Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7789051" data-attributes="member: 6779196">You’re leaving out a lot of context here, including the part immediately proceeding that quote, where he says “under these rules” the rules referred to being the set of house rules he is proposing in the article.Ok. If Bob doesn’t want Brog’s suspicion to be visible in his body language, that’s his call to make. He’s welcome to just be suspicious and keep quiet about it, or to express his suspicion verbally (again, Ned might not appreciate that, but it’s an option), or to express it out of character if he really feels he must.Why?If Brog takes an action that would require a check to resolve and Suzia doesn’t.If a player chooses Insight as one of their skill Proficiencies, they are “rewarded” for that with the ability to add their Proficiency bonus on checks where their ability to read people is relevant. But checks are used to resolve actions, and suspicion is a feeling, not an action. If Brog acts on this feeling, and that action has an uncertain outcome, bob is welcome to apply his Insight proficiency to the check.Not always, no. When a character (PC or NPC) takes an action, the success of which is contingent on another character’s ability, I have the acting character make a check against a DC of the subject’s passive ability (+ proficiency if they have a relevant one). So, in this case, Ned is taking an action - trying to deceive Brog and Suzia - which is contingent on Brog and Suzia’s ability to read people. So he makes a Charisma (Deception) check against the higher of their Wisdom (Insight) DCs. If Brog takes an action - such as watching Ned’s body language for signs of nervousness - I would have Brog roll Wisdom (Insight) against Ned’s passive Charisma (Deception) If he is nervous and trying to hide it.</blockquote>

Verification