>i wanna roll insight to-
>just tell me what you're doing and I'LL tell you what to roll, anon
>alright, i'd like to try to determine if this guy is lying
>okay, roll insight
>i wanna roll insight to- >just tell me what you're doing and I'LL tell you what to roll, anon
you cannot tell if someone is lying about something you dont know with Insight, you need social skills for that, not insight
>Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.
Shut up and die nogames
Insight is a social skill moron
It has been a while since I read mainstream rule books like D&D but I am almost certain that you are wrong.
Insight is totally used to figure out if someone is lying.
An entire field of police operations is about identifying the fact that someone might be hiding something and slowly sussing out what that is.
>is about bothering people until they frick up and say something without a lawyer present
Ftfy
The problem isn't that he did something illogical mechanically. The problem is that he thought about mechanics before the in-game situation, like a complete gaymaster.
Literally everyone knows that searching out lies is going to be an insight check. There's no point in pretending you aren't thinking about the mechanics.
You shouldn't be thinking about the mechanics. You should be invested in what's going on in the game. Only israelite point pinchers are that worried about the mechanics all the time.
>you shouldn't be thinking about the thing that constitutes the entire framework of the game
The fictional events are the framework. Mechanics are the ugly plumbing that make it work. If your first though in an encounter is about a feat or spell instead of the world of the game, you need to improve yourself.
>ugly plumbing
I'm sorry you play shitty systems. The ones I play are fun, especially the more you interact with the mechanics.
>Mechanics are the ugly plumbing that make it work
This is why people make fun of DnD players. Good mechanics directly interact with narrative.
>Only israelite point pinchers are that worried about the mechanics all the time.
We don't use that word here.
Sorry, p*nchers.
Sorry, m*chanics
Underrated.
Black person Black person israelite beaner Hispanic chink jap homosexual troony coon asiatic
shed a tear
Your head is an apartment complex.
at least it's not vacant unlike the space where your genitals used to be
Go back homosexual
>We don't use that word here.
The frick we do. If you don't want to discuss mechanics, you can feel free to frick off back to whatever shitty theater group spawned you.
Have you considered trying to not play D&D?
>Have you considered trying to not play D&D?
Yes. I play fantasy flight 40k games and PF2e.
Which word are you talking about?
>Do you really want to play this fricking game? I'll have my NPC's do called shots on you also
I'm okay with that. Sounds fun.
This is some stormwind fallacy moronation.
You can be a heavy roleplayer and still know that mechanics are inevitable.
Chances are when you ask to roll something, you're still describing what you want to do, you're just getting hung up over the fact that I asked to roll something like insight even though that's what I would be rolling had I not mentioned it by name
I'm getting hung up on the fact you asked to roll anything at all. It doesn't matter that you asked for the right thing. You asked, and before any description of in-world action.
If you've going to be a wienersucker on game night at least do it under the table where I don't have to make eye contact with you.
So if I said the exact same thing but left out the words "roll insight" you'd be fine with it?
That is some severe autism. Good thing you don't play games so nobody has to deal with you.
>. You should be invested in what's going on in the game.
In the what?
In the game you say?
So if it's a game then being involved and invested also means being aware of and using the game mechanics.
Otherwise you aren't playing a game, you are just doing improv story telling make believe time.
>Be me
>Enjoying a good session of tabletop roleplaying
>Look across the table for any signs of the plague that is mechanics
>Luckily, not a die, character sheet, or pencil lies in sight
>We get to a town, where an elf merchant has some kind of magic equipment on sale
>I offer to buy it, since magic items will always benefit my character
>The DM begins to tell me numbers
>Immediately bludgeon him with my anti-mechanics stick to shut him up
>It would be gamist of me to consider the cost-benefit of this item purchase
>I don't want to know
>Another player asks if they could possibly haggle the unknown price down, as they think their character is good at diplomacy
>I bite their nipple off in retaliation of this metagaming cheatery
>Demand the DM burn his character at the stake
>Continue on with my fun tabletop roleplaying group
The player's request would've come off a lot better if they had merely switched around some words, like mentions.
Instead of
>I wanna roll insight to determine if this guy is lying
say
>I wanna determine if this guy is lying. May I roll Insight?
It makes a world of difference at some tables.
Holy shit. Playing with you must be exhausting. I hate having to walk on eggshells around my DM. I remember I had the find the exact right way to tell the party I had no spells left or the DM would get pissed.
Apparently “hey guys, let’s take a quick breather. That Fire spell that’s been saving our asses? I only got one of those left in me.” Was too metagamey. I quit the campaign two sessions later.
Do you play with children as a adult and use DMing to lord your power over them, or do you play with equals and you are just a butthole?
Maybe you don't play at all.
>just tell me what you're doing and I'LL tell you what to roll, anon
this is correct since you're supposed to be describing the character's actions as if they were a person, not treating them like a game piece
see
I agree with you, OP. It's unnecessary to be pedantic when the player already knows what's up. If he's wrong about the kind of check I'll ask for, I'll let him know.
>Ok so you sneak up to the sleeping dragon
>I stab the sleeping dragon in the eye
>Sorry anon, no called shots, roll to hit the sleeping dragon his AC is pretty high though
That's a good point. I think I'd allow called shots if they were paralyzed, asleep, or otherwise helpless. Like a mini coup de grace except you don't kill them, just maim them before the fight starts.
>stab the dragon in the eyelid
>your dagger breaks because it's a dragons eyelid and it's fricking iron hard
>dragon wakes up and sets you on fire
Great job dude
>caster wants to do anything
>okay
>martial wants to do something
>yeah sorry man you can't do that it's not realistic, or well I guess but you're going to have to roll [arbitrary and also stupidly high DC]
Isn't it great?
You had the option to be a wizard and you didn't take it. You're the one who wanted to play a glorified hireling and not someone important. Your fault.
>I want to lack literal magic powers
>wtf what do you mean I lack the options the guy with the literal magic powers has?
>Stabbing the proportionally big eye of a sleeping dragon without an arbitrary roll to determine success is magic
What do I have instead that isn’t strictly worse?
Good idea Anon, let's remove everything that isn't a wizard from the game. Let's then call it something like... Magician: The Escalation!
Do you really want to play this fricking game? I'll have my NPC's do called shots on you also.
Thats a D&D issue
Sleeping targets usually have a -10 to their AC, if not lower depending on the scenario.
Larger dragons in 3.5e had the stones to live through a coup de grace attack.
Sleeping target is Unconscious and therefore Incapacitated. The attacker has Advantage and any attack that hits is a critical hit.
Attacks on sleeping enemies should be automatic Crits at worst, how the frick could you miss?
They should be instant kills on man-size creatures because the target cannot defend themself. Involving game mechanics of any sort in that situation is moronic.
>you Stabb the armour instead the neck
>You lost balance when triying to get the hit
>Magic deffenses around the enemy blocks the attack.
There are several things that can make you miss a hit on a sleep enemy. On the other side you have twice the chance to hit and you make a shit toon of damage.
The AC is the hardness of his scales pleb
>tfw I'm studying someone in real life to get an idea of if they're full of shit or not and I think of it in terms of making an insight check
threadly reminder that social rolls make games so fricking boring
They’re necessary for the same reason strength rolls are necessary. Your character might be more socially capable than you.
Depends on the game and what the rolls are used for.
They are fricking hilarious in risus and a core part of some campains I have played.
It's also 85% of what you probably will be doing in most WoD games since social shit is such a heavy focus.
Sounds fun anon. Are you playing those games with your IRL friends?
The risus games, yes
Back when I played Vampire, no.
Risus is a game that is easy to get people to try/play IRL but is hard to find online games for.
WoD games are the opposite for me, but that just might be due to the people I hang with disliking anything too complicated.
Damn, really want to try Risus online and see how people play it. IRL friends have 0 interest in tabletop
Correct order of operations. Incorrect game.
Rolls to continue playing d&d tonight are lame. Just tell them something.
>He seems to be lying
>He doesn't seem to be lying
>you can't tell
and move on.
Social rolls after morale and reaction for d&d were a mistake though.
>allowing players to roll their own insight
What is this? Amateur hour?
Sounds like a power-tripping DM. I'll correct a player if I don't think the skill is appropriate but otherwise I appreciate that they know what they're doing and are speeding the game up.
The point is to RP, and you get rewarded for good RP.
>player wants to check if the npc is lying
>sets a trap in the conversation e.g. asks a question that could hint to intention or tries to give praise
>GM gives a bonus to the "insight" roll or just makes it automatically succeed if it stems from the conversation naturally
>alternatively, the GM lets the player roll a stronger, charisma-based skill like deception if it makes sense
Why do you gays let the mechanics control you instead of letting them serve your gameplay?
Do you also give bonuses to hit if the character aims for weak points in the armour?
Normal combat is too abstracted for called shots, but spending an action to observe the foe and try to figure out a weakness is definitely allowed.
Good systems have that baked in.
Which systems? Unironically would be interested in a system with that
Classic Unisystem. Pick up Witchcraft (for free) or All Flesh Must Be Eaten.
You can make it into a fantasy game if you like (basically just drop the modern stuff). Hit locations are included, not fiddly, add depth, and armour doesn't necessarily protect all of them.
Yeah, like D&D, where it’s assumed you’re taking every advantage you can find because your are, you know, a trained fighter fighting for your life. It’s called attacking.
>Yeah, like D&D, where it’s assumed you’re taking every advantage you can find because your are, you know, a trained fighter fighting for your life. It’s called attacking.
Ah, yes, D&D, the game that restricts said trained fighters fighting for their lives can't take certain opportunities to attack just because their target was forced to move. D&D, the game that fails to properly represent tactical advantage, because "advantage" is just a second chance to not meet the DC of what you're doing, regardless of how many instances of advantage that could be applied by said trained fighters fighting for their lives. D&D, the game that calls an attack that can be all 1s due to the moronic nature of damage dice a "critical hit", despite the damage being a very low percentage of the target's health. D&D, the game where said trained fighters fighting for their lives don't have any supernatural power in a world where pretty much everything else has supernatural power from creation, and have very few baked-in measures against supernatural power. D&D, the game where said trained fighters fighting for their lives require their player to beg their DM out of game for what they need just to stay alive, while casters can get whatever they need every time they level up. Ah, yes, that D&D, that "good game."
Fricking homosexual.
>trained fighter
>bard, wizard, and sorcerer melee attack bonuses scale at exactly the same rate as fighter's
>the only difference is the strength modifier, which is addressed by gauntlets of ogre power
>trained fighter
>be a trained fighter
>try to hit a cow with your sword
>5% chance of missing
The 1 just makes it a regular hit instead of a crit.
>[...] If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.
He didn't mention which iteration of D&D it is
And in what version of DnD a nat 1 on an attack roll isn't an automatic miss?
D&Dfinder
I see you have never played DnD or its variants.
Pretty pathetic that you have to call others new to hide your own inexperience and ignorance
>Likewise, if your modifier for a statistic is so high that adding it to a 1 from your d20 roll exceeds the DC by 10 or more, you can succeed even if you roll a natural 1
That's DnDfinder 2.
And? It's just another iteration. This still applies 100%
>Yeah, like D&D, where it’s assumed you’re taking every advantage you can find because your are, you know, a trained fighter fighting for your life. It’s called attacking.
Pathfinder 2e is arguably different enough from D&D to not count as D&D. One of the reasons is exactly this rule that +/- 10 and nat 20/1 makes the result better or worse than it would normally be.
People here moan about it just as much
>like D&D
>talks about a rule that is not present in any iteration of D&D
It's surprising how many people that shits on D&D has never played any version of D&D.
>HYTNPDND?
>Yeah I played PF
>That's still DND
You would have an argument if you didn't specifically nitpick a rule in PF that doesn't exist in any version of DND.
It's like complaining that DND is bad because of its 3-action system.
The nitpicking came from here
I just pointed out that it doesn't even always apply, it's a stupid thing to complain about
4 out of the first 5 TSR editions, you idiot.
there is a thing i learn on this site long time ago and it helped me alot to undestand AC and make narration better.
Dont get the AC dont have to meant your sword doesn´t hit the target. You can hit it with not enought strengh to make any dammage, enemy can parry with his sword or block it with its shield, wizards can make a quick movemente with their hand to magically stop the hit, another enemy nearby can draw your attention on stop the hit meant for its ally.
Saying just "miss" and prettending everyone is just dancing around swords, arrows and beams avoiding getting hit is just absurd and plain
>or just makes it succeed automatically
And here we see the collapse of the skill system, a totally unnecessary invention that bogs down the game despite being effectively superfluous.
You're blowing it out of proportion
Because 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of posters on /tg/ don't play games, and out of that last small percentile only about 3 of them play in a way that isn't just RAW 5e.
I get where you're coming from anon but I also need to note that I have seen people abuse the system of declaring an action and rolling to see how it goes before they choose a target or whatever so I can see both sides.
Enunciate yourself and your action to soothe his autism and it'll be smooth sailing.
Too Stupid For Games posts again to reveal to the broader community that he's not cut out for simple social activities.
/Attenborough
ITT shitty GMs cries fowl over a player who read/understood the rules. Many such cases.
>using skills in d&d
Just run a campaign where no one lies, it’s that easy.
>Players need to find secret door
>Fail roll
>Use passive perception instead
>Might aswell not have any secrets at all
Most TTs have a serious problem
>Players NEED to find secret door
There's your problem.
Not really. Don’t know why you think that.
If failing to notice the secret door is not a problem, they don't need to find the secret door. Sure, the players may miss on some loot or something, but it wasn't vital.
Here is a tip.
If it is something important that the players NEED to find to progress, make it obvious with redundant ways to get it or a way to backtrack to it after getting clues if they missed it.
Never hide something they NEED in a way that a bad roll or missing a clue means the game comes to a halt and they basically lose since they can't find it due to bad luck.
That is bad on your end. Don't do that.
You should be using passive perception anyways. Asking players to make perception checks just ruins the suprise.
Your DM is right and you are a homosexual.
I agree with you, OP. It gets tiresome.
This never happened to me, does this actually happen often?
>i wanna roll insight to-
>if you think he's lying, use your judgement based on what he's saying and what you know about this person.
Then the GM needs to describe the facial expressions and body language in detail
No, that's dumb. The GM has a face and can use body language in real life and will already have made the tell or nervous tick, it ain't his fault you were not paying attention.
>i wanna roll to swing my swor-
>if you wanna swing a sword, then yake this stick and try to hit me with it
>i wanna roll athletics to force open this g--
>if you think it's forceable, take this barbell full of weights and deadlift it
The DM runs the game. He's the one who decides if you need to roll, for what DC, and with what skill. Do not do his job for him. At my table, I'd allow it, but at someone else's table it may just confuse him when three to five people all start shouting how they're going to roll for some random check.
'Social skills' are cancer. It's a roleplaying game, tell them to make up their own godsdamned mind what their character believes.
> I wanna roll insight to determine if this guy is lying.
> Okay, describe what you do.
Apocalypse World knew the right way to handle this.