Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7789192" data-attributes="member: 6779196">A declaration of an attack requires, at minimum, a target and a weapon. The declaration of the target communicates the goal: kill the target (or knock them out, which you would also need to specify as part of the declaration). The declaration of the weapon communicates the approach: by hitting it with the weapon. Therefore, “I Attack the orc with my longsword” is sufficient information for the DM to determine whether or not a dice roll is necessary to resolve the action - which it may or may not be! For instance, if the target is immune to damage from nonmagical weapons, I won’t bother calling for an attack roll if the attacker is using a nonmagical weapon, because there is no chance of success. If the target is incapacitated, I won’t call for an attack roll because there’s no chance of failure.See, “studying closely, listening for pauses or lines that sound overly-rehearsed,” that sounds like an approach to me. What’s your goal? What are you trying to learn by doing this? The answer will have an impact on whether or not you need to make a check to achieve that goal with that approach. “Insight check” is neither an approach nor a goal, it is a means of task resolution.“I make a thieves tool check” is sufficiently clear. It communicates a goal (open the lock you’re picking) and an approach (with thieves’ tools). If a player declared that as an action at my table, I would say, “sure, that’ll take 10 minutes and a successful DC X Dexterity check, with your Thieves’ Tools proficiency of course” if the lock could be picked and there was some kind of time pressure. If the lock was beyond the character’s skill to pick, I would say, “no need, you can’t pick it.” If it could be picked and there was no time pressure, I would say, “no need, you’ll eventually get it open.”I mean, detecting lies is not the only thing Insight can be used for, and like any check it is only called for in response to an action (with a clear goal and approach) that the player announces. So, I don’t agree that any discernible pattern will emerge from when the DM dies and does not call for a Wisdom check. The only information you gain from the DM calling for a Wisdom check to resolve your action is that it is possible, but risky. to achieve that particular goal by that particular method.I wouldn’t ask them both for Insight checks unless they both announced actions with possibility of success, failure, consequences, etc. so I’m not sure what you’re driving at here.</blockquote>

Verification