
It’s not vacuous at all, especially when the player is trying to weasel through the rule text for a gotcha.
A “direct response” is literally and exactly that, “must tell the truth or lie with no inbetween” is a restriction of your own making, it’s not mind control.
A simple “screw you” will suffice.
Do Fighters also lose proficiency in weapons? Rogues don't deal Sneak Attack because the enemies didn't feel like it? Because those would be equivalent here. Your major class feature doesn't do anything after a successful check.
"I attack. Natural 20!"
"The enemy decides he doesn't feel like being hit right now."It also doesn't say "direct response," it says "directly answer your question." This ability isn't even that strong, since getting information from successful social checks is normal anyway. Why are people acting like answering a question will ruin everything forever? Heck, "I don't know," is the most common true answer to questions.
The issue at hand is the "Wait, does that technically use up their turn?" thing, not whether the feature does anything at all.(To which I say, talking isn't a free action because it's instantaneous but because you can do it at the same time as you're doing other things.)
No equivalence, and the hypothetical is about a hostile player gotcha, not someone playing in good faith.
A closer equivalent would be the fighter hitting someone snd then declaring that they bleed to death and die regardless of HP cause they got hit with a sword.
The ability is not a compulsion or mind control.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people still really trying to argue that some variation of "I will not answer your question" is definitely answering the question? Are you all actually that hostile with your players when you GM?
Like dude just ban the feat if you're that mad about the investigator interrogating someone for information.
This is the vibe I've been getting off of a lot of the comments in this thread. Of course, people will cry bloody murder when called out on it, but at some point you gotta call a spade a spade. That a discussion full of sophistry and unwillingness to directly engage with the subject matter would revolve around an ability that compels people to respond to a question directly with a truth or lie is not without its irony.
What boggles my mind as well is that if these people really wanted to mess with their Investigator, their best shot would be to run the ability as intended and just have the target Lie, only as a free action. That way, there's a chance whatever falsehood they say will register as true, and throw a red herring into the mystery. At worst, the target can just continue to Lie, as Pointed Question merely compels a direct response, not the truth. Bending over backwards to try to make the Investigator fail on their check even when they succeed is not only overtly antagonistic, but completely unnecessary.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s not vacuous at all, especially when the player is trying to weasel through the rule text for a gotcha.
A “direct response” is literally and exactly that, “must tell the truth or lie with no inbetween” is a restriction of your own making, it’s not mind control.
A simple “screw you” will suffice.
Do Fighters also lose proficiency in weapons? Rogues don't deal Sneak Attack because the enemies didn't feel like it? Because those would be equivalent here. Your major class feature doesn't do anything after a successful check.
"I attack. Natural 20!"
"The enemy decides he doesn't feel like being hit right now."It also doesn't say "direct response," it says "directly answer your question." This ability isn't even that strong, since getting information from successful social checks is normal anyway. Why are people acting like answering a question will ruin everything forever? Heck, "I don't know," is the most common true answer to questions.
The issue at hand is the "Wait, does that technically use up their turn?" thing, not whether the feature does anything at all.(To which I say, talking isn't a free action because it's instantaneous but because you can do it at the same time as you're doing other things.)
No equivalence, and the hypothetical is about a hostile player gotcha, not someone playing in good faith.
A closer equivalent would be the fighter hitting someone snd then declaring that they bleed to death and die regardless of HP cause they got hit with a sword.
The ability is not a compulsion or mind control.
Forcing the target to answer directly is not only part of the ability, it is currently the only thing the ability does. It is the entire ability.
So yes. You're saying that a success does nothing.Also using it in combat to inflict Off-Guard is the new part. Getting an answer was always the point.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No equivalence, and the hypothetical is about a hostile player gotcha, not someone playing in good faith.
This is somewhat an absurd declaration when your suggestion is to literally negate the character's ability out of hand while pretending you're running it in a legitimate and fair way. You have no standing to talk about hostile interactions or good faith here.
Again, just ban the ability if you dislike it so much. Allowing a player to take an option you're knowingly planning to render useless is just spiteful GMing.
What boggles my mind as well is that if these people really wanted to mess with their Investigator, their best shot would be to run the ability as intended and just have the target Lie, only as a free action. That way, there's a chance whatever falsehood they say will register as true, and throw a red herring into the mystery. At worst, the target can just continue to Lie, as Pointed Question merely compels a direct response, not the truth.
You somehow manage to say that as though that is not exactly what the ability says for the success and critical success results.
The target must directly answer your question. It doesn't have to answer truthfully
Not sure how much more clear that part of it needs to be.
Regarding taking 3 actions to answer untruthfully and only a free action if they want to answer truthfully, we pretty well established that this would be a huge game balance problem quite a while ago. Diplomacy check success => target gets Stunned 3 isn't a thing, and knowing that they answered immediately proves truth while them taking an entire round to respond proves deception pretty much negates the entire rules text regarding a bonus to Perception checks to Sense Motive.
but you gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC if the creature attempts to Lie to you.
So yeah. At this point I am strongly suspecting that people are on here trolling and arguing things because they think that they can win some sort of points on the internet rather than because it would actually lead to a fun and enjoyable game to play with friends.
Maybe you could argue that 'Lie' shouldn't be capitalized in that sentence. That is errata that I could get behind. I still don't think it is necessary. The ruling that it means using the minimum 1-round Lie activity in order to not answer truthfully is very much too good to be true.
This isn't something I'd take seriously, but because it's fun to try to find loopholes, here's another workaround pulled out of a hat:
It says you must answer; it doesn't specify when. A GM could say the investigator gets the off-guard benefit immediately, but won't get the response to the question until after the combat. This strikes me as about as reasonable as having the lie be a free action.
Actually, now that I think about it... it's quite odd the investigator gets the off-guard benefit immediately, when the target presumably can't respond until their turn. The flavor implies the benefit is tied to how the target answers your question. Is the ability intended to let the target respond immediately on your turn without expending actions?
I swear, this ability just produces more questions than answers (joke not intended).
You somehow manage to say that as though that is not exactly what the ability says for the success and critical success results.
Or you could just ... not use the Lie activity that the Pointed Question action doesn't require.
But yes, welcome to the point, I'm so glad you could finally join us. This is why it's strange that people would try so hard to avoid running the ability as written. The main distinction is that the Lie activity would be used as a free action, which is not RAW, but would avoid disabling a NPC for a whole round and giving away their attempt to Lie.
Not sure how much more clear that part of it needs to be.
Apparently a lot clearer than that, given how reluctant some people appear to be to actually run Pointed Question as written, yourself included. As Super Zero mentions, this is all the ability does now, so being this antagonistic would invalidate its current function entirely. Of course, no amount of clarity will help when the GM just wants to do what they feel like, rules be damned, so that's another can of worms entirely.
Regarding taking 3 actions to answer untruthfully and only a free action if they want to answer truthfully, we pretty well established that this would be a huge game balance problem quite a while ago. Diplomacy check success => target gets Stunned 3 isn't a thing, and knowing that they answered immediately proves truth while them taking an entire round to respond proves deception pretty much negates the entire rules text regarding a bonus to Perception checks to Sense Motive.
So yeah. At this point I am strongly suspecting that people are on here trolling and arguing things because they think that they can win some sort of points on the internet rather than because it would actually lead to a fun and enjoyable game to play with friends.
Maybe you could argue that 'Lie' shouldn't be capitalized in that sentence. That is errata that I could get behind. I still don't think it is necessary. The ruling that it means using the minimum 1-round Lie activity in order to not answer truthfully is very much too good to be true.
Again, welcome to the point:
What boggles my mind as well is that if these people really wanted to mess with their Investigator, their best shot would be to run the ability as intended and just have the target Lie, only as a free action. That way, there's a chance whatever falsehood they say will register as true, and throw a red herring into the mystery. At worst, the target can just continue to Lie, as Pointed Question merely compels a direct response, not the truth.
Really, I think it's much less complicated for the GM to rule that Lying can take as little as a free action, rather than a full round at minimum, than to go through the mental gymnastics of inventing a sort-of-Lie free action that's just like the Lie activity, but doesn't interact with any of the rules and mechanics associated with the latter. Similarly, a GM who doesn't want to give the mystery away at all can just have targets Lie every time they're pressed with a Pointed Question, instead of coming up with a non-response and making shoddy excuses for how that is somehow at all different from refusing to answer.
A lot of people here seem to not have realized that targets become immune to Pointed Question for an entire hour, so in-combat you realistically only get one chance per mook. This isn't some spammable ability the Investigator can abuse to spoil the mystery ahead of time, this is an extra tool they can use to get bits of useful information piecemeal. Yes, this is annoying to a GM who doesn't normally need to account for this, but there is easily room for compromise where the GM gives out bits of cryptic information in-between lots of mobs Lying, with mobs in the same encounter likely giving out the same information or something similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people still really trying to argue that some variation of "I will not answer your question" is definitely answering the question? Are you all actually that hostile with your players when you GM?
Like dude just ban the feat if you're that mad about the investigator interrogating someone for information.
There’s no need for insults (pot kettle hostile something something), and im certainly not the one mad here.
But we are obviously working on vastly different definitions of “direct answer/response”.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't really any definition that makes answering a question and refusing to answer a question the same thing. They're pretty foundationally opposites.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An answer you don’t like is still an answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Not a fan of that as a GM. I'd end up having all goons clueless as to goings on if I had to worry about PCs bypassing a mystery I had set up
From my own real experience (I didn't want to know the details!), I never let henchmen or subordinates know anything. Just pay the damn guys and have a plan for possible betrayals, but never reveal anything to them!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, why would anybody play an Investigator at this rate? I guess this is another advertisement for session 0. If all the enemies are going to be incorporeal, don't play a Rogue, if all the creatures you encounter are going to subvert your class features by saying 'screw you' when you ask questions, don't play an Investigator.
Like, I get that the Investigator cannot reasonably expect every mook to know anything critical about the big overarching plot, but really, how hard is it to "yes, and" your party playing out their class' core fantasy by letting them have the occasional breadcrumb.
"Who do you work for?"
"I don't know her name, but she's an elf, seems like a real classy high-money type."
Now the suspect might be any of the elf nobles in the city right now, which one of them has a grudge against the heroes?
OTOH maybe there's only one villain in town, so it would be too obvious and the PCs just cannot learn the truth this early. Instead, the elf is an intermediary who hired the goons and one more step along the journey to cracking this case. When we get to her she lies (con artist that she is) and says that the shipments of kobold-sized mining hats are being sent out to a secret base in the woods.
Either we don't catch the lie and the local iruxi clan are about to get an unwelcome visit and maybe we fight or we figure out something is wrong and talk it out--the iruxi are quite annoyed lately that somebody has been smuggling boats filled with diamonds through their territory, or maybe we catch the lie and after some research learn that the only kobold settlement in this area are the Goldtooths who live in the mountains just upriver, and you know what, has anyone seen a Goldtooth come into town lately?
Like, it won't always be easy to keep the mystery up, and your players can't always expect the minions to know something, but when they find a lead on the case, why can't they be allowed to use their class features? It feels to me that "I know but won't tell you under any circumstances" is not a RAI 'direct answer' nor particularly fun for a clue-hunting party to run up against.
(and of course, I would never run an NPC simply answering in-combat as taking their whole turn regardless whether their response is true or not. The Lie activity's baseline feels more like when you're trying to cold-open a guard that no, really, you need their help there are kittens trapped in the sewers right this way, please abandon your post at the baron's back door, not when you're answering a direct question.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if all the creatures you encounter are going to subvert your class features by saying 'screw you' when you ask questions,
And they should not.
As mentioned on a previous post this is up to the GM and the context of each situation and character when the ability is used.
The GM shouldn’t screw over the player, likewise the player shouldn’t try to screw the game and treat this ability as mind control with every use granting a binary of “divulge all plot information” or lose a turn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An answer you don’t like is still an answer.
Sure, it might be an answer the player doesn't like. Sometimes it's even "I don't know."
But "I refuse to answer" is not an answer to the question, by definition.
Because it takes at least a full round by the RAW ?
I mean if you want to get silly about it, Lie takes a full round but the ability also clearly has no action cost associated with it either. There's no action markers on the activity and no mention of an action cost in the description.
So yes, it takes a round to complete a Lie, but it also costs none of your actions to do. Why would it? Mere speech almost never has an action cost associated with it.
That seems far more reasonable than both requiring someone to stand there doing nothing but talking or GMs turning off character abilities to screw with their players.
|
|
Interesting point on the Action cost. Maybe that is the exact RAW answer. I need to consider this info.
Way I would adjudicate it in the meantime is that if the Investigator uses Pointed Question in combat, the target answers with either truth or a blatant lie and gets off-guard anyway.
If the target is still alive after the combat, the Investigator can keep on interrogating them and good old RP and story will take over.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM shouldn’t screw over the player, likewise the player shouldn’t try to screw the game and treat this ability as mind control with every use granting a binary of “divulge all plot information” or lose a turn.
Well certainly not--but that's not an accurate reading of what I said, either. I grant you it's the last paragraph you missed, but then it's not as though the question of action costs was particularly pertinent to my case.
Because it takes at least a full round by the RAW ?
So why not rule that it takes no actions? That seems a little easier than all the other mental gymnastics you're deploying here, don't you think?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM shouldn’t screw over the player, likewise the player shouldn’t try to screw the game and treat this ability as mind control with every use granting a binary of “divulge all plot information” or lose a turn.Well certainly not--but that's not an accurate reading of what I said, either. I grant you it's the last paragraph you missed, but then it's not as though the question of action costs was particularly pertinent to my case.
Apologies, that was more in response to the thread as whole spun off from your snippet i quoted, rather than all directed at you.
|
|
Because it takes at least a full round by the RAW ?So why not rule that it takes no actions? That seems a little easier than all the other mental gymnastics you're deploying here, don't you think?
Difference between homebrewing and trying to find a way to reconcile bits of RAW.
To each their own I think.
Because it takes at least a full round by the RAW ?So why not rule that it takes no actions? That seems a little easier than all the other mental gymnastics you're deploying here, don't you think?Difference between homebrewing and trying to find a way to reconcile bits of RAW.
To each their own I think.
But you are homebrewing, is the thing. Houseruling would be the more exact term, but at the end of the day, you’re trying to invent a solution to an interaction that is broken RAW. There’s no shame in that, and we might as well be honest with what we’re doing here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you are homebrewing, is the thing. Houseruling would be the more exact term, but at the end of the day, you’re trying to invent a solution to an interaction that is broken RAW. There’s no shame in that, and we might as well be honest with what we’re doing here.Because it takes at least a full round by the RAW ?So why not rule that it takes no actions? That seems a little easier than all the other mental gymnastics you're deploying here, don't you think?Difference between homebrewing and trying to find a way to reconcile bits of RAW.
To each their own I think.
I honestly see a difference. I might not be the only one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sooooo, Lie says it takes at least a round.
It doesn't say it takes spending actions for a round. Any reason it couldn't be a round's worth of free actions?
(I don't think this is the best possible interpretation, but I'm interested to hear y'all's thoughts)
The general rules for speaking in combat say "Special uses of speech, such as attempting a Deception skill check to Lie, require spending actions and follow their own rules." The lie action under deception doesn't have an action cost, not even a free action. My interpretation of that is that lying would only cost actions when it says it costs actions (eg, saying "look, there's a zombie behind you" could be a lie, but it would fall under the create a diversion action which does have an action cost).
An elaborate lie taking more than one round is the same for all speech in combat, but it makes sense to specify under the lie rules to make it clear that you don't need to make a seperate check for every sentence of a lie. I don't see any reason to associate an action cost with it because of that.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the mooks can be untruthful all they want. Words aren't the only ways to answer questions, just the most obvious.
(Scene: PCs have ambushed some mooks that may or may not have been responsible for kidnapping the Lord Mayor's daughter.)
PC: Okay, I rolled and got a critical success on this question. My investigator lunges forward and presses her swordcane against the mook's blade, holding it still. "Tell me where the mayor's daughter is. It'll go better for you if you do."
GM: "Screw off, luv. I've got no idea where the girl is." Her eyes dart over in a direction away from you. Her head almost turns but she catches it in time and just smiles and stutter-steps away as she over-corrects. She'll be off-guard for a moment.
PC: Great.... which way did her eyes dart?
GM: To the east. You know there's a couple of tenements that way, as well as an old abandoned warehouse.
PC: Awesome. "Leave this one alive! She might know more than she's letting on!" I'll press my attack but switch to non-lethal.
(Scene continues)
I mean, that satisfies every requirement put forth. The investigator got to use their class feat in a way that felt good, getting them some additional information that might have taken them longer to get. The GM gets some information out to the party to advance their plot. The mook got to lie and still have her turn, for whatever good it did her.
Communication isn't just verbal.
If you want to get technical and RAW, the ability goes way harder than just stealing a round – you can basically insta-kill anything that needs to breathe on a success in combination with a wand of choking mist.
I think either way you're in 'what feels appropriate for people at the table' territory.
Well, Wand of Choking Mist is banned in PFS so I think it's the item that's ridiculous in that interaction more than the ability.
Also actual game play wise I'd just have the character point or give some other non-verbal answer.Funny to think about though, "Damn it Dave! That's the third snitch you've drowned this week! How many times do I have to tell you, you ask the questions IN-BETWEEN the water-boarding!!"