Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7315085" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Context matters.The thread in question was spawned by a module reference which stated in one of its scenes that if the players said they were looking for ambushes they would get Advantage on the roll. So that discussion is not about adding a roll for an already defined game aspect, but about allowing Advantage on a roll just by making a statement in player mode.Equivalent would be say "if player states they are looking for fireball, the get advantage on saves vs fireball."In this case, its different because it boils down to whether the GM has decided that a caster can use reactions when they want as long as the conditions are met or if there is some additional requirement and roll needed.Now, honestly, i did not go back to read this stealth held action thing, but. If it were someone wanting to say bypass stealth roll (or gain advantage) by means of hold action "when they *look* away" that would not fly with me and i would explain that 5e base assumption is folks turning and looking around normally in the course of the round, so the stealth check itself and lighting concealment etc is already a test to see if that succeeds.However, if they were waiting "for a distraction" and say an ally started a fire or sounded an alarm to distract the guards to be looking elsewhere and that was when the sneaker acted, that would be dome with Advantage or maybe no roll if they eaited for the chance the guards stepped away entirely, leaving the area unobserved.Those are both to me applications of the same principle - to gain Advantage on a defined mechanic you need a circumstance or effort or sacrifice to gain it. Like fighting defensive, help actions, melee vs prone etc. A general principle, shown often in the rules, applied consistently.Compared to what i see here which is a GM deciding to add new limits and chances of catastrophic failure to a very specialized spell based on ruling its casting reaction works under some new principle that will mostly only come up for it (mostly.)Even then, as i have said here, a GM can make any ruling they want that their players will abide by it. If you look a lot of the questiond have been centered around is this going to be how other reactions are handled or something unique for this spell. (Basically sounds like it will apply to any case which manages to duplicate the circumstance but that is really going to mostly translate to "just this spell" based on what i have seen in play unless monsters/adversaries/players get to speeds in the 400s or whatever you sussed out as your latest justification.)See it boils down to this... With the FF all the player is asking is for the spell to work as written and for reaction to work as written for no exception to be made for a typical case... Falls usually have a bottom. They are not asking for Advantage on a roll or to bypass an established skill check altogether. As i have said here repeatedly, that is not a reduction in player choice or a decision to add a new definition category of "are you trained in this way of using that spell" that i wpuld choose to add. I tend to consider spellcasters trained in how to use their spells in tactical sotuations and i would not consider "casting FF within say abc feet of the bottom" as some novel enough case that they would not have trained for it.I am a lot more lenient and likely  to give "works as normal" rulings when no unusual circumstances are in play than i am to give Advantage on established checks or allow bypassing established checks where no trade-off or special circumstance applies.If thst seems inconsistent to some... Hey thats life.Sent from my [device_name] using <a href="http://EN World mobile app" target="_blank">EN World mobile app</a></blockquote>

Verification