Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 6491141" data-attributes="member: 12377">Hmmm, steeldragons, I feel like I'm not communicating clearly.I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an action. In fact, spending an action is kind important to my thesis: if the character blows a precious turn doing something ineffective to the phantasm, maybe they should get SOME small benefit out of it, like a chance to notice that something is wrong (but only if their action involved looking closely at the phantasm, because otherwise that wouldn't make sense).I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an ability check. I left off the second half of that sentence for brevity, precisely because it didn't impact my argument: yes, of course you make the ability check, and I wasn't disputing that so I didn't include it. But maybe that made my argument unclear. I've added the rest of that sentence to my original post.Does &quot;just so&quot; mean &quot;that's right&quot;?I mean, I think we can all agree that if the player says, &quot;I use an action to examine the summoned demon&quot; then they get to make the Int (Investigation) check to see through the illusion.But what if the player says, &quot;I look at the summoned demon carefully.&quot; Or how about, &quot;What's up with this demon? Can I make some sort of ability check to learn more?&quot; Or how about, &quot;Is there any way for me to get past the demon?&quot; Or how about, &quot;Crapola, I put over 150 points of damage into that thing and it isn't going down! How hurt is it?&quot; Or how about, &quot;I carefully line up my aim and let fly one of my precious +1 arrows!&quot; Or how about, &quot;Is there any chance this thing could be an illusion instead of a summoned monster?&quot;Any of those could be actions, and could involve enough &quot;examination&quot; to warrant the Int check. I think the rules explicitly let the DM decide, so if our decisions differ, that's not really a RAW vs. house rules issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 6491141, member: 12377"] Hmmm, steeldragons, I feel like I'm not communicating clearly. I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an action. In fact, spending an action is kind important to my thesis: if the character blows a precious turn doing something ineffective to the phantasm, maybe they should get SOME small benefit out of it, like a chance to notice that something is wrong (but only if their action involved looking closely at the phantasm, because otherwise that wouldn't make sense). I never said seeing through this illusion shouldn't require an ability check. I left off the second half of that sentence for brevity, precisely because it didn't impact my argument: yes, of course you make the ability check, and I wasn't disputing that so I didn't include it. But maybe that made my argument unclear. I've added the rest of that sentence to my original post. Does "just so" mean "that's right"? I mean, I think we can all agree that if the player says, "I use an action to examine the summoned demon" then they get to make the Int (Investigation) check to see through the illusion. But what if the player says, "I look at the summoned demon carefully." Or how about, "What's up with this demon? Can I make some sort of ability check to learn more?" Or how about, "Is there any way for me to get past the demon?" Or how about, "Crapola, I put over 150 points of damage into that thing and it isn't going down! How hurt is it?" Or how about, "I carefully line up my aim and let fly one of my precious +1 arrows!" Or how about, "Is there any chance this thing could be an illusion instead of a summoned monster?" Any of those could be actions, and could involve [i]enough[/i] "examination" to warrant the Int check. I think the rules explicitly let the DM decide, so if our decisions differ, that's not really a RAW vs. house rules issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification