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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6901098" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I assume you mean to say, "at the start of combat." Does this rule apply to any sort of deception? Wouldn't it have to be an effort to convince the other party that you are not a threat? Do you not let players decide for their characters whether they are convinced by such efforts or not? As a DM, I would never tell a player that their character is convinced of something by a Charisma check made by a NPC.To me, a sucker punch is a matter of winning initiative. Both parties are aware of each other, and one decides to attack the other. Initiative is rolled. If the aggressor wins initiative then she gets in the first punch because her target is slow to react. If not, then her target might give her a quick jab while she's still in mid-swing.This assumes that the true intentions of creatures are automatically known unless they are making an effort to deceive. I would rather that their intentions remain unknown unless you make an effort to determine them. I say this because usually when you notice a creature then you aren't surprised when it attacks. If this depends on being able to determine that they intend to harm you then it must be fairly obvious when they do, only necessitating an Insight check if, like your PCs, the creature is attempting to hide its true intentions. My problem with this is that it creates the, to me, odd situation that, as a player, I will always be surprised unless I can first positively determine that my attacker means to do me harm, i.e., that in the absence of that information, because I failed an Insight check, I cannot decide that my character nevertheless remains suspicious of the creature's intentions and the possibility that it may indeed be a threat.</blockquote>

Verification