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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8058342" data-attributes="member: 97077">A player having the character state that an NPC is a lich is saying what the character thinks which is entirely in the domain of the player's role per the rules (barring some kind of magical compulsion or the like). There's nothing to test here with game mechanics because the player hasn't stated an action that the DM can adjudicate. Intelligence checks resolve the outcome of a task to recall lore or make deductions when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. That's not what is going on when a player has a character act based on the player's knowledge. There is no rules-prescribed prohibitions on action declarations because of the limitations of a character's knowledge. A character doesn't have to know that fire's useful against trolls to hit it with a lit torch.There is no support for the "no metagaming" position in the D&D 5e rules. It's a table rule at the social contract level and, in my view, an identity for many groups. One might be able to find support for this position in other games, but not this one.Which is a clue that the game doesn't care about the sort of "metagaming" some people are talking about in this thread. It's being dragged into this game by some folks from other games that did care about it. And that's fine - people can play how they want, obviously. But I think it's worth examining where this thinking comes from and whether it's actually useful in the context of this game.</blockquote>

Verification