Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gryph" data-source="post: 5572259" data-attributes="member: 98071">I think the rule says that they know the effect and the source, not necessarily how the source achieved the effect. "So that wizard used a spell to make me do something I wasn't going to.", is sufficient to cover the knowledge granted under the rules. Nowhere does the rule about affected creature knowledge dictate actions or reactions relative to that knowledge. The dog in your question may react at a instinctual level akin to "fire bad, run away" but I don't think however the DM decides an npc responds to knowledge of effects on itself is a matter of rule or inherently immersion breaking. Though, honestly, when I'm DMing I never worry about my own sense of immersion, I filter npc actions to the scene at hand to try and maintain the players SoD. I could go either way with the ooze and riposte strike. Maybe the ooze sees the rogue as a good food source and has no ability to anticipate the damage from the riposte; or maybe the ooze having just been smacked by its food decides to go try that other walking food over there. I would choose between them based on the play on the mat and what I think would be the most fun (valuing fun includes considerations of immersion) for the table, at that moment.</blockquote>