DM Help Telling the PCs the AC of the enemy? [Archive]

jaydubs

2014-07-18, 09:34 PM

AC - Once they hit it a few times, sure. And you might mention if something looks particularly quick, or particularly armored, so they have an idea that it's a high or low AC creature. But just starting a fight by saying "it's AC 23" breaks the immersion a bit.

SR - I wouldn't give out the target number, but definitely reveal there is SR once a spell is cast against the target.

Saves - You shouldn't reveal saves unless they make a good knowledge roll. It's too easy to pick and choose the most effective spells if you do that. But throwing in a few hints during the monster description is a nice touch. It looks fast/powerful/intelligent, etc.

CMD - Similar to AC, once they wrestle with it a bit. Otherwise, it should stay hidden.

Pex

2014-07-18, 09:35 PM

The players can figure it out on their own. If you roll a 12 and miss but next turn roll a 13 and hit with all circumstances the same, you know the opponent's AC. It's not a crime against humanity, and it's not metagame. The character is right there facing the opponent. The character sees his opponent actively defending himself and/or using natural defenses. The AC is the extrapolation.

heavyfuel

2014-07-18, 09:39 PM

Nope.

It shouldn't slow down gameplay if your players, because the only difference between them knowing or not the AC is that they have to tell you "Does a 21 hit?" and you have to reply "Yes/No". Telling them enemies AC is SOOOO metagamey that it's ridiculous. Seriously, not even video games do this. When was the last time you were playing a game and your enemies had all their stats on the screen for you to see?

What you should tell them is if an enemy is agile (high Dex), or in a Full Plate with Tower Shield, and then they can draw their conclusions from that.

While naming AC is a bad move, telling Saves, SR and CMD is borderline insanity. How on earth are the PCs supposed to know if a random guy is strong or weak willed? Or if the guy has 13 levels in monk just by looking at him? Seriously, don't do this.

If you must speed things up, give players a 30~ seconds limit to make their rounds. Seriously, a round is 6 seconds in game time, if they take more than 5 times that amount to say something and do basic math, then they just stood around doing nothing for that turn.

Before anyone says that this doesn't work, it did at my table, where we had one problem player that took forever to make his play. After the implementation of this rule, he learned how to not contemplate every single possibility before acting, and everyone was happy.

Crustypeanut

2014-07-18, 09:42 PM

What about for play-by-posts, which are to be honest, rather slow?

I have one DM who tells us these things, not to mention lumps the PCs in one initiative and the enemies in another (I assume he adds their totals and see which team rolls higher). His combats go much faster than the one I'm DMing for, and it seems to be going fairly well - whereas the one I'm DMing I do it 'normal' and its going slower. But there also may be more enthusiasm for his campaign XD (He's doing RotR Anniversary, and I'm doing a modified Shattered Star)

I do agree with your guys' points though, which is why I wanted to get everyone's opinion before just doing it. It DOES feel metagamey for sure. Plus, with the changes I'm making to the Shattered Star campaign, I'm hoping to make it rather challenging - buut.. its going at a snails pace.

Though it may go faster if I simply do as he does and lump their initiative together based on which group collectively rolls higher, yet not tell them the AC and whatnot..

Yahzi

2014-07-18, 10:33 PM

Or if the guy has 13 levels in monk just by looking at him?
A world in which the players are perpetually mystified is a world in which they cannot make interesting choices.

The real world has a very high bandwidth. A DM describing an NPC has a very low bandwidth. Class level is one of the ways we communicate a lot of information quickly.

If you ever saw a 13th level monk, you would know from the way he walked, or maybe when he goes to slap a mosquito, or if you see him dance (the whole point of dancing is to show off your skills). Especially if you are also a leveled fighter and thus have lots of experience with combat.

Your players should be able to determine the danger of a given encounter so they know whether to attack, negotiate, or run. If they can't tell how dangerous stuff is, how can they make this decision? On the other hand, if they rely on you to only give them encounters they can beat, they will always attack and always expect to win.

So I don't have a problem telling my players what level people are. Most of the people in my world broadcast their level by the title they introduce themselves as. A guy calls himself Duke, you better take him seriously.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-07-18, 10:40 PM

Sometimes, to speed up play. Usually after they attacked a few times and gotten an idea of it anyway. The longer a combat begins to drag, the more lazy I get with enforcing the metagame divide in general. I'll even start displaying the current hp / total hp of the monster sometimes, just so they know another hit or two will do it, please don't waste a round buffing/healing/summoning/etc...
Play online via maptools. I have a macro set up to inflict damage that then displays the results to all. And then a "NPC damage" macro to apply it w/o the display of change in current hp to everyone so the players won't know. So what I mean is, I'll just start using the former macro instead.

EDIT: Another thing I do when I'm getting tired of a battle running on is to stop having the monsters use as optimal tactics as they previously were. Such as drawing more AoOs, or *not* putting up another stinking cloud* after everyone has escaped the first, even though the NPC can. I know I shouldn't do that stuff, but dang it sometimes I just want to move on with the session...
*I've found as a DM I hate having NPCs use battlefield control at all. It ALWAYS slows the game down to a crawl when done to the PCs, without fail. I've been gravitating more towards just using blast spells even though they suck, just to speed things up. It's just a shock to me; as a player BFC is about the only sort of caster I like playing.

Flickerdart

2014-07-18, 10:42 PM

There are rules in Oriental Adventures for using a Sense Motive roll to get things like BAB and Iaijutsu Focus ranks from your enemies. Both are pretty good indicators of power.

Though my players generally trust me to send things against them that they care about. Fighting 1st level commoners is not a good use of their time, and neither is getting ground into a fine powder by Bahamut.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-18, 10:48 PM

Kantolin

2014-07-18, 10:49 PM

I suppose I do a mix of the two.

I don't immediately state this, although I do give qualifiers behind my statements. Things like, "It takes awhile to find the hole in the hobgoblin's defenses" vs "It almost seems like the orc is leaning /into/ your swing" both are 'you hit' while giving extra information.

After a few rounds of combat, however, I usually give some sort of number range to speed things along and keep combat flowing. 'If it's over 20 you hit' works, especially if they've gotten somewhere near a 20.

Crustypeanut

2014-07-18, 10:51 PM

S

EDIT: Another thing I do when I'm getting tired of a battle running on is to stop having the monsters use as optimal tactics as they previously were. Such as drawing more AoOs, or *not* putting up another stinking cloud* after everyone has escaped the first, even though the NPC can. I know I shouldn't do that stuff, but dang it sometimes I just want to move on with the session...
*I've found as a DM I hate having NPCs use battlefield control at all. It ALWAYS slows the game down to a crawl when done to the PCs, without fail. I've been gravitating more towards just using blast spells even though they suck, just to speed things up. It's just a shock to me; as a player BFC is about the only sort of caster I like playing.

I've found that using battlefield control as the DM is also quite the hassle, despite it being instinctive. Later in the campaign, I had planned on having a particular 'boss' use Fog Cloud in order to sneak around and sneak attack (She had a feat that allowed that), along with her high stealth - but in playtesting it, it went for nearly 15 rounds. Didn't help that she had DR 10/silver, heh.

So I'm going to only use BFC -sparingly- as a DM. Later on even after that, the players will fight monsters who can use Darkness at will - THAT will be where I'll use it quite a bit, because its a natural ability of said monsters. And Derro + Darkness is fairly iconic as far as they go :P (Only two of my players have Darkvision - its gonna be a bumpy ride)

elonin

2014-07-18, 11:02 PM

I've been in games that used the sense motive to give a clue about the relative power of your opponent's power level. The only way to keep players in the dark is to make their rolls for them behind the screen. Which with abilities like luck domain re-rolls is impractical.

Gnaeus

2014-07-18, 11:08 PM

So I'm going to only use BFC -sparingly- as a DM. Later on even after that, the players will fight monsters who can use Darkness at will - THAT will be where I'll use it quite a bit, because its a natural ability of said monsters. And Derro + Darkness is fairly iconic as far as they go :P (Only two of my players have Darkvision - its gonna be a bumpy ride)

Just FYI, Darkness is only shadowy illumination. PCs can still tell where the enemy is, it is only a 20% miss chance. Also, Darkvision is irrelevant to magical darkness, per the spell description.

Crustypeanut

2014-07-18, 11:13 PM

Just FYI, Darkness is only shadowy illumination. PCs can still tell where the enemy is, it is only a 20% miss chance. Also, Darkvision is irrelevant to magical darkness, per the spell description.

They'll be deep underground, so it causes the area to become pitch-black, as thats the 'natural lighting' of the area. Because this is Pathfinder, the Darkness spell doesn't affect those with Darkvision, though I believe 3.5 had it affect DV.

So the PCs will be fighting in pitch-black conditions while fighting these guys. With the exception of the Orc and Gnome (Who picked an alternate racial trait and got Darkvision), they'll be effectively blind. Granted, they'll be high enough level to cast the Darkvision spell, so if one of the three people who can prepare that do so, good on 'em.

heavyfuel

2014-07-19, 12:52 AM

A world in which the players are perpetually mystified is a world in which they cannot make interesting choices.

The real world has a very high bandwidth. A DM describing an NPC has a very low bandwidth. Class level is one of the ways we communicate a lot of information quickly.

If you ever saw a 13th level monk, you would know from the way he walked, or maybe when he goes to slap a mosquito, or if you see him dance (the whole point of dancing is to show off your skills). Especially if you are also a leveled fighter and thus have lots of experience with combat.

Your players should be able to determine the danger of a given encounter so they know whether to attack, negotiate, or run. If they can't tell how dangerous stuff is, how can they make this decision? On the other hand, if they rely on you to only give them encounters they can beat, they will always attack and always expect to win.

So I don't have a problem telling my players what level people are. Most of the people in my world broadcast their level by the title they introduce themselves as. A guy calls himself Duke, you better take him seriously.

I do think that naming classes in game is dumb. Can you honestly imagine a guy coming up to you with a serious face and saying "Hello, I am Hitulian. Rogue, Thug Fighter, Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Factotum and Swordsage!"? If you answer "yes" to that, you and I have seriously different definitions of how a class should be portrayed in game.

Now, for the Monk. Who says they've seen a 13th level Monk before? Even if they did, not all monks are the same. Maybe the Monk they saw was actually an Unarmed Swordsage, maybe it was a Fighter with Superior Unarmed Strike, Snap Kick and great Dexterity, maybe it was a Battle Dancer that liked his head bald. Archetypes are different from classes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

Should players know the danger of a given encounter? I think only sometimes. Unless they've seen the person fight before, there's little information they can draw by simply seeing someone. In a world with magical healing aplenty, there are no battle scars or anything to show that the person is very experienced. If he wears a mantle to conceal the loads of magical items at his disposal, you can't know that he's a skillful adventurer and even then, a +5 Longsword of Speed and Colision isn't in anyway different from a Masterwork one 70% of the time (and isn't different from a +1 longsword 100% of the time). Even if he looks like a badass, maybe his Charisma is just really high. If they see a monster, they can't know if the creature is strong or weak unless they've at least heard/read about them before (knowledge skill or bardic knowledge)

And is it just me or you're basically saying they should only negotiate if the guy is too strong for them? Reinforcing the murder-hobo stereotype much? :smallwink:

Does EVERYONE broadcast their level? Like, even the hermit Druid that likes to remain on the downlow? Or the Rogue that's currently wanted in all eight kingdoms?

I don't buy this. Saying that your players can draw that much information just by seeing someone isn't in any way realistic

Flickerdart

2014-07-19, 01:02 AM

I do think that naming classes in game is dumb. Can you honestly imagine a guy coming up to you with a serious face and saying "Hello, I am Hitulian. Rogue, Thug Fighter, Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Factotum and Swordsage!"? If you answer "yes" to that, you and I have seriously different definitions of how a class should be portrayed in game.
I know you're intentionally trying to make up an outrageous example, but that sounds like a pretty awesome epithet, exactly the sort that a guy with those classes might use. "Hey ladies," he would say, slipping his hand around a comely lass's waist, "did you know that I'm a swashbuckler and a sword sage? That's right, I do all kinds of mystical sword stuff while I'm fighting on the high seas. Perhaps later tonight, I'll show you my stone dragon's fury *slap* my adamantine bones *slap* my raging mongoose *slap* my rising phoenix *slap* my stance of alacrity *slap*."

JusticeZero

2014-07-19, 02:15 AM

usually, I do around round three. By then, they've already sized them up a bit and swung at them a few times.

Silva Stormrage

2014-07-19, 03:14 AM

Ya I sometimes just say the AC, especially if the PC's are making like 20 attacks in a round (Summons full attacks etc etc) they could probably pin it down to a 1-2 accuracy range anyway and it just speeds things up. If they have power attack I am less likely to share it immediately and never before they attack and get at least a vague idea.

Also I never share it if the creature has a really easy way or common way to have a variable ac.

jiriku

2014-07-19, 07:11 AM

I do not. It does slow the game very slightly. I feel that the additional uncertainty and suspense is worth it.

Crustypeanut

2014-07-19, 07:59 AM

Before the fight, I tell the players only what they can see - types of armour, whether the opponent moves really quickly or slowly, whether the creature has a lot of blubber, thick fur, scaly hide, bony dermal plates, etc. They can infer some AC details from that.

Once in the fight, they can determine it by trial and error from whether their attack rolls hit or miss.

Thats what I do right now and I think I'm going to stick with that.

Jermz

2014-07-19, 08:01 AM

In the groups that I've played in (both as a DM and PC), the general rule of thumb is not to disclose the enemy's AC. Eventually, after a few rounds of hitting and missing, it's possible for the PCs to make an educated guess and pinpoint around what rolls they need in order to hit. I tend to agree that it makes fights a bit more interesting, at least in the beginning few rounds, thanks to the suspense. I'll also give them information, similar to the poster above me, about armor, movement, speed and such so that they have a relative idea before they actually start rolling dice.

Thealtruistorc

2014-07-19, 08:10 AM

No. However, I do allow players to learn a creature's natural armor or bonus to one saving throw through a DC 35 monster knowledge check.

Firechanter

2014-07-19, 09:28 AM

As most people above, and I also tell them if it was a "close miss", "barely hit" etc. So if they roll a 22 and I say "close miss" they can infer it's AC 23-24.

Knaight

2014-07-19, 10:05 AM

Seriously, not even video games do this. When was the last time you were playing a game and your enemies had all their stats on the screen for you to see?

This is pretty much standard for strategy games. Maybe you have to mouse over them, but it's there.

As for AC, it's generally a pretty transparent stat. What armor is worn is usually going to be known, barring it being deliberately concealed - with natural armor, it's a hair vaguer, but the general extent of it is generally visible. How quickly someone is moving is also pretty immediately apparent, and as D&D doesn't incorporate weapon skill into AC at all, that about covers it. I operate off of hearing totals then saying if they hit or not, but it's not like the players don't generally know the AC to within a few points.

Also, nobody is saying that AC or classes should be treated as in-game constructs. What's being said is that the characters get to observe way more than will ever be described, and as such meta game information can be directly conferred to get that across.

atomicwaffle

2014-07-19, 10:45 AM

I usually wait until the aforementioned "15 misses, 16 hits" to disclose AC, IF combat is dragging along slowly. Because, flavourwise, the PC's know exactly what it takes to hit the guy. I do not disclose if it's like "15 misses, 17 hits". But if a PC rolls 15> and goes "i miss" without confirmation from me, that's what i aim for. That way, they're involved in the combat, and not just rolling dice and doing math, they want to take this guy out.

In combat i try to focus more on describing the scene. "He takes a diagonal slash with his battle axe" "A gut shot from a spear glances sideways, but you still suffer some damage" "You feel a satisfying crack as your mace hits their left side".

Also something i do, if someone kills an enemy on a crit, THEY get to help me describe what happens to them.

heavyfuel

2014-07-19, 11:32 AM

This is pretty much standard for strategy games. Maybe you have to mouse over them, but it's there.

Fair enough. I was really thinking about RPG games, but it is true for strategy games.

As for AC, it's generally a pretty transparent stat. What armor is worn is usually going to be known, barring it being deliberately concealed - with natural armor, it's a hair vaguer, but the general extent of it is generally visible. How quickly someone is moving is also pretty immediately apparent, and as D&D doesn't incorporate weapon skill into AC at all, that about covers it. I operate off of hearing totals then saying if they hit or not, but it's not like the players don't generally know the AC to within a few points.

Armor worn can be deceiving as the rule for shining as bright as torch applies only to weapons, not armors. So a +5 Heavy Fortification Full Plate and the Masterwork one look exactly the same. Natural armor is also a bit iffy: you can't really know the in depth difference between a Rhinoceros' skin and that of a T-Rex (+7 and +5 AC respectively). You can know (with the proper Knowledge Nature check) that the T-Rex's is a bit less thick, but they still don't know if it's 6, 5 or 4. How quickly someone is moving is ok, but only after their initiative, as before that they're flat footed and don't get Dex to AC.

But that doesn't cover it. There are still Dodge bonus (which can only be observed after an attack) and Deflection bonus. These are easily mentioned like "he's paying attention to your attacks" or some like that, and Delfection Bonus can be "You notice that your sword went a bit astray when you got close to him". But then there's also Insight bonuses and Untyped bonus (like VoP). How are they supposed to know about those? Are they tapping into the opponent's mind to see their Insight Bonus?

Faily

2014-07-19, 01:01 PM

In our groups, at the beginning of combat we are given descriptions of what sort of armor and/or shield the opponent might be wielding to give us an indication of AC. However, a few rounds in, we have either guessed it, or the GM has told us.

When it comes to Saving Throw DCs, it's either "Roll Reflex saves, DC 21" or after rolls have been made "everyone who got 21 and over succeed".

Of all the people I play D&D/Pathfinder with, none of us think that this breaks immersion, as most of us are also free to describe how we succeed or fail on our rolls.

supersonic29

2014-07-19, 01:44 PM

Can't say it isn't metagamey, but in a regular group I'm still a part of it seems like every character is using so many attacks and so many damage dice to boot that it bogs combat down, so our dm ended up giving us AC after the first attack or two in any significant encounter, which sped things up a lot, because players just had to declare damage, though if you don't trust your players and aren't watching all of their rolls that's also an issue. I'd avoid it as long as all your PC's are making one attack a round with one die of damage, but sometimes in the upper levels it gets hairy and giving out AC becomes a huge time saver.

Slipperychicken

2014-07-19, 02:56 PM

My GM usually tells us after a few close hits (by that time I typically have it down to within 5 points anyway). It helps speed things up a little, since some of our players are new and make attack rolls very slowly.

It's not hurting immersion, since battles already sound like a game of Fantasy-Warfare-Bingo, with players and GMs calling out numbers between half-assed descriptions of sword swings.

Shou

2014-07-19, 03:05 PM

I've always told my group the AC of the weaker enemies when GMing while keeping the big one hidden, I find it speeds things along. A lot of the time when things don't hit it can lead to, "Wait I forgot [x] bonus!!!" Say I have a low level encounter with 6 Gnolls and 2 Giant Daemon Gnolls, I would tell them the AC of the Gnolls but not the Daemon Gnolls, just to speed things up.

jedipotter

2014-07-19, 03:43 PM

What do you guys think?

I never tell. I think it breaks immersion and makes it too much of a numbers game.

Thanatosia

2014-07-19, 05:14 PM

My biggest issue with not telling the PCs the AC of the enemy is that the DM typically knows the AC & saves of all the PCs. Even if the DM doesn't try to consciously exploit that knowledge, it's going to subtly effect your decision making - do you really have the monsters power attack the guy with the highest AC regularly out the gate and waste the monsters turn when it's only going to have a couple turns to live?

Since you really can't stop the DM from knowing the PC's stats, giving the PCs access to some of the monster's basic stats, while unrealistic, at least preserves a level playing field, so in a way, is more realistic then keeping it secret.

jedipotter

2014-07-19, 05:32 PM

Since you really can't stop the DM from knowing the PC's stats, giving the PCs access to some of the monster's basic stats, while unrealistic, at least preserves a level playing field, so in a way, is more realistic then keeping it secret.

The trick is: The DM is Not a player. The DM has no character in the game, has no stake in the game.

The ''playing field is not made to be level'', it's not that kind of game at all.

Shining Wrath

2014-07-19, 05:39 PM

I let them deduce it. It takes a few rounds. So does the guy DMing for us right now.

That way if a wizard has a ring of protection or some such it's not immediately apparent.

Crustypeanut

2014-07-19, 05:45 PM

The trick is: The DM is Not a player. The DM has no character in the game, has no stake in the game.

The ''playing field is not made to be level'', it's not that kind of game at all.

Trudat. Now if its player on player D&D Miniatures, then its a different story XD

Thanatosia

2014-07-19, 05:48 PM

The trick is: The DM is Not a player. The DM has no character in the game, has no stake in the game.

The ''playing field is not made to be level'', it's not that kind of game at all.
It doesn't matter that the DM has no 'stake' in the game as you put it, it works at an almost subconscious level. How often do you see PCs throw a fire spell at a monster with immunity to fire if they don't have meta-game knowledge of that immunity? Way more often then you see a DM cast searing ray at the PC wearing a ring of fire immunity, I can pretty confidently guarantee that. It's like playing a puzzle game when you know the solution - you can't just banish that knowledge from your brain and act like you don't have it.

And I think from certain threads that I have a fairly good idea what kind of game you like, but I prefer a world that isn't artificially stacked against the PCs.

I'm not saying giving the PCs full stat blocks of all opponents is the right way to go, but it's worth remembering that there is a very real information imbalance in play, and try to make allowances for it.

AMFV

2014-07-19, 05:50 PM

My biggest issue with not telling the PCs the AC of the enemy is that the DM typically knows the AC & saves of all the PCs. Even if the DM doesn't try to consciously exploit that knowledge, it's going to subtly effect your decision making - do you really have the monsters power attack the guy with the highest AC regularly out the gate and waste the monsters turn when it's only going to have a couple turns to live?

It depends on the monster... Big dumb monsters will probably charge at what they consider to be the largest threat (usually the biggest toughest looking opponent), smart monsters may evaluate and then target after their minions have worn them down. The way to avoid your subconscious affecting these decisions is to make them consciously.

jedipotter

2014-07-19, 05:59 PM

It doesn't matter that the DM has no 'stake' in the game as you put it, it works at an almost subconscious level. How often do you see PCs throw a fire spell at a monster with immunity to fire if they don't have meta-game knowledge of that immunity? Way more often then you see a DM cast searing ray at the PC wearing a ring of fire immunity, I can pretty confidently guarantee that. It's like playing a puzzle game when you know the solution - you can't just banish that knowledge from your brain and act like you don't have it.

But the DM is the one creating the encounters. They know what the foes and PC can do, as that is the way the game is written. The DM can't make a challange, unless he knows what he is making a challange for.

Too often, people play the numbers too much if they know them. Example: ''Oh it has an AC of 20, I would need a 15 or higher to hit. I will never ever roll that high! This game sucks....I go sit outside.''

But if they don't know, they will try. Like: *Roll* (16) DM-"You hit! Just barley!'' Player-"Woah, ok''

And I think from certain threads that I have a fairly good idea what kind of game you like, but I prefer a world that isn't artificially stacked against the PCs.

My Infamy spreads!

Flickerdart

2014-07-19, 06:02 PM

Too often, people play the numbers too much if they know them. Example: ''Oh it has an AC of 20, I would need a 15 or higher to hit. I will never ever roll that high! This game sucks....I go sit outside.''
"Too often" - yeah, I'd like to see some hard numbers for that.

Personally, I would much rather players knew that their attempts were futile ("Whoa, I rolled a 14 and it didn't hit? This thing is a tank!") and could then come up with an alternative plan than just sit there and make pointless rolls.

Faily

2014-07-19, 06:13 PM

"Too often" - yeah, I'd like to see some hard numbers for that.

Personally, I would much rather players knew that their attempts were futile ("Whoa, I rolled a 14 and it didn't hit? This thing is a tank!") and could then come up with an alternative plan than just sit there and make pointless rolls.

Agreed. Clever players will realise that if they only hit on 16 and over on a creature's AC, you attempt other attacks to bypass that (touch attacks, grapple, AoE-effects, etc) rather than continue the lesson in futility.

But then again, it might also break immersion that we roll dice and declare the result of those dice added to other bonuses! You better roleplay the damage of that Fireball. *rolls eyes*

Adverb

2014-07-22, 12:24 AM

It shouldn't slow down gameplay if your players, because the only difference between them knowing or not the AC is that they have to tell you "Does a 21 hit?" and you have to reply "Yes/No". Telling them enemies AC is SOOOO metagamey that it's ridiculous. Seriously, not even video games do this. When was the last time you were playing a game and your enemies had all their stats on the screen for you to see?

Um... actually, Neverwinter Nights always used to tell me ACs and save DCs and what my opponents and I rolled and who had what bonuses.

Knaight

2014-07-22, 01:52 AM

HammeredWharf

2014-07-22, 02:17 AM

Seriously, not even video games do this. When was the last time you were playing a game and your enemies had all their stats on the screen for you to see?
Um... actually, Neverwinter Nights always used to tell me ACs and save DCs and what my opponents and I rolled and who had what bonuses.

Almost all D&D games show you the rolls in their combat logs and games like Fallout 1&2 show you your chance to hit.

I think telling them the AC makes sense. An experienced fighter should know how hard it is to hit an opponent.

elonin

2014-07-22, 07:32 AM

I don't see it making much of a difference either way. If your group going to metagame the rolls there are worse problems then the players knowing the ac of their target.

Dominuce2112

2014-07-22, 07:36 AM

My DM does but from the looks of the group, combat is fun but story is more important.

Battle are just the means to an end, so were all pretty loose about what info we know, communicating between turns, ect.

Stella

2014-07-22, 11:04 AM

Do you tell your PCs the AC of their enemy to help speed things along?

There's no speed gained by telling the party the opponent's AC, or if there is it is just fractions of a second.

Say you don't tell them the AC, but you did spend two minutes describing the opponents which should give them some idea due to armor worn, scaled skin, or whatever. Then in combat you have your players call out their adjusted roll. You know the AC, so you know if it's a hit and tell the player "hit" or "miss", possibly with some additional exposition. This is hardly slower, if at all, then telling your players the AC and letting them tell you they hit, and it eliminates the exposition which can add to the immersion and enjoyment.

I roll everything in the clear, so in a long fight or against a number of similar opponents my players can figure out the AC they are up against, but so what? It doesn't change anything, and it can be worked into the fluff, as a competent fighter should be able to weigh the skill of their attack against their success in injuring the foe and arrive at a decent idea of how tough their armor/hide/whatever is. For the objections to revealing saving throws, this can also be justified by fluff. If you roll the Will save in the open and the foe saves, you can say that the mental compulsion (or whatever) was thrown off, but the caster may have some idea how close it might have been. With Dex saves the agility of the opponent should be clear enough, and for Fort saves the toughness of the opponent can also be visible to the players.

Curmudgeon

2014-07-22, 11:35 AM

No, I don't tell the players the enemies' AC. Also, that number usually changes during the course of the encounter. They'll have their spellcaster buff them, drink a potion, apply a Dodge bonus, or fight defensively if the PCs are hitting too readily. With 5 ranks in Tumble fighting defensively is an almost even swap (-4 to attack for +3 to AC), and likely worth doing if they need to use a move action and won't be making iterative attacks anyway. Picking a Dodge target and fighting defensively will give a net +4 to AC without the enemy doing anything obvious to account for the change, and I've often seen players optimize themselves into missing when they think they can "dial in" their Power Attack numbers for a quick kill.

Combat's a big part of D&D. Making it seem like a straightforward exercise in arithmetic detracts from the game experience, I think.

Millennium

2014-07-22, 11:46 AM

I don't, because my players seem to enjoy the puzzle aspect of figuring it out. But I would tell them if I thought they didn't enjoy it, because they'd eventually figure it out anyway, so we might as well save the time.

Zaq

2014-07-22, 12:05 PM

What my group used to do in our 4e game was to declare the highest defense and lowest defense on the field when combat starts. We wouldn't say "the golem's AC is 26, and the bugbear's Will is 21." We'd just say "Highest is 26, lowest is 21." That means that if you roll a 26 or above, you can just say "I hit," and if you roll below a 21, you can just say "I miss," without having to ask for confirmation.

I've never seen this done in 3.5 (since all defenses are static in 4e, but only AC is static in 3.5), but I don't see why it wouldn't be worthwhile, at least if you've got a mix of enemies. If you're only fighting one guy, or if they all have the same AC, I could see not doing it, but with a nice mixed encounter, it speeds things up a lot without just flat out revealing everything all at once.