Question about using the spell detect thoughts in combat.

[Throne12]

So I was thinking about how I could use detect thoughts while in combat. So here is what I was thinking.

1. You use it to see what the enemy is going to do on it turn so you can tell the part whats going to happen. So they can prepare to counter. I hear you saying what good is that. Well say the enemy thinking its hurting too much and it going to heal its self. So you tell your warlock not to use eb but use his cantrip chilling touch. So it can heal any hp. Now I do hear you saying then the person playing the enemy change his action. Well that would be meta game and don't let that happen. Or everybody scatter he going to cast fireball.


So what do yall think. Don't make me spend my last spell slot on detect thought on you. Just so I can get an answer.

[Corran]

I think it is interesting on an idea level, but in practice it's going to be high cost (action and 2nd lvl slot) for little or no gain. First of all, you need the enemy to fail the save. So let's assume that the enemy fails the save, and you learn that he intends to use fire against you (very DM dependent obviously). Lets assume that you guess fireball correctly. Lets assume that most of the pc's play before the enemy, and thus they indeed manage to scatter on their turn. The enemy is seeing all this happening (assuming you are using classic initiative), so he can now choose not to use fireball. Maybe that's going to be really great for your party, because the enemy might not have much else going for them aside for a strong AoE attack. But you really need a lot of things to go your way for this to be worth it, and I am not feeling it (although I do like it as an idea). Better if you are using some kind of variant initiative (your mention of declaring actions makes me think that you might), but I can't say if it's actually going to be any good even then.

[MrStabby]

I would let the caster of the spell know what spells NPCs were casting for sure, to help them know if they might want to use counterspell or not.

[Lunali]

I think it is interesting on an idea level, but in practice it's going to be high cost (action and 2nd lvl slot) for little or no gain. First of all, you need the enemy to fail the save. So let's assume that the enemy fails the save, and you learn that he intends to use fire against you (very DM dependent obviously). Lets assume that you guess fireball correctly. Lets assume that most of the pc's play before the enemy, and thus they indeed manage to scatter on their turn. The enemy is seeing all this happening (assuming you are using classic initiative), so he can now choose not to use fireball. Maybe that's going to be really great for your party, because the enemy might not have much else going for them aside for a strong AoE attack. But you really need a lot of things to go your way for this to be worth it, and I am not feeling it (although I do like it as an idea). Better if you are using some kind of variant initiative (your mention of declaring actions makes me think that you might), but I can't say if it's actually going to be any good even then.

While I agree with most of what you're saying, you don't need them to fail their save. Their actions for the next round of combat are going to be surface thoughts, the saving throw is only if you want to get deeper than that.

[Man_Over_Game]

While I agree with most of what you're saying, you don't need them to fail their save. Their actions for the next round of combat are going to be surface thoughts, the saving throw is only if you want to get deeper than that.

Agreed. I'd probably just make it a generic "Spend your Reaction to cause Disadvantage to attacks against you from the target, or gain Advantage on Saving Throws it forces you to make".

[Mellack]

It seems a very costly plan. The spell requires you to spend your action each round. I would let you know their planned action, but they would still be able to change their mind as events alter. Seems to me a small benefit for the cost.

[Corran]

While I agree with most of what you're saying, you don't need them to fail their save. Their actions for the next round of combat are going to be surface thoughts, the saving throw is only if you want to get deeper than that.
Looks like I made my own ruling without even realizing it. I'd have things like fight or flee and the mentality of the enemy (cautious, aggressive, etc) be surface thoughts, while more specific things (like charge head on, use spells from afar, etc) be things you could be able to discern after a failed save. Though it definitely affects my view that I am thinking of how the spell works before combat is initiated (or at first round of combat). Perhaps what you are saying makes more sense when you are already fighting.

There are some narrative pitfalls though. For example, while I can see your interpretation (ie next round actions) working well against, say, a studied fencer (princess bride duel, where they are talking as they are fencing comes to mind), it wouldn't do as much against someone who fights instinctively, like a frenzied barbarian (who is thinking 'smash smash smash' at best). And the hard thing is to translate the knowledge to an actual benefit, cause RAW it does not matter if you know that the enemy is going to swing from the left, though I guess that's what advantage/disadvantage is for, as MOG suggested.

[Kyutaru]

You use it to see what the enemy is going to do on it turn so you can tell the part whats going to happen. So they can prepare to counter.
It's a good and proper use of the spell that follows with what it RAW permits. I wouldn't go so far as to impose disadvantage or anything (that condition grows less meaningful daily). At first I thought about just adding a small circumstantial bonus to AC but honestly it doesn't even need it. Lots of video games have effects that let you know what the enemy is going to do on their turn and that alone is a tremendous tactical advantage.

Why you would need a tremendous tactical advantage against an orc I don't know. But if it was against something more dangerous, like say a dragon, knowing when it's going to breathe fire could be critical information. Of course the dragon will probably notice your mental intrusion and duel you for the information with an Intelligence contest.

[Lunali]

Looks like I made my own ruling without even realizing it. I'd have things like fight or flee and the mentality of the enemy (cautious, aggressive, etc) be surface thoughts, while more specific things (like charge head on, use spells from afar, etc) be things you could be able to discern after a failed save. Though it definitely affects my view that I am thinking of how the spell works before combat is initiated (or at first round of combat). Perhaps what you are saying makes more sense when you are already fighting.

Mentality of the enemy seems a lot more like the stuff you get from a failed save: insight into its reasoning (if any), its emotional state, and something that looms large in its mind

Detect thoughts is a particularly nasty spell because it doesn't have a save for the basic effect and doesn't have to be cast while the "target" is present as the actual target of the spell is the caster. This means that unless you try to push deeper, the target won't know that you're reading their thoughts. This makes it extremely useful for interrogation as most people don't try to control their thoughts and will naturally think of the answer to a question if you ask it.