Bard - Cutting words question

[dnd2016]

Can a lore bard see the die of the dm roll for the monsters?. It seems they can, otherwise why state you can wait til after the roll to decide.

[WMO?]

Yes.

I think 5e generally assumes open rolls, especially in combat. Open information generally actually.

[coredump]

There is nothing in the PHB that indicates an assumption of 'open rolls'. And the DMG actually indicates an expectation of hidden rolls.

But regardless, all of the rules are written to work with either method.

So it is up to the DM and the play group to decide if the rolls will be open or hidden.

[Dr. Cliché]

There is nothing in the PHB that indicates an assumption of 'open rolls'. And the DMG actually indicates an expectation of hidden rolls.

If that's the case, what's the point in saying that you can use the ability after the roll has bee made?

"Well, I wasn't going to use Cutting Words, but that roll sounds like an 11 to me."

[Lombra]

You distract a creature that you absolutely don't want for her to succeed at something. You don't need to know the roll of the DM, it would be way too strong for a 3rd level feature

[Dr. Cliché]

You distract a creature that you absolutely don't want for her to succeed at something. You don't need to know the roll of the DM, it would be way too strong for a 3rd level feature

But, again, what's the point then in saying you can use the ability after the roll has been made?

Unless you can actually see the roll, it's a completely pointless and meaningless rule.

It might as well say you can still use the ability if you happen to cough. Or if someone eats a pretzel.

[Skylivedk]

But, again, what's the point then in saying you can use the ability after the roll has been made?

Unless you can actually see the roll, it's a completely pointless and meaningless rule.

It might as well say you can still use the ability if you happen to cough. Or if someone eats a pretzel.

Agreed - I think it is a DM-call which rolls can be seen or not. I've a minimum of having the bard noticing that someone is attempting to do X for them to be able to affect X activity.

[tombowings]

Yes. Absolutely the player should be able to see the die roll, the same as with the shield spell and many of the battlemaster maneuvers. Otherwise, it would be a relatively useless ability, instead of a great one.

[Dr. Cliché]

Yes. Absolutely the player should be able to see the die roll, the same as with the shield spell and many of the battlemaster maneuvers. Otherwise, it would be a relatively useless ability, instead of a great one.

It does seem a bit harsh if you can't see the dice.

I mean, prior to lv5, you can only use this ability 3 (maybe 4) times per day. And, even after Lv5, you're still looking at barely more than 1 use per encounter (assuming 2-3 encounters per short rest). On top of that, if you'e trying to stop an attack roll or ability check, there's no guarantee that you'll even affect the outcome of the roll.

With all that in mind, forcing players to potentially waste their uses on rolls that are clear misses/fails anyway just seems really harsh and unnecessary.

[KnotaGuru]

The way I read it is you see the roll, but before any modifiers are applied.

[Dr. Cliché]

The way I read it is you see the roll, but before any modifiers are applied.

Yeah, that's what I thought as well.

[Ashdate]

Not RAW, but I asked a similar question about the Defensive Duelist feat to Mike Mearls, and he said that the player gets to see hear the attack result.

While Cutting Words is worded differently, I would personally use the above as a precedent that a Bard gets to see the roll (but not the modifier) before choosing to use the class ability or not.

[dnd2016]

Sage advice...

Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford
You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

I guess its a done deal?

[coredump]

If that's the case, what's the point in saying that you can use the ability after the roll has bee made?

"Well, I wasn't going to use Cutting Words, but that roll sounds like an 11 to me."
Depending on if the DM rolls in the open or hidden, will determine if the class feature is more or less effective. But in either case, the rule works just fine as written. The designers knew that some DMs do it either way, and allowed for that in how the various rules were written.


With all that in mind, forcing players to potentially waste their uses on rolls that are clear misses/fails anyway just seems really harsh and unnecessary.

Do you also tell the players about every immunity and resistance that a creature has.... otherwise they could potentially waste their spell slots on a spell that has no effect. That seems really harsh and unnecessary.

Do you let players get their action back if Guidance has no effect on the roll? Otherwise they are wasting their action.

Even after they see the roll, do you stop them from using Cutting words is the attack already missed? Or if it hit by too much? Otherwise that seem harsh.

Do you tell the player they will not be chased, before they cast Expeditious Retreat? Otherwise its such a waste of a spell.

etc
etc
etc


There are a *lot* of things that players do in the hope that it will help. Sometimes it has an impact, sometimes it does not. They decide if that risk/benfit is worth it. Using Bardic Inspiration etc is just one version of this.

[coredump]

Yes. Absolutely the player should be able to see the die roll, the same as with the shield spell and many of the battlemaster maneuvers. Otherwise, it would be a relatively useless ability, instead of a great one.

You, as the DM, are free to allow the players to see the roll. But nothing in the rules states that as a requirement, and nothing in the rules makes that an expectation. The rules are written with the knowledge that some DMs do it one way, and some DMs do it the other way.

And spells like Shield etc are *still* quite useful, just not *as* useful. Just because the spell gets buffed with one die rolling method, does not make that the 'expected' method.

As I said, reading the DMG, it seems they actually expect the 'norm' to be hidden...but acknowledge that both ways are done.

[Talanos]

My DM just tells me what the role is. Then I decide whether or not to use Cutting Words.

[Dr. Cliché]

Depending on if the DM rolls in the open or hidden, will determine if the class feature is more or less effective. But in either case, the rule works just fine as written.

Sigh. Sorry, but I need to be blunt here. You. Are. Wrong.

The rule only works as written *if* rolls are open. Otherwise it's giving you permission to do something that's utterly irrelevant and utterly meaningless.

Let's go through the 2 possible scenarios. In both cases, the player is considering whether or not to use Cutting Words?

Open rolls:
"Hmm, shall I use inspiration or not?"
*DM rolls a 15*
"Ah, a 15, I'll use Cutting Words."
OR *DM rolls a 3*
"Hah, a 3, I won't bother."
OR *DM rolls a 10*
"Hmm, not sure if that will be enough. I'll save my Cutting Words for now."

Closed rolls:
"Hmm, shall I use inspiration or not?"
*DM rolls the dice*
"Hmm, shall I use inspiration or not?"

Do you see the problem?

With open rolls, being allowed to decide after the roll has a purpose. You're given new information which contributes to your decision. With closed rolls, you have no more information after the roll than before it. Hence, being allowed to decide after the roll serves no purpose whatsoever.


Do you also tell the players about every immunity and resistance that a creature has.... otherwise they could potentially waste their spell slots on a spell that has no effect. That seems really harsh and unnecessary.

Do you let players get their action back if Guidance has no effect on the roll? Otherwise they are wasting their action.

Even after they see the roll, do you stop them from using Cutting words is the attack already missed? Or if it hit by too much? Otherwise that seem harsh.

Do you tell the player they will not be chased, before they cast Expeditious Retreat? Otherwise its such a waste of a spell.

etc
etc
etc


There are a *lot* of things that players do in the hope that it will help. Sometimes it has an impact, sometimes it does not. They decide if that risk/benfit is worth it. Using Bardic Inspiration etc is just one version of this.

Have you collected enough Straw Men and Faulty Comparisons yet?

None of those are remotely the same. For example, creature resistances can be researched or even guessed (based on attacks, environment, appearance, lair etc.). And, at worst, a player will waste one ability finding out the hard way.

With Cutting Words, you are asking the player to base their choice off a random roll that they can't see. There is no way to learn or improve. No way to research or plan. All they can do is gamble and hope for the best. If you genuinly cannot comprehend the difference, then there's no point continuing this discussion.

[dnd2016]

Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules. So if Jeremy Crawford ‎says that is how the rule is intended isnt that good enough?

[coredump]

Sigh. Sorry, but I need to be blunt here. You. Are. Wrong.
Do you see the problem?

With open rolls, being allowed to decide after the roll has a purpose. You're given new information which contributes to your decision. With closed rolls, you have no more information after the roll than before it. Hence, being allowed to decide after the roll serves no purpose whatsoever.
I love when you are "blunt"....it usually means your argument is weak.

If the roll is hidden, being allowed to decide after the roll serves no benefit.... I never said otherwise. So despite all of your typing, you have not shown how "I AM WRONG".... like I said, your argument is weak.

As I said (correctly) if a DM hides the rolls, or rolls in the open... will make the class Feature of Cutting Words more or less effective. Which it most certainly will.... You have provided nothing to show me wrong.

But hey, keep using that BOLD type instead of actual facts....someone is bound to believe you.




Have you collected enough Straw Men and Faulty Comparisons yet?

None of those are remotely the same. For example, creature resistances can be researched or even guessed (based on attacks, environment, appearance, lair etc.). And, at worst, a player will waste one ability finding out the hard way. I addressed your statement. You seemed horrified that a player might use a resource that might be wasted..... so I gave a number of other instances where a resource might be wasted. And instead of addressing that... you resort to bluster. The game is *full* of situations where a player might 'waste' a resource, the game is full of situations where more info would make an ability more effective. I simply listed a few of them, there are dozens more.


All they can do is gamble and hope for the best. If you genuinly cannot comprehend the difference, then there's no point continuing this discussion.Of course I can see the difference..... OF course they player is gambling. Even if he knows the roll he is gambling, he doesn't know what he will roll, and doesn't know what is needed. He may be better informed knowing the die roll...but it is *still* a gamble.

It becomes like the Light Cleric's Warding Flare. The Cleric doesn't get to 'know' the roll before using the Feature... so maybe the bad guy would have missed, maybe the Cleric will 'waste' the use of the feature.
Even without getting to see the roll, Cutting Words basically gives the attack/save/etc disadvantage.
*IF* the DM allows players to see the rolls, then Cutting Words becomes even more effective. (Which is exactly what I said above, which somehow you claim is 'wrong'....)




Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules. So if Jeremy Crawford ‎says that is how the rule is intended isnt that good enough?
Because that is not what he said. He said the Bard "can" see, not "will always see". The question he was asked was between 'can see" and "must always guess". Well, if the DM rolls in the open, then he can see. He does not "always" have to guess, he only needs to guess if the DM uses hidden rolls and doesn't say what was rolled.

BTW, the snippet you quoted is not from the monthly Safe Advice column, but from his Twitter feed.

[Battlebooze]

I once used Cutting Words to keep a guard from hearing my bard sneaking around... :smallcool: I'm kidding of course.

Seriously, my group plays using d20 pro, and I don't get to see the GM's rolls. I use my Cutting Words before the roll, when the result is important to throw one way or the other. I'm really getting the short end of the stick, though it has still saved my character several time.

I should probably ask my GM if he will let me use Cutting Words after "Hit or Miss" results are announced, since I still won't know how far off I have to throw things. At least I won't be wasting it as much.

[dnd2016]

Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford
You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

From twitter

[Dr. Cliché]

If the roll is hidden, being allowed to decide after the roll serves no benefit.... I never said otherwise.

You said that the rule works either way, which is demonstrably wrong.



As I said (correctly) if a DM hides the rolls, or rolls in the open... will make the class Feature of Cutting Words more or less effective. Which it most certainly will.... You have provided nothing to show me wrong.


Are you going to put down those goalposts anytime soon?

"in either case, the rule works just fine as written"

*That* is what I proved wrong. In one case (open dice rolls), the rule works fine. In the other case (closed dice rolls), the rule doesn't work fine.



But hey, keep using that BOLD type instead of actual facts....someone is bound to believe you.

Says the person who's argument seems to be based around a single, demonstrably fallacious statement.

What's that, Kettle? I'm looking black, you say?



I addressed your statement.

No, you didn't.


You seemed horrified that a player might use a resource that might be wasted

I wonder what would happen if you were forced to make an argument without relying on straw man arguments. Feel free to demonstrate for us.

At best, you've completely missed my point. At worst, you're being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous in a desperate attempt to disguise the fact that you don't have an argument.

The point is that by not allowing the bard to see the roll, you're basically removing all meaningful choice from the ability. No matter when he uses it, it's going to be based around a roll that he's not allowed to see until after he used the ability.


so I gave a number of other instances where a resource might be wasted.

None of which are comparable.


And instead of addressing that... you resort to bluster.

Excuse me whilst I contact the Oxford English Dictionary and inform them that the definition of 'Bluster' has been changed to 'Clearly and concisely pointing out the massive holes in someone's pathetic excuse for an argument.'.



Of course I can see the difference..... OF course they player is gambling. Even if he knows the roll he is gambling, he doesn't know what he will roll, and doesn't know what is needed. He may be better informed knowing the die roll...but it is *still* a gamble.

1) If it's a gamble either way, why are you so desperate that the player shouldn't see the dice?

2) Yes, it's a gamble, but an informed one. The d20 has the largest range, and the player now knows the result. If it's low, then he can hold off using Cutting Words (since it's probably missed/failed anyway). If it's mid-high, he'll probably want to use it (though obviously it becomes more of a gamble at high values).

3) With open rolls, the bard can learn and improve based on past decisions. He'll know the d20 result, he'll know the Cutting Words dice result, he'll know the target AC/DC and he might even know the bonuses (depending on whether the DM says what the final result is or just declares 'hit/miss').

As an example, let's say the monster rolled a 15 and he used Cutting Words (getting a 4). The monster still hit the fighter's AC16. Well, he knows that an average result on Cutting Words couldn't stop the monster hitting with a 16 (meaning its bonus is at least +5). So, unless things are really desperate, it's probably best to avoid using Cutting Words on any roll of about 15+ (since he'll need to roll *at least* above average to stop it, possibly even more).

Contrast that with closed rolls. The bard rolls a 4 and the monster still hits AC16. Is it worth trying again? Who knows. He has no clue what the monster rolled. It could have hit the fighter with a 19 or with a 9. Likewise, since he doesn't know the future rolls, he can't make use of any knowledge. He has no idea whether he's trying to stop a natural 20 or a 12 that just scraped a hit.



It becomes like the Light Cleric's Warding Flare. The Cleric doesn't get to 'know' the roll before using the Feature...

Because the feature gives disadvantage on the roll, it doesn't just subtract a random amount from it.

Also, notice how (unlike cutting words) it doesn't say you use it after the dice has been rolled.

[Lombra]

OP clearly wants to see the value rolled and won't accept other's point of view... just ask the DM, if he allows you to see the roll congratulations: you have an ability that surclasses(by a very lot) a lv1 spell (shield) if he won't allow it you will have to think about risk versus reward. The latter is what I like the most because i find the former being too meta-game-ish for my taste.

[Talanos]

For me, this seems like a strange concept. You guys really play a game where you never know what the DM rolled? Like, he rolls the dice and just says "hit" or "miss"? Never says what the roll was?

We don't have "open rolls" as such, but every time the DM rolls a d20 for an NPC he declares what the roll was. It's basically the same thing. I couldn't imagine playing a game where the number rolled on the die was never known.

~shrug~

[coredump]

You said that the rule works either way, which is demonstrably wrong.

"in either case, the rule works just fine as written"

*That* is what I proved wrong. In one case (open dice rolls), the rule works fine. In the other case (closed dice rolls), the rule doesn't work fine.

If a DM used hidden rolls, then the rules for Cutting Words work as written.
They may not work the way *you* want them to.
They may not work the way you think they should....
But yes, the rules as written work just fine either way.
This is true for almost all of the rules in the game, they were clearly designed to work regardless of hidden or open rolls.
Notice it does not say "after you see the roll"....



The point is that by not allowing the bard to see the roll, you're basically removing all meaningful choice from the ability. No matter when he uses it, it's going to be based around a roll that he's not allowed to see until after he used the ability.
As I have said (repeatedly), Cutting Words with hidden rolls will be less effective than using it with open rolls. I don't know why you keep trying to 'prove' that, it is obvious and everyone already agrees with that.

It is *still* useful, because it still means that for this one attack/save/etc the bad guy will have a -D8 on the roll. That is still a big deal. It makes it effectively the same as Warding Flare. (Disadvantage is equivalent to about a -4.5 on the roll)

If you could wait to use Warding Flare until after seeing the roll, that would make it more effective. Just like if you get to see the roll for Cutting Words, it will be more effective. But that is beside the point, they are both still effective if you don't know what the roll was. And the rules work just fine as written.



1) If it's a gamble either way, why are you so desperate that the player shouldn't see the dice?

2) Yes, it's a gamble, but an informed one. The d20 has the largest range, and the player now knows the result. If it's low, then he can hold off using Cutting Words (since it's probably missed/failed anyway). If it's mid-high, he'll probably want to use it (though obviously it becomes more of a gamble at high values).

3) With open rolls, the bard can learn and improve based on past decisions. He'll know the d20 result, he'll know the Cutting Words dice result, he'll know the target AC/DC and he might even know the bonuses (depending on whether the DM says what the final result is or just declares 'hit/miss').
.

1) I don't care how you do it. All I said is that the rule as written will work either way, and that the PHB does not assume either method.
Further, you said hidden made it a gamble, I was just correcting you that either way was a gamble. One way is just 'less' of a gamble.

2) Yes. Of course. Which is why I keep repeating the fact that an open roll will make the Feature more effective. As with most decisions, the more information you have, the more likely you can make a good decision.
If a DM always gives out the AC, it makes Sharpshooter more effective, etc, etc....

3) Yes...again...of course... A player can use the knowledge of the roll, and the knowledge of past rolls...which is why it will be more effective with an open roll. I have said this in just about every single post in this thread...not sure why you keep harping on it as if its some new piece of information.

Let me say it one more time. If the DM uses Open rolls... Cutting Words can be used more effectively than if the DM uses Hidden rolls. *Everyone* already knows and agrees on this. You can feel free to stop beating that particular horse...




Because the feature gives disadvantage on the roll, it doesn't just subtract a random amount from it.

Also, notice how (unlike cutting words) it doesn't say you use it after the dice has been rolled.
As above, Disadvantage tends to be equivalent to a negative 4 or 5 on the roll.... about the same as subtracting a D8.
Using Cutting Words with Hidden Rolls, makes that about as effective as using Warding Flare as written.

You can't claim that Cutting Words with hidden rolls is "meaningless", unless you are also willing to claim that Warding Flare is "meaningless"; which will come as a shock to all of those Light clerics that love that ability.

[Dr. Cliché]

If a DM used hidden rolls, then the rules for Cutting Words work as written.

No it doesn't. I have already demonstrated this.



Notice it does not say "after you see the roll"....

Notice that, as I explained before, if you can't see the roll then there is no point including that line in the first place.


OP clearly wants to see the value rolled and won't accept other's point of view...

If you're referring to me, yeah what a bastard I am for not arbitrarily nerfing one of my player's main abilities.

[Lombra]

For me, this seems like a strange concept. You guys really play a game where you never know what the DM rolled? Like, he rolls the dice and just says "hit" or "miss"? Never says what the roll was?

We don't have "open rolls" as such, but every time the DM rolls a d20 for an NPC he declares what the roll was. It's basically the same thing. I couldn't imagine playing a game where the number rolled on the die was never known.

~shrug~

At the table where I play numbers rolled by the DM are hidden, but if there's something that we should note about the success or fail of the roll he describes it. We like it like that, it prevents meta-game and players have to understand the strength of the enemy by studying and observing it. It requires a good DM, but luckily ours can get this to work very well ^_^

Edit: the DM takes in count also the passive perception of the characters when it comes to describe what happens during ability/hit checks.

[Typewriter]

I use hidden roles at my table - if a player is considering using an ability that augments rolls I tell him 'low' (1-6), 'medium'(7-14), or 'high'(15-20). Low he almost always skips, high he almost always takes. Medium he takes if it's important enough.

The rules of this edition are thoroughly wrapped around the DM making rules for his table that makes everyone enjoy the game the most - to that end the rules are designed in such a way as to promote both hidden and open rolls. Coming up a way to make the game fun for all players, at that point, is between the DM and the players. My personal opinion is that the tweet from Crawford was not to negate one style of play (hidden rolls) but to explain how the rules work in an 'open' style of play.

[Slipperychicken]

My DM uses open rolls for combat and other things the PCs could reasonably observe (things like deception are kept secret of course). It's a bit of transparency that helps to maintain trust and keep the DM slightly more honest. My DM rolled crits all over the place last session, and all of us players would have suspected him of cheating if we didn't see those rolls happen.


Seeing the DM's rolls helps provide information that's difficult to convey with his narration alone. For instance, we saw a monster roll a 19, but then our bard used cutting words to make it miss, everyone at the table instantly understood what happened: The monster was making a very sure and powerful attack, but the bard saw it and broke the monster's focus with an insult, causing him to hesitate just a moment too long so he missed the opening and his blow was deflected.

Also, I think seeing the DM's attack rolls and ability checks helps to show us how good monsters and NPCs are at things. If it hit a PC with a low roll, for example, then we all understand that the monster is very good at fighting, and isn't just getting lucky. That distinction is crucial in a game with such extreme variation in power-levels as D&D.

[bardo]

Cutting Words works with either open rolls or hidden rolls. It does not work the same in both cases, but it does work in both cases. I'll illustrate:

Starting point: Player want an attack to miss.

[hidden rolls] Player calls for Cutting Words.
or
[open rolls] Player sees roll, guestimates chances of hitting, either calls for Cutting Words or not.

Result: Attack misses. Player got what the player wanted which was for the attack to miss.

The starting point is the same. The result is the same. The only difference is resources spent. Shockingly, players having incomplete information may result in players spending more resources than strictly necessary. Who knew?! Oh, all of us. Because many aspects of the game work exactly like that. Monster's hit points might be the most obvious example, does your DM let you know exactly how many HP each monster has left so you don't end up casting a spell when a cantrip would have been enough? If you can mange that, then you can probably also manage hidden rolls for Cutting Words.

Either way is perfectly playable. It's neither over-powered with open rolls nor nerfed/useless with hidden rolls. Play it the way your table agrees to play it.

Bardo.

[mrumsey]

Cutting Words
Also at 3rd level, you learn how to use your wit to distract, confuse, and otherwise sap the confidence and competence of others. When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll, you can use your reaction to expend one of your uses of Bardic Inspiration, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature’s roll. You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the GM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage. The creature is immune if it can’t hear you or if it’s immune to being charmed.

Emphasis MINE.

These rules (from the SRD since I am AFB) seem to be lacking any sort of special permission that allows a Bard to see a roll. It does give them a pretty clear ability to wait until 1) the roll is made, but before success is determined or 2) after an attack has landed but before damage is calculated.

Number 1 is clearly less useful if you cannot see the roll, but the ability (as written in the SRD) give no permissions to see the roll if you otherwise couldn't. It is the classic Can I vs. May I distinction. 'Can' is the ability, but not the permission. 'May' gives permission, but not the ability.

Number 2 is also vague on dice rolls. It doesn't say you get to wait until you see damage dealt before applying Cutting Words, just that you can apply it before the damage is dealt. In theory this could be before or after the dice is rolled.

In either case, from my perspective, the rules (without clear errata) do not allow a player to see dice rolls when they otherwise couldn't, but it DOES allow them to choose the timing of using their ability.

One may see this as useful or useless, but that is on the individual.

*I used the SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf version of the SRD from the Wizards website.*

[Dr. Cliché]

Cutting Words works with either open rolls or hidden rolls. It does not work the same in both cases, but it does work in both cases. I'll illustrate:

Starting point: Player want an attack to miss.

[hidden rolls] Player calls for Cutting Words.
or
[open rolls] Player sees roll, guestimates chances of hitting, either calls for Cutting Words or not.

Result: Attack misses. Player got what the player wanted which was for the attack to miss.

The starting point is the same. The result is the same.

You're ignoring a key point. The line "You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll".

- If you have open rolls, this line makes perfect sense as the bard sees the result of the roll before deciding to use Cutting Words.

- If you have closed rolls, this line makes no sense. Since the player can't see the result of the roll, whether he decides before or after it has been made is completely irrelevant (thus making the above line worthless).

We have 2 possible scenarios, but only one of them actually makes sense. hence, it is disingenuous (if not outright deceitful) to treat both options as being equally valid.

[Democratus]

You're ignoring a key point. The line "You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll".

- If you have open rolls, this line makes perfect sense as the bard sees the result of the roll before deciding to use Cutting Words.

- If you have closed rolls, this line makes no sense. Since the player can't see the result of the roll, whether he decides before or after it has been made is completely irrelevant (thus making the above line worthless).

We have 2 possible scenarios, but only one of them actually makes sense. hence, it is disingenuous (if not outright deceitful) to treat both options as being equally valid.

It does make sense. You would be using your power to change the odds of the roll being successful or a failure. You don't have to know the result on the die to use your power and nudge the odds.

If you are able to see the dice you simply have more information than if you can't.

But the rule doesn't read "You can choose to use this feature after you see what the creature rolls on its die." The only required information is that you know the creature made a roll. And this can be done with hidden dice.

At my table I roll the dice in the open. But it's a choice, not RAW.

[Dr. Cliché]

These rules (from the SRD since I am AFB) seem to be lacking any sort of special permission that allows a Bard to see a roll.

So why even bother including the line? If DM rolls are assumed to be hidden, it serves no purpose whatsoever.

The *only* possible reason to include that line is if the bard actually sees the rolls.



In either case, from my perspective, the rules (without clear errata) do not allow a player to see dice rolls when they otherwise couldn't, but it DOES allow them to choose the timing of using their ability.

Eh?

Again, what's the point? If rolls are made in secret, the line is pointless because it makes literally no difference if the bard uses the ability before or after the roll.



One may see this as useful or useless, but that is on the individual.

If DM rolls are hidden, that line *is* useless. This is not opinion, this is objective fact.


It does make sense. You would be using your power to change the odds of the roll being successful or a failure. You don't have to know the result on the die to use your power and nudge the odds.

Then answer me this - why is that line even there?

[mrumsey]

Then answer me this - why is that line even there?

There are 2 options:

1) Rolls are hidden.
2) Rolls are visible.

If 1), then it allows a player to change their mind after a DM rolls. (They didn't want to reduce the attack roll, but then realized their healer is on the other side of the battlefield, and wanted extra safety, so changed their mind after the roll). This doesn't allow for a lot of flexibility, but a little bit.

If 2), it allows the player to determine (with a boat-load of meta gaming and OOC knowledge) which rolls are best to apply their class feature to. This is much more useful to the players (no arguments there).

Assume: The Devs knew people play games with both visible and hidden rolls. (This is not a huge leap - they are gamers...I hope).

With that assumption, having that sentence doesn't really affect one play style (#1) , but greatly affects the other positively (#2).
With the same assumption, not having that sentence doesn't really affect one play style (#1), but greatly affects negatively (#2). The negative way would be that people would be inclined to play it like style 1, and arguments would arise.

I think that these fairly simple assumptions show a reasonable explanation for the presence of that sentence. They were simply trying to stop (or reduce) what we are doing right now - having an unnecessary argument about a rule that will negatively affect play (by slowing the process) more than the ability will enhance it (by giving marginally increased benefit to the player).

At one table, it means nothing, at another everything. Since it does not hurt play style 1 to have it, the net benefit of including that sentence is great.

[Democratus]

Then answer me this - why is that line even there?

To provide the trigger for the ability.

When is the ability used? After the creature has made a roll.

Whether the roll is public or hidden is up to the DM and players.

[Dr. Cliché]

There are 2 options:

1) Rolls are hidden.
2) Rolls are visible.

If 1), then it allows a player to change their mind after a DM rolls. (They didn't want to reduce the attack roll, but then realized their healer is on the other side of the battlefield, and wanted extra safety, so changed their mind after the roll). This doesn't allow for a lot of flexibility, but a little bit.

Sorry, but that's a terrible excuse. Even without that line, there's is no reason whatsoever for the DM to not let the player decide after the roll has been made. He's gained no new information.


To provide the trigger for the ability.

When is the ability used? After the creature has made a roll.

Except that that's entirely pointless. The bard can elect to use it before the creature rolls. And, we already know that the cut-off point is when the DM declares the roll a hit or miss.

So, we have a meaningless line inserted between the actual triggers.

[krugaan]

To provide the trigger for the ability.
When is the ability used? After the creature has made a roll.

Whether the roll is public or hidden is up to the DM and players.


that's actually a very good point. Yay for being ambiguous. Luckily we already have a resolution to this, er ... problem.

[RulesJD]

Cutting Words works with either open rolls or hidden rolls. It does not work the same in both cases, but it does work in both cases. I'll illustrate:

Starting point: Player want an attack to miss.

[hidden rolls] Player calls for Cutting Words.
or
[open rolls] Player sees roll, guestimates chances of hitting, either calls for Cutting Words or not.

Result: Attack misses. Player got what the player wanted which was for the attack to miss.

The starting point is the same. The result is the same. The only difference is resources spent. Shockingly, players having incomplete information may result in players spending more resources than strictly necessary. Who knew?! Oh, all of us. Because many aspects of the game work exactly like that. Monster's hit points might be the most obvious example, does your DM let you know exactly how many HP each monster has left so you don't end up casting a spell when a cantrip would have been enough? If you can mange that, then you can probably also manage hidden rolls for Cutting Words.

Either way is perfectly playable. It's neither over-powered with open rolls nor nerfed/useless with hidden rolls. Play it the way your table agrees to play it.

Bardo.

That line of argument breaks down pretty quick because causing extra damage still results in a dead monster (a good thing), whereas failing simply because your DM rolled closed still results in something bad happening.

Moreover, a more accurate analysis would be:

"Starting point: Player want an attack to miss. Player evaluates the resources they have available.

[hidden rolls] Player calls for Cutting Words.
or
[open rolls] Player sees roll, guestimates chances of hitting, either calls for Cutting Words or not.

Result: Attack misses. Player got what the player wanted which was for the attack to miss."

Closed rolls = significantly less resources available because players will inherently use the resource when they shouldn't have.

[Dr. Cliché]

Just to expand on the trigger point above. The spell already has a trigger:

"When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll"

Why does it need a second trigger, which changes nothing and serves no purpose?

[mrumsey]

Should we talk about pointless?

Arguing that a rule should implicitly allow someone to do something that is not in the rules. The rule does not allow (either implicitly or explicitly) that a player see the roll. It allows various timings for the decision of the ability - whether or not they are value added or not.

It could be (probably is) bad writing. You may want it changed. *I* may want it changed.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter as neither one of us are going to change our play styles because some dude (or dudette) on the internet thought differently than we do.

You have obviously made up your mind, and since you are not open to other opinions (apparently neither am I :smalltongue: ) let's just do the responsible thing and let this thread die a quick(er) death.

[bardo]

You're ignoring a key point. The line "You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll".

- If you have open rolls, this line makes perfect sense as the bard sees the result of the roll before deciding to use Cutting Words.

- If you have closed rolls, this line makes no sense. Since the player can't see the result of the roll, whether he decides before or after it has been made is completely irrelevant (thus making the above line worthless).

We have 2 possible scenarios, but only one of them actually makes sense. hence, it is disingenuous (if not outright deceitful) to treat both options as being equally valid.

I'm not ignoring anything. The line that says after the roll is made suggests the player sees the roll. The next line that says before the result is determined suggests the player does not see the roll. Why? because most players are smart enough to figure out failure/success to 10% precision given the die roll and bound accuracy. And that's before seeing the first roll! After the players saw an 11 on the die hit their AC 20 tank, they know the attack bonus is at least +9. Now the outcome of many open rolls against lower ACs can be determined by the players to be a hit before the DM declares them. DETERMINED. The players would know for sure it's going to be a hit, and that goes against the second part of the rule as much as not seeing the roll goes against the first part.

If anyone is ignoring half the rule here, it's you my good doctor. You keep hammering on the "before" part, but blissfully ignoring the "after". The only reasonable interpretation, given how the rule bends both ways, is to say play it the way your table agrees to play it.

Bardo.

[Democratus]

Except that that's entirely pointless. The bard can elect to use it before the creature rolls. And, we already know that the cut-off point is when the DM declares the roll a hit or miss.

So, we have a meaningless line inserted between the actual triggers.

It's not pointless or meaningless. It is when the ability is used.

It could have been used before the roll. It could have been used during the roll. But the rule says it is used after the roll.

At no point in the rule is there a requirement for the die roll to be in the open.

I realize you don't like it. I play it with open die rolls as well. But that doesn't change what it says.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's not pointless or meaningless. It is when the ability is used.

We already know when the spell is used:

"When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll"



It could have been used before the roll. It could have been used during the roll. But the rule says it is used after the roll.

It says it *can* be used after the roll. It can also be used before the roll. That line changes nothing regarding triggers.


At no point in the rule is there a requirement for the die roll to be in the open.

Meaning it serves no purpose.


I realize you don't like it. I play it with open die rolls as well. But that doesn't change what it says.

What I don't like is insecure DMs trying to rules-lawyer their way out of allowing players to see their rolls.

[Democratus]

Meaning it serves no purpose.

It does serve a purpose, as shown time and again in this thread. It tells you when the power activates.


What I don't like is insecure DMs trying to rules-lawyer their way out of allowing players to see their rolls.

Now people are insecure for disagreeing with you? Ad Hominem. For shame.

[bardo]

What I don't like is insecure DMs trying to rules-lawyer their way out of allowing players to see their rolls.

Rule-lawyers? You propose that "Cutting Words Therefore Rolls Must Be Open", a conjuncture built on hand-picked wording and a unique style of logic, and yet you accuse other people of being rule-lawyers? I'm starting to think you might not be a real doctor!

Bardo.

[Typewriter]

Here's a question for people arguing that rolls have to be seen for the ability to function.

The ability says, if I'm not mistaken, that you must make the decision on whether or not to use it before you know the result. If the DM attacks you and rolls a 14 - which you see - and hits you, then on the next turn rolls another 14 but you decide to use cutting words - what would you say if the DM said you can't. You already know that the 14 hits so it negates the ability to use the power.

I feel like that's the level of pointless rule-mongering RAW that is being argued here. Work with your group and decide on something that makes everyone at your table happy. The system is literally designed to work either way and has a higher focus on the DM making rules up on the fly than the previous 2 editions.

[Tanarii]

It's not pointless or meaningless. It is when the ability is used.Technically, it serves a more particular purpose: it tells you when the ability is used in a way that works for both open and hidden rolls.

It's clearly carefully worded to allow the ability to work with open rolls/information, without requiring those for the rule to work.

Edit: it'll be more powerful with open rolls of course. But this is good rule writing. It works for either tradition of DMing.

[Ashdate]

As a longtime DM running his first 5e campaign, it annoys me to no end that there is no RAW way of resolving Cutting Words in a manner consistent across multiple groups (I can say the same thing for Defensive Duelist). It especially bothers me because I have a Sun Cleric in my group whose flare ability specifically works differently, when they could have easily had similar wording (I.e. Use before an attack hits or misses).

It also annoys me because using it after a roll has been made is going to slow the game down considerably if I need to check every roll I make with the bard in my group *just in case* they decide they want to use one of their handful of Bardic Inspiration uses. There's probably a work around (maybe I can simply sit next to the bard and make the rolls in the open) but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me that I need to do that for quality of life purposes. The rules should be clear to new DMs; house rules should be the exception rather than the rule.

(That Wizards have made RAI rulings is helpful, at the very least.)

That said, I might house rule it anyway, and if you're an experienced DM who wants to do similar go for it. As long as both players and DM are clear about an ability works at the table, that's really what is important.

And rather than argue over a RAW interpretation, I'd rather see some concensus that in the future, Wizards pay a bit more focus on their writing. This whole thread to be is less an argument about whether DMs should be rolling in the open, and more about the importance of having clear, understandable rules.

[Baroknik]

An I weird that I think the best way to play would be to let them decide to use the about after they know it's a hit or miss, but not what the roll or bonus is? That easy they only use it when it would be a bit, but aren't guaranteed to know it will be a big enough swing to save the person.

[Typewriter]

As a longtime DM running his first 5e campaign, it annoys me to no end that there is no RAW way of resolving Cutting Words in a manner consistent across multiple groups (I can say the same thing for Defensive Duelist). It especially bothers me because I have a Sun Cleric in my group whose flare ability specifically works differently, when they could have easily had similar wording (I.e. Use before an attack hits or misses).

It also annoys me because using it after a roll has been made is going to slow the game down considerably if I need to check every roll I make with the bard in my group *just in case* they decide they want to use one of their handful of Bardic Inspiration uses. There's probably a work around (maybe I can simply sit next to the bard and make the rolls in the open) but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me that I need to do that for quality of life purposes. The rules should be clear to new DMs; house rules should be the exception rather than the rule.

(That Wizards have made RAI rulings is helpful, at the very least.)

That said, I might house rule it anyway, and if you're an experienced DM who wants to do similar go for it. As long as both players and DM are clear about an ability works at the table, that's really what is important.

And rather than argue over a RAW interpretation, I'd rather see some concensus that in the future, Wizards pay a bit more focus on their writing. This whole thread to be is less an argument about whether DMs should be rolling in the open, and more about the importance of having clear, understandable rules.

But the thing is that this system isn't about stopping the game to look up a rule - it's about making a decision on the fly and moving on. I mean, what happens if there had been a firmly worded rule somewhere in RAW that answers your question? You still would have stopped the game in order to take time and look something up. This system, more than 3.5/4E were, is about flexibility. It's not about doing things a specific way - it's about taking a ruleset and adapting it to a group. I understand that having firm 'RAW' rules provides places like forums a set neutral ground where everything can be discussed fairly, but that also tended to lend itself to a 'right way' and a 'wrong way' of doing everything which, in my opinion, stifles discussion.

As it is in 5E it's not uncommon for me to an end a session and then, a couple days later, send out an e-mail informing everyone of rules we got wrong. Sure, we may do things wrong in the moment, but it leads to fast and fun gameplay where lots of interesting and wild things happen. Basically what I'm saying is that I've never come up against a rules clarification issue that I was unable to work on the fly where as in some other editions I've played the existence of a more firm RAW that does try to answer every question lends itself more to a game halting nature and has also led to problems where some people take RAW more importantly than a fun gaming experience.

[Ashdate]

But the thing is that this system isn't about stopping the game to look up a rule - it's about making a decision on the fly and moving on. I mean, what happens if there had been a firmly worded rule somewhere in RAW that answers your question? You still would have stopped the game in order to take time and look something up. This system, more than 3.5/4E were, is about flexibility. It's not about doing things a specific way - it's about taking a ruleset and adapting it to a group. I understand that having firm 'RAW' rules provides places like forums a set neutral ground where everything can be discussed fairly, but that also tended to lend itself to a 'right way' and a 'wrong way' of doing everything which, in my opinion, stifles discussion.

This issue--how Cutting Words works--is not about "DM flexibility." It's barely even about house rules! It's about how a poorly conceived mechanic *requires* the DM to rule how it works because the designers were unnecessarily vague on how a particular *class ability* functions.

The ability *to* change the rules (I.e. Determine how short/long rests work) is not the same thing as the rules written in a book working as intended. I'm all for DM flexibility (it's why I loved DMing 4e!) but this ain't it, nor even where flexibility should exist.

[Tanarii]

There is no special requirement for the DM to rule how it works. He just does what he always does. Either rolls behind his screen, or rolls in the open. The Bard knows when to use his ability. When the dice have hit the table. The rule is elegant, in that it covers both normal styles of DM play, while giving precise information to the player on timing of his ability.

[Ashdate]

There is no special requirement for the DM to rule how it works. He just does what he always does. Either rolls behind his screen, or rolls in the open. The Bard knows when to use his ability. When the dice have hit the table. The rule is elegant, in that it covers both normal styles of DM play, while giving precise information to the player on timing of his ability.

That we have this thread, I believe, proves the wording isn't elegant at all!

Remember that part of the issue is that the ability (along with others) gets stronger/weaker depending on whether the player knows the result or not, AND the literal designers of the game have been (I believe) clear on how cutting words is *intended* to be used. Yet, we have people here basically saying "well that might be the intention but it's not RAW so..."

If that's "elegance" let me out!

If Cutting Words read "use this ability before an attack roll/ability check/etc." it would function the same way for DMs who prefer/do not prefer open rolls. *That* would be elegant.

[Typewriter]

That we have this thread, I believe, proves the wording isn't elegant at all!

Remember that part of the issue is that the ability (along with others) gets stronger/weaker depending on whether the player knows the result or not, AND the literal designers of the game have been (I believe) clear on how cutting words is *intended* to be used. Yet, we have people here basically saying "well that might be the intention but it's not RAW so..."

If that's "elegance" let me out!

If Cutting Words read "use this ability before an attack roll/ability check/etc." it would function the same way for DMs who prefer/do not prefer open rolls. *That* would be elegant.

The problem you're stating has nothing to do with the rules though, the problem is with players who argue with their DMs or (worse) go onto forums and try to get input from others regarding how a ruling is made at their table. Ashdate was completely correct - the rule works regardless of how the DM rolls his dice, but not everyone is happy with that so it's turning into a debate. People are looking for rulings, rules, and regulations that don't exist and don't need to exist - if your DM rolls behind a screen then your ability still works. If he rolls in the open it works (and is better). Being better one way does not negate anything. The problem is that people aren't OK with others playing differently and are attempting to find a RAW way to tell others to shut up because they're wrong.

[wunderkid]

Honestly I have no idea how this argument is still going. There has been a response from the creator of the game.

Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford
You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

So regardless of any ambiguity in the text the rules as they were intended are that you see the roll.

You can argue RAW until the cows come home but you'll never reach an understanding.

But RAI you see the roll. As per the creator of the games say so. You have any further issues take it to him but without any further proof the bard sees the roll then decides on cutting words before the effects are resolved. Any other arguments are simply trying to argue irrelevant semantics and is an argument that will never end because both interpretations can be viewed as correct.

[Tanarii]

Honestly I have no idea how this argument is still going. There has been a response from the creator of the game.Because his tweet does not require that players see the roll. It just allows for it. Same as the RAW.


That we have this thread, I believe, proves the wording isn't elegant at all!
Or it proves that players are hoping for a RAW ruling to power up their ability. That's what I've gotten out of it so far.

RAW works either way. Even JC's RAI tweet doesn't require open rolls, although it certainly heavily implies he's assuming them. Of course open rolls make the ability far more powerful. That's not in question. But neither RAW nor JC's RAI tweet impinge on the DMs ability to run the game the way he likes, using either hidden or open rolls.

[wunderkid]

Oh yeah I'm not arguing dm fiat. But Jeremy's tweet isn't the bard sees if the dm is running open rolls. It is that that bard sees the roll. If the dm is using a rule system that impedes on this then it's the dms prerogative. But that's the dms choice impeding a class feature, no different from a dm removing all magical weapons from the game hurting martial classes. Or setting a game in a world with no beasts while a player is adamant they want to play a beast master ranger. It's the dm enforcing a rule that will hurt a class features intended use.

If the dm is choosing to enforce a rule thst hurts class features then best course of action is to come to a compromise with the dm. Even if it's something like the dm roll's in secret, then says big (11-20), or small (1-10). Or breaking it down into quarters.

[Rhaegar]

You're ignoring a key point. The line "You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll".

- If you have open rolls, this line makes perfect sense as the bard sees the result of the roll before deciding to use Cutting Words.

- If you have closed rolls, this line makes no sense. Since the player can't see the result of the roll, whether he decides before or after it has been made is completely irrelevant (thus making the above line worthless).

We have 2 possible scenarios, but only one of them actually makes sense. hence, it is disingenuous (if not outright deceitful) to treat both options as being equally valid.

It is important to know exactly when something happens whether or not it's open or closed rolls. There are some things that are done before dice are rolled, others after dice are rolled. If a Bard used his cutting words before the dice were rolled, he could end up waste his ability if the dice are never actually rolled due to other spells/abilities.

Example, Orc attacks Mage, It is declared that the orc hits the mage, the bard could use cutting words to reduce the damage that the mage takes, the reason the bard doesn't use cutting words before dice are rolled, is because the mage can use shield after he his hit, but before dice are rolled, to turn the hit into a miss. The importance of being after dice is rolled is to know exactly how it fits in with other abilities, it has nothing to do with seeing or not seeing the dice.

[Ashdate]

The problem you're stating has nothing to do with the rules though, the problem is with players who argue with their DMs or (worse) go onto forums and try to get input from others regarding how a ruling is made at their table. Ashdate was completely correct - the rule works regardless of how the DM rolls his dice, but not everyone is happy with that so it's turning into a debate. People are looking for rulings, rules, and regulations that don't exist and don't need to exist - if your DM rolls behind a screen then your ability still works. If he rolls in the open it works (and is better). Being better one way does not negate anything. The problem is that people aren't OK with others playing differently and are attempting to find a RAW way to tell others to shut up because they're wrong.

As a DM who was recently looking for a ruling on a similar ability (The Defensive Duelist feat) to me it's not about the game doing it one way or another. It'd be like if Fireball said "this spell could do 6d6 damage or 2d20, depending on what your DM thinks about the destructive power of fire." Why force me to make it an issue?

That both function regardless of which one is chosen is not the point. And it's not about having one to say another player/DM is playing D&D wrong. I just want rules that are clear, and the Cutting Words and Defensive Duelist feat are not clear because--depending on how the DM chooses to roll dice--the ability functions differently. With open rolls a player is *tactically* using their limited class feature to influence events. With closed rolls, the player is tossing their limited class feature into the wind and crossing their fingers. Both can be valid ways the ability could have been worded! But no, they don't play the same.

That is, in my opinion, poor design, easily avoidable had they just stuck to a simple rule that all modifiers to attack rolls/AC have to be declared before a roll is made.

(Because I now have a fighter with Defensive Duelist and a bard with Cutting Words who I just recently found out *hasn't* been using his class ability specifically because I tend to roll in secret is now something I feel I have to house rule, because I want my players to have fun and *use* their Pelor-given abilities.)

[Tanarii]

But Jeremy's tweet isn't the bard sees if the dm is running open rolls. It is that that bard sees the roll.
no it isn't. It's that the Bard can use it after seeing the roll. Not that he must see the roll before using the ability.

If there are open rolls, he can use it after seeing the roll. That statement is identical to JC's tweet. The first part is just and assumed part of his statement. His statement in no way invalidates the first part. It can be added without issue to his statement.

Neither RAW nor JC's tweet require open rolls for the rule to work.

[Lombra]

Why not ask your DM? He's the ultimate law, no point in arguing about something that isn't RAW, it's up to him.

[wunderkid]

no it isn't. It's that the Bard can use it after seeing the roll. Not that he must see the roll before using the ability.

If there are open rolls, he can use it after seeing the roll. That statement is identical to JC's tweet. The first part is just and assumed part of his statement. His statement in no way invalidates the first part. It can be added without issue to his statement.

Neither RAW nor JC's tweet require open rolls for the rule to work.

Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford
You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

Not seeing any can in there.

The statement unequivocally states the bard has seen the roll. There's no can, or in this situation, if there were then there would be more clarification. As far as the creator of the game is concerned the bard sees the roll. This is the rules as intended.

I'm not saying the text of the ability validates or invalidates open/closed rolling but as far as the creator is concerned the bard has seen the roll before deciding to use Cutting.

[Tanarii]

Not seeing any can in there.
Here, let me help you.

Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford
You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

[Typewriter]

As a DM who was recently looking for a ruling on a similar ability (The Defensive Duelist feat) to me it's not about the game doing it one way or another. It'd be like if Fireball said "this spell could do 6d6 damage or 2d20, depending on what your DM thinks about the destructive power of fire." Why force me to make it an issue?

That both function regardless of which one is chosen is not the point. And it's not about having one to say another player/DM is playing D&D wrong. I just want rules that are clear, and the Cutting Words and Defensive Duelist feat are not clear because--depending on how the DM chooses to roll dice--the ability functions differently. With open rolls a player is *tactically* using their limited class feature to influence events. With closed rolls, the player is tossing their limited class feature into the wind and crossing their fingers. Both can be valid ways the ability could have been worded! But no, they don't play the same.

That is, in my opinion, poor design, easily avoidable had they just stuck to a simple rule that all modifiers to attack rolls/AC have to be declared before a roll is made.

(Because I now have a fighter with Defensive Duelist and a bard with Cutting Words who I just recently found out *hasn't* been using his class ability specifically because I tend to roll in secret is now something I feel I have to house rule, because I want my players to have fun and *use* their Pelor-given abilities.)

The problem is that providing a firm ruling (in this situation at least - I don't know the wording of defensive dueling off the top of my head) is that then you have one rule dictating a style of play. Open/Hidden rolls is a play style and both work. Why would you make a ruling for an ability that dictates the play style when you could just word the ability in such a way that it works with either style?

And again - why are you stopping the game to try and figure out rules? If you don't want to do that, don't do that. Make a ruling on the fly and do the research later. The system promotes that - you're ignoring that and blaming the system for something completely within your control.


Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford
You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

Not seeing any can in there.

The statement unequivocally states the bard has seen the roll. There's no can, or in this situation, if there were then there would be more clarification. As far as the creator of the game is concerned the bard sees the roll. This is the rules as intended.

I'm not saying the text of the ability validates or invalidates open/closed rolling but as far as the creator is concerned the bard has seen the roll before deciding to use Cutting.

You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

Seriously - this is insane. People are actually trying to argue the RAW play style of open/hidden rolls based off of the intentionally ambiguous wording behind a few abilities that are specifically worded in such a way as to work in both styles. Every table needs to work it out themselves - that's the RAW.

[krugaan]

Henceforth, every DM must:

1) purchase, read, and study the DMG
2) pass the BAR exam in his or her state
3) divest him/herself of all emotion, becoming an avatar of pure logic

[Tanarii]

Seriously - this is insane. People are actually trying to argue the RAW play style of open/hidden rolls based off of the intentionally ambiguous wording behind a few abilities that are specifically worded in such a way as to work in both styles. Every table needs to work it out themselves - that's the RAW.It's not insane. It's the internet. :smallamused:

[wunderkid]

Here, let me help you.

Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford
You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

Congratulations you've pointed out the word can in the part that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. And at the same time ignored the fact that the relevant bit does not list any type of prequisite. Bravo

In fact according to Jeremy and your pointing out of 'can' if you can't see the the roll you can't use Cutting Words.

[Tanarii]

Congratulations you've pointed out the word can in the part that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. And at the same time ignored the fact that the relevant bit does not list any type of prequisite. BravoIt's not irrelevant at all. That can makes his statement about seeing the die roll optional, not a requirement.


In fact according to Jeremy and your pointing out of 'can' if you can't see the the roll you can't use Cutting Words.Lol that's not how English works. You got it exactly back to front.

Edit: If the word can wasn't in his statement, then it wouldn't be optional. Chop out that one word and all of a sudden open rolls are required for it to work, because the rule would be you do blah blah after seeing the roll.

[Ashdate]

The problem is that providing a firm ruling (in this situation at least - I don't know the wording of defensive dueling off the top of my head) is that then you have one rule dictating a style of play. Open/Hidden rolls is a play style and both work. Why would you make a ruling for an ability that dictates the play style when you could just word the ability in such a way that it works with either style?

And again - why are you stopping the game to try and figure out rules? If you don't want to do that, don't do that. Make a ruling on the fly and do the research later. The system promotes that - you're ignoring that and blaming the system for something completely within your control.

My point isn't and never has been about dictating one style of play or another, nor in the DM's ability/prerogative to change those rules. My point is that they could have written abilities such as Cutting Words to function identically regardless of open/hidden rolls. But they didn't, and now we have this thread, I guess now nitpicking the RAW of the RAI of a head developer.

And I'm not stopping any game; I specifically looked into a ruling for Defensive a duelist between games, so I could adjudicate it fairly tonight when we play again (the phrasing is even worse than Cutting Words). I was ignoring it because it's completely irrelevant to my issues, as a DM, with Cutting Words/Defensive Duelist (and I would assume the Shield Spell but none of my players use that.)

[Typewriter]

Congratulations you've pointed out the word can in the part that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. And at the same time ignored the fact that the relevant bit does not list any type of prequisite. Bravo

In fact according to Jeremy and your pointing out of 'can' if you can't see the the roll you can't use Cutting Words.

Do you know what the word can means?

EDIT:


My point isn't and never has been about dictating one style of play or another, nor in the DM's ability/prerogative to change those rules. My point is that they could have written abilities such as Cutting Words to function identically regardless of open/hidden rolls. But they didn't, and now we have this thread, I guess now nitpicking the RAW of the RAI of a head developer.


But the rules are written in such a way as to work with either style. The player has an ability. The DM has rolled some dice. Does the player want to use his ability? Period - end of story. Bringing into question concerns over whether or not the player gets to see the dice is irrelevant to that discussion. It's relevant to discussions regarding the strength of the ability, or the wisdom in using it in certain situations, but from a rules perspective there are not questions. The player has the ability, the DM has rolled some dice, the player can use the ability if he wants. What else is needed?

[Tanarii]

My point is that they could have written abilities such as Cutting Words to function identically regardless of open/hidden rolls.Cutting words functions identically regardless of if it's hidden or open roll. What's not identical is the power of the feature. Edit: To be clear, the rule functions identically. What's different is the information the player has available to him, giving him more control over feature, making it more powerful.

[Typewriter]

Cutting words functions identically regardless of if it's hidden or open roll. What's not identical is the power of the feature. Edit: To be clear, the rule functions identically. What's different is the information the player has available to him, giving him more control over feature, making it more powerful.

Which is usually what causes a thread like this to pop up. Either a DM plays in such a way that he feels needlessly harms an ability and looks for guidance, or a player has an ability that he feels the DMs play style harms.

[Ashdate]

Right, and Fireball shouldn't, per the rules written in the book, deal more or less damage based on how lethal I (as the DM) think fire actually is. I'm glad I have the option to change it, but I'm more glad the damage it has a specific value!

For more head developer word parsing fun, here is my recent Twitter exchange with Mike Mearls about Defensive Duelist; I think it's relevant to the conversation about Cutting Words as they function similarly:


me:
Q: does the defensive duelist feat allow PC to know whether using AC boost would 100% avoid hit? "potentially" throwing me off

Mike Mearls:
A: yes - the player hears the attack result, then decides to use the feat

[wunderkid]

It's not irrelevant at all. That can makes his statement about seeing the die roll optional, not a requirement.

Lol that's not how English works. You got it exactly back to front.

Edit: If the word can wasn't in his statement, then it wouldn't be optional. Chop out that one word and all of a sudden open rolls are required for it to work, because the rule would be you do blah blah after seeing the roll.

No the can tells you when you can use the ability. You can use the ability after seeing the roll.

The word can tells you that after seeing the roll this is a time the ability can be used.

It in no way whatsoever applies in the slightest to the seeing part of the comment. Somehow applying the can to mean 'if certain optional rules are being used' is not at all how English works. I'm afraid you have it beyond back to front.

Removing can from the statement makes it read like this:

You use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

This reading means it can't be used before or at any other time except after seeing the roll. The can has no effect on the seeing portion of the statement. As I said you pointed out the can that's entirely irrelevant. It simply tells you that is the time you are able to use the ability.

[RulesJD]

Henceforth, every DM must:

1) purchase, read, and study the DMG
2) pass the BAR exam in his or her state
3) divest him/herself of all emotion, becoming an avatar of pure logic

*points to his name*

[Tanarii]

No the can tells you when you can use the ability. You can use the ability after seeing the roll.Which is consistent with, and also means, you can use it after NOT seeing the roll. Edit: If it helps, another way to look at it is saying "you can blah blah" doesn't exclude. It includes.

[wunderkid]

Which is consistent with, and also means, you can use it after NOT seeing the roll. Edit: If it helps, another way to look at it is saying "you can blah blah" doesn't exclude. It includes.

No no no no oh so much no.

You're right on the bit where it doesn't exclude. But that doesn't let you add words in to suit your argument. It doesn't let you add exclusions as you see fit.

It does not at all say you can use it after not seeing the roll.

By the same train of thought it doesn't say you can use it after seeing the roll but not unless you walk around with a teabag on your head.

You can not add exclusions just because a permission is listed. English doesn't work that way.

Saying you can walk to the shop once you have seen your bank account means once you have seen your bank account you have the choice to go to the shop.

Not you can choose to not look at your bank account and still go to the shop. The English language does not work that way no matter how badly you would like it to so it can suit your argument

[Tanarii]

By the same train of thought it doesn't say you can use it after seeing the roll but not unless you walk around with a teabag on your head.No it doesn't say that. But it does say you can use it after seeing the roll, regardless of if you walk around with a teabag on your head. (BTW this is a hilariously funny example. Thanks for the laugh :smallbiggrin: )


Saying you can walk to the shop once you have seen your bank account means once you have seen your bank account you have the choice to go to the shop.

Not you can choose to not look at your bank account and still go to the shop. The English language does not work that way no matter how badly you would like it to so it can suit your argumentI'm afraid you're wrong. If you can walk to the shop after you have seen your bank account, you may also walk to the shop if you never see your bank account. The statement "you can walk to the store after seeing your bank account" only gives permission. It explicitly prevents the situation "you can NOT walk to the store", provided "you have seen your bank account", because it has given permission "you can walk to the store". As long as you have seen the bank account, there is no way to prevent walking to the store, because it has inclusively given permission to do so.

Similarly, so long as you have seen the roll, there is no way to prevent the Bard from using Cutting Words. It is inclusive, and permissive. It explicitly adds permission to do it AFTER seeing the roll ... it doesn't deny permission before seeing the roll, or if you never see the roll at all. Nor does it add any requirement that you must see the roll before you can use Cutting Words, it just adds permission to do so in that case.

[KnotaGuru]

Tanarii is a troll, just let the thread die

[coredump]

You can't read JCs tweet without also reading the question he was answering.

He was asked (slight paraphrase) "can the bard see the roll or does he always have to guess"

Of course he does not have to *always* guess.... it is possible that he can see the roll first.

No where does he say that the bard will *always* see the roll first....just that it *can* happen, as it is a legal possibility.

[Typewriter]

You can't read JCs tweet without also reading the question he was answering.

He was asked (slight paraphrase) "can the bard see the roll or does he always have to guess"

Of course he does not have to *always* guess.... it is possible that he can see the roll first.

No where does he say that the bard will *always* see the roll first....just that it *can* happen, as it is a legal possibility.

There's two literal interpretations for this wording. One of them is inclusive of open or hidden rolling while another is not. Some people prefer the interpretation that does away with an entire style of play that is otherwise accepted because it suits them and makes their ability more powerful.

"You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved."
Interpretation 1 - Granting permission. The player can see the roll, the wording of this tweet grants them permission to see dice rolls - period, end of story, hidden rolls are dead.
Interpretation 2 - Clarification. As you said, it's a clarification of a rule - someone asked about using the ability in a specific manner and got an answer that is consistent with what is written that also maintains hidden rolls as an option.

Interpretation 2 is, to my eyes, obviously the correct interpretation, but some people insist on seeing that first interpretation.

EDIT:

Oh wow, Coredump was completely right when he brought up the wording of the question. I just looked up the tweet and read the original question (which is basically what Coredump said it was) and it really does put that answer in a specific light.

Q. Is the intent that a Bard gets to know amount rolled for attacks before using Cutting Words or should they always guess?

A. You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

The answer is literally answering the question - you can still use the ability after seeing the dice, you don't have to guess - without negating anything. It doesn't say you always get to see dice, it doesn't say you never have to guess. It's a tweet that is consistent with the RAW. Context matters.

[Syll]

EDIT:

Oh wow, Coredump was completely right when he brought up the wording of the question. I just looked up the tweet and read the original question (which is basically what Coredump said it was) and it really does put that answer in a specific light.

Q. Is the intent that a Bard gets to know amount rolled for attacks before using Cutting Words or should they always guess?

A. You can use Cutting Words after seeing the roll, but before any of the roll's effects are resolved.

The answer is literally answering the question - you can still use the ability after seeing the dice, you don't have to guess - without negating anything. It doesn't say you always get to see dice, it doesn't say you never have to guess. It's a tweet that is consistent with the RAW. Context matters.

I read that as "after seeing the roll, but before modifiers added"

Honestly, I see this fixation on 'can' as a petty way to screw your player

.... In the same way that you don't see how any one could interpret it in your 'option 1' I am boggling over how you are reading it as 'option 2'

If i told my kid 'you can play video games after you do your homework' I have an absolute expectation that video games will not be played unless his homework is done.

[Tanarii]

If i told my kid 'you can play video games after you do your homework' I have an absolute expectation that video games will not be played unless his homework is done.Personally, I'd phrase it as "you can play video games, but only after you do your homework." But only because I'm reading your sentence in the context of this thread, and so it looks ambiguous to me. If I wasn't doing that I probably wouldn't find it ambiguous. :smallwink:

Honestly, after seeing the question JC was answering, I'm inclined to change my mind on what he likely was intending in terms of meaning. If he was explicitly asked if the Bard must always guess, and he answered you can answered the Bard can use it after seeing the roll, his answer doesn't really make much sense unless it was refuting the "always guess" part of the question.

[AvatarVecna]

Out of curiosity, for the person who does closed rolls with a Bard in the group to prevent abuse of Cutting Words: does the DM also roll all players attack rolls for them, to prevent the Bard from meta-gaming when they can use their Bardic Inspiration?

[Typewriter]

I read that as "after seeing the roll, but before modifiers added"

Honestly, I see this fixation on 'can' as a petty way to screw your player

.... In the same way that you don't see how any one could interpret it in your 'option 1' I am boggling over how you are reading it as 'option 2'

If i told my kid 'you can play video games after you do your homework' I have an absolute expectation that video games will not be played unless his homework is done.

Again, the context of the question matters. The question was not, "Can I see the DMs dice rolls before I use this ability" where your childs question would probably be, "Can I play some video games after I do my homework". Question leads to answer, but the context matters.

If your child says, "Can I never play video games again if I don't do my homework?"

And you say, "You can play video games again in your life, even if you don't do your homework." that isn't express permission to play video games. It also doesn't circumvent other rules you might have in place. But if your child runs to his mother and says, "Dad said I CAN play video games", you'd know he was trying to bypass the rules by mincing words.

The context of the question matters just as much as the answer.


Out of curiosity, for the person who does closed rolls with a Bard in the group to prevent abuse of Cutting Words: does the DM also roll all players attack rolls for them, to prevent the Bard from meta-gaming when they can use their Bardic Inspiration?

Personally I don't really care. To be completely honest if I roll a die and then say 'hit' and my player wants to use Cutting Words (or some luck abilities) I let him even though he already knows the result. It's about having fun and doing what works at the table.