Is it ok to lie to players rolling a insight? [closed]

I’ve just started DMing.

I have a question about the Insight mechanic. I’ve formulated this problem using D&D but the system is otherwise irrelevant, I’m just asking about idea.

How does insight work? Is it about expectations of players or actual situation (bluff or not)? Is it ok to lie in response to a low result as long as it’s what the player expects?

Let me present an example. Let’s say I have a paladin in my game who is evil (but the players don’t know that). He asks the players to kill some evil people, his servants. The paladin’s motives are to kill the servants because they were disobedient as well as kill players because they are threat to him. This request is probably suicidal because the players probably can’t accomplish the task. The paladin knows that.

One of these servants is cruel, bloodthirsty and totally opposite to the paladin’s behavior. After a fight with this servant, the players talk to him. He says that the paladin is his leader.

That seems absurd to the players, so they roll an insight check and get a 5, which is far below the DC.

What to do?

  • Lie to them that this guy is bluffing? He’s not but it fits in expectations of players.

  • Don’t roll at all in the first place because no deception has occurred.

Dice rolling mechanic where modifiers have a predictable and consistent effect on difficulty

I am looking for a dice rolling mechanic that makes it such that increasing or decreasing a modifier on the roll has a constant multiplier effect on the probability of the outcome.

Say you have to make a roll for STAT. Such a roll has a probability of success of 50%. Now say you roll with a mod of -1, this roll has a probability of success of 25%. -2 has a probability of 12.5%. -3 is 6.25% and so on, always halving. The other way around it should be the same but for the probability of failure, always being divided by the same factor.

It doesn’t have to be a multiplier of 0.5, in fact I’d much rather it was a multiplier of 0.66-0.75, not such an extreme change. The default unmodded value doesn’t need to be 50% chance of success either, it can be something else.

Is there any kind of dice rolling mechanic I can use to simulate something like this?

Class ability can be used “When you make your first attack”; is it before or after rolling the dice? [closed]

Barbarian Reckless Attack is one of them:

When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly…

When exactly “you make your first attack”??

  1. When you declare the attack / target.
  2. Before Rolling the Dice.
  3. After rolling the dice, but before knowing hit / miss.
  4. After deciding hit / miss, before rolling for damage.
  5. After damage is dealt.

P.S.: This is about the wording, not about the barbarian ability. It is included only as an example of the wording appearing in official text.

Rolling back transaction with trx_mysql_thread_id of 0 create deadlocks on update

I’m using MySQL 5.6.41 on AWS RDS.

I have seen, recently, lot of transactions ending as deadlocks.

Using SELECT * FROM information_schema.innodb_trx;

I found that a transaction was always there.

+--------------+--------------+---------------------+-----------------------+------------------+------------+---------------------+-----------+---------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+-------------------+------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------------------------+ |    trx_id    |  trx_state   |     trx_started     | trx_requested_lock_id | trx_wait_started | trx_weight | trx_mysql_thread_id | trx_query | trx_operation_state | trx_tables_in_use | trx_tables_locked | trx_lock_structs | trx_lock_memory_bytes | trx_rows_locked | trx_rows_modified | trx_concurrency_tickets | trx_isolation_level | trx_unique_checks | trx_foreign_key_checks | trx_last_foreign_key_error | trx_adaptive_hash_latched | trx_adaptive_hash_timeout | trx_is_read_only | trx_autocommit_non_locking | +--------------+--------------+---------------------+-----------------------+------------------+------------+---------------------+-----------+---------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+-------------------+------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------------------------+ | 294492387379 | ROLLING BACK | 2020-09-10 09:03:09 |                       |                  |   60603568 |                   0 |           |                     |                 0 |                 0 |             1911 |                194088 |            1676 |          60601657 |                       0 | REPEATABLE READ     |                 1 |                      1 |                            |                         0 |                     10000 |                0 |                          0 | +--------------+--------------+---------------------+-----------------------+------------------+------------+---------------------+-----------+---------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+-------------------+------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+------------------+----------------------------+ 

I have found a ROLLING BACK transaction with a trx_mysql_thread_id of 0. This transaction was the one blocking others.

To be sure, I ran this: SELECT * FROM information_schema.innodb_lock_waits;

+-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+ | requesting_trx_id |      requested_lock_id      | blocking_trx_id |      blocking_lock_id       | +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+ |      294906405784 | 294906405784:426:27705081:4 |    294492387379 | 294492387379:426:27705081:4 | |      294906405563 | 294906405563:426:16826188:4 |    294492387379 | 294492387379:426:16826188:4 | +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+  

This command XA RECOVER; gives no results.

Is there a way to terminate the blocking transaction? Or find what is causing this?

What is the mechanical reason for rolling the same initiative for a group of creatures?

The 5th ed Players handbook states that

The GM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.

Historically in other systems I have rolled initiative for all NPC’s individually, allowing for the fact some may react quicker then there counterparts.

Has the reason for this bulk rolling of NPCs ever been explained, or is it simply a mechanic to make things run smoother?

Can you choose to use abilities like Stunning Strike or Divine Smite after rolling damage?

There are certain abilities that require you to first make a hit, then you can choose whether or not to use that ability.

Two examples that I can think of are a monk’s Stunning Strike and a paladin’s Divine Smite (there are others, but I won’t enumerate them all here; an answerer is welcome to if they wish to do so):

Stunning Strike
Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent’s body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn.

Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.

Neither of these abilities specify whether or not you can declare these abilities before or after resolving damage. There are other abilities that say "after you know the roll, but before the DM tells you whether it was a success" or similar wording, but that usually relates to the d20 roll, not damage rolls.


Am I able to roll to attack, hit, roll damage, then make the decision as to whether to spend resources on an ability like Stunning Strike or Divine Smite? If I am allowed to do so after rolling damage, what about before or after the DM tells me the effects of the damage (e.g. did it kill the enemy or not)? Intuitively, it feels to me as though the answer is before damage only, but I’m not seeing anything that implies that this is the case RAW.

If this is something that isn’t specified and is up to the DM, then so be it, but I’m specifically interested to know if there’s any general rule anywhere that resolves this RAW, or whether I’m just not reading those abilities quoted above correctly (or whether there’s another, similar ability that does make it a bit more explicit, and I just chose poor examples).