Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8433986" data-attributes="member: 7032025">I agree.Complete agreement with the &quot;pay to play&quot;.And this is where we diverge. The basic stance of the game is that adventurers are aware while they are in combat, to the point that they can in general keep track of the location of invisible creatures that are not hidden (I don't play it fully that way, for me circumstances and local rulings are core in particular to the concept of stealth, but still the intent of awareness is there).So requiring an insight check to do something that is allowed RAW by the rules is not fair to the defender.On the other hand, if someone suspects that his target has readied something, I would certainly allow him an insight vs. deception check as a bonus action to see if something is prepared. I might even give him the advantage if it's a readied spell, since there was some casting that did not produce any effect.Alternatively, if he suspects something and wants to feint, I would of course (probably again as a bonus action) allow him to feint an attack towards someone else, as a deception vs. insight of the defender, who would be tricked in using his reaction if the check is a success.For me, this is way too strong and not supported by RAW. The caster has already bet that the assaillant would attack him and it has costed him his full action. Moreover, if he is hit before casting the spell, he will need to maintain his concentration to not even lose his readied action. It makes it totally worthless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8433986, member: 7032025"] I agree. Complete agreement with the "pay to play". And this is where we diverge. The basic stance of the game is that adventurers are aware while they are in combat, to the point that they can in general keep track of the location of invisible creatures that are not hidden (I don't play it fully that way, for me circumstances and local rulings are core in particular to the concept of stealth, but still the intent of awareness is there). So requiring an insight check to do something that is allowed RAW by the rules is not fair to the defender. On the other hand, if someone suspects that his target has readied something, I would certainly allow him an insight vs. deception check as a bonus action to see if something is prepared. I might even give him the advantage if it's a readied spell, since there was some casting that did not produce any effect. Alternatively, if he suspects something and wants to feint, I would of course (probably again as a bonus action) allow him to feint an attack towards someone else, as a deception vs. insight of the defender, who would be tricked in using his reaction if the check is a success. For me, this is way too strong and not supported by RAW. The caster has already bet that the assaillant would attack him and it has costed him his full action. Moreover, if he is hit before casting the spell, he will need to maintain his concentration to not even lose his readied action. It makes it totally worthless. [/QUOTE]

Verification