Does a player need to know if a shield spell will work?

[holywhippet]

If a character who knows the shield spell is being attacked and the DM declares it will hit, do they need to declare the attack roll so the player can work out if their shield spell will block it? By RAW it looks like no but in most games I play the DM asks a player if a roll of X will hit so they know anyway.

[Unoriginal]

If a character who knows the shield spell is being attacked and the DM declares it will hit, do they need to declare the attack roll so the player can work out if their shield spell will block it? By RAW it looks like no but in most games I play the DM asks a player if a roll of X will hit so they know anyway.

No, the player don't need to know, especially not per RAW. The character never knows, in any case, be they PCs or NPCs.

Shield is a reaction to an attack that hit your regular AC, not knowing if it hits your boosted AC is part of the gamble. Knowing would give the spell a significant power-up, as you'd be saving a lot more spell slots.

A DM can decide to tell without it causing problems, though. Just a boost in power.

[RSP]

RAW I don’t think you get the roll, however, I’ve only played on open roll tables where the DM’s rolls are just as exposed as the players. So we get to see the roll but don’t necessarily know the modifier.

[ImproperJustice]

Yes the player should know the roll, because they are burning a resource to stop a negative outcome. Other than amusing a cruel GM who likes to see players burn vital resources for no reason, it doesn’t hurt the game to allow that to happen.

Silly Gygax! Role-playing is supposed to be fun, not unescessarily punitive!

[willdaBEAST]

Yes the player should know the roll

This is how I've played/DMed. The die roll is shown or shared with the player, but the attack modifier is not.

[the secret fire]

I am fine with the players seeing the result of the DM's attack roll, and including that in their decision-making. I am not fine with the players knowing the modifiers applied to that roll.

So, basically, if the DM rolls a nat 20 to hit a given PC, I am fine with the player not wasting a Shield spell trying to stop it. Beyond that, they'll have to guess the outcome.

[Kane0]

Hardcore RAW says no, dirty peasants players don't get the luxury of knowing what the DM is up to, including rolls.

Playing with actual human beings in meatspace may change this perspective however. Either way, it doesn't really break the game and is more of a fun and transparency thing.

[unusualsuspect]

I am fine with the players seeing the result of the DM's attack roll, and including that in their decision-making. I am not fine with the players knowing the modifiers applied to that roll.

So, basically, if the DM rolls a nat 20 to hit a given PC, I am fine with the player not wasting a Shield spell trying to stop it. Beyond that, they'll have to guess the outcome.

Just to clarify, are you only opposed to the DM telling the players the modifier, or are you opposed to players figuring out modifiers entirely (which seems kinda unavoidable if you're showing rolls and players can figure out that X missed AC Y but X+1 didn't)?

[BaconAwesome]

RAW is ambiguous but Sage Advice says the player should be told whether shield would work before using it. (Sorry, I don't have enough history to post links but you can Google it)

[Pex]

A bad guy spellcaster can't help but know if it will work. The DM has to know what AC the player hits. To play silly games of the player hiding the roll until the DM says if Shield is cast or not or the DM randomly chooses if the bad guys casts it anyway when it won't work is just that, silly. Just in the interest of fairness the player should know.

[mephnick]

A bad guy spellcaster can't help but know if it will work. The DM has to know what AC the player hits. To play silly games of the player hiding the roll until the DM says if Shield is cast or not or the DM randomly chooses if the bad guys casts it anyway when it won't work is just that, silly. Just in the interest of fairness the player should know.

Or you could trust your DM to roleplay his NPC's fairly. Shield is meant to have a risk associated with its use.

[rbstr]

I feel like they should get the roll but not the final number. But DM can do whatever, I guess.

[Kane0]

Shield is meant to have a risk associated with its use.

I always figured the spell slot was all the cost/risk required. You have made a claim, I demand the burden of proof!

[sithlordnergal]

I see no reason for the players not to know. Actually, it is kind of important for the players to know since there are multiple ways another player can affect those rolls, from cutting words to the lucky feat to a divination wizard. Plus it just makes things go faster in combat for the DM to ask "does an X hit you".

[Malifice]

Yes the player should know the roll, because they are burning a resource to stop a negative outcome. Other than amusing a cruel GM who likes to see players burn vital resources for no reason, it doesn’t hurt the game to allow that to happen.

Silly Gygax! Role-playing is supposed to be fun, not unescessarily punitive!

I disagree.

[mephnick]

I always figured the spell slot was all the cost/risk required. You have made a claim, I demand the burden of proof!

There's no risk if you know it will work or not, just a cost. Hence, doesn't meet my requirement for the risk assumed in the spell.

[Gastronomie]

I've actually never thought of this question because I play mainly online, where all the rolls are visible, but ultimately I believe it should depend on the DM. At least I personally would allow the caster to know the result of the attack roll.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that a chance of wasting ressources is included in the calculation for the spell's power. It's not like Mage Armor, that just make your AC better.



A bad guy spellcaster can't help but know if it will work. The DM has to know what AC the player hits. To play silly games of the player hiding the roll until the DM says if Shield is cast or not or the DM randomly chooses if the bad guys casts it anyway when it won't work is just that, silly. Just in the interest of fairness the player should know.

Like always, you assume that DMs are unable to have in-character/out-of-character knowledge separation. There is nothing silly, unfair or random with determining if a bad guy want to increase their chance to not get hit or not.

A DM is free to tell or to not tell, but there is nothing wrong with either.

[Reticent]

The player isn't entitled to know, but the character probably has a good idea whether the attack is coming at an angle shield would cover, and the DM should convey that info in those terms whenever there's any question.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Keep in mind that a chance of wasting ressources is included in the calculation for the spell's power.

"Keep in mind that knowing the spell can't be wasted is part of the calculation of the spells power" see that, I gave the opposite conclusion with the same reasoning. However my statement is backed up by Sage Advice (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/shield-before/)
If the intention of the spell was to be a gamble it wouldn't be triggered AFTER you get hit but when you get attacked. There is no caveat written in like. "Before you know the results of"
But RAI/RAW aside.

This is the question for DM's say the shield spell didn't exist.

Do you write down and or memorize each players AC and keep track of any adjustments in the event they don or doffed a shield or have a spell such as shield of faith active etc then simply inform the player, hit, miss, critical.
Or do you simply call out what AC the monster hits and assume the player is keeping track of their own armor class.

If you always did the former then their is a chance the shield spell won't be enough as consequence of that DMing style, who cares what Sage Advice said a couple years back.
If you do the latter then the shield spell won't ever be wasted barring a counterspell, or some ability that lets the attacker add to or alter the roll after its been made, who cares what Sage Advice might say in the future.

Switching which of those methods you are most comfortable with over the a spell or two isn't worth it.

[Sigreid]

There's no reason a given DM should share that information. There's nothing wrong if they do.

In response to Pex, if I'm DMing, if the wizard would use Shield to avoid a hit, my NPC wizard will use it whether it will work or not. Some wizards won't bother. My character wizard has a base AC so low shield mostly won't save him, for example.

[Unoriginal]

It's a tweet from Mearls. It how he personally rules it, and as I said before it's something a DM can decide to rule that way without issue, but only Crawford's tweets are considered official (and if he doesn't specify that it's something he does as a DM and not part of the general rules)

[Arial Black]

The game itself assumes that combat dice are rolled in the open.

This is how things like Cutting Words function; without open rolls it could not work as written. "After you see the roll but before you know the result..."

The game assumes that you can see the roll but do not know the modifier.

Of course, you may be able to work out the modifier (approximately or even precisely) by fighting it for a while, in exactly the same way as fighting someone allows you to judge how good at fighting they are.

Those dice don't suddenly become hidden if you know the shield spell!

So, it's not an exact science, but you can make a pretty educated guess.

[mephnick]

Do you write down and or memorize each players AC and keep track of any adjustments in the event they don or doffed a shield or have a spell such as shield of faith active etc then simply inform the player, hit, miss, critical.

Yes? You're supposed to do this. It's easy to have a little table or important stats for your PCs. It allows you to smoothly control the fiction.

Kids these days are allergic to taking notes.

[Green Leviathan]

I agree with Arial Black. there are several abilities that assume you can see the dice roll before it is declared a hit. Cutting words, Combat Inspiration, the Lucky feat. Granted you shouldn't know the modifier specifically but you should know wether or not the DM rolled a 9 and hit vs a 19 and hit. I've had DM's rule both ways though.

[manyslayer]

Plus it just makes things go faster in combat for the DM to ask "does an X hit you".

Another of those questions I never thought anyone would ask since I have never played at a table (35+ years playing across 2 states) that this wasn't the standard way to play.

[Unoriginal]

I agree with Arial Black. there are several abilities that assume you can see the dice roll before it is declared a hit. Cutting words, Combat Inspiration, the Lucky feat. Granted you shouldn't know the modifier specifically but you should know wether or not the DM rolled a 9 and hit vs a 19 and hit. I've had DM's rule both ways though.

According to Crawford, the DM can decide to hid the roll in general and just reveal/show the result for abilities that require you to see the dice roll before declaring it.

You'd note that contrarily to those abilities, Shield has no such "after you see the dice roll" wording.

[ciarannihill]

No, the player don't need to know, especially not per RAW. The character never knows, in any case, be they PCs or NPCs.

Shield is a reaction to an attack that hit your regular AC, not knowing if it hits your boosted AC is part of the gamble. Knowing would give the spell a significant power-up, as you'd be saving a lot more spell slots.

A DM can decide to tell without it causing problems, though. Just a boost in power.

This sounds correct to me by RAW, however I will say in practice I personally don't wait for it, I'll roll and check it against AC, and then if they have no response I'll narrate the attack happening. It increases Shield's power a bit, but it "feels" smoother in play.

I also feel like to an extent it makes logical sense -- a character can tell if an attack is going super wide and doesn't necessarily need additional defense, I feel like if the result is under a certain threshold I won't let them waste the spell because the character would be aware that the attack wouldn't hit. It's the iffy close call ones that feel more like a "hide the result" scenario to me narratively, but this is such a fluid, judgment call thing that I understand why people/RAW doesn't bother with it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The game itself assumes that combat dice are rolled in the open.

This is how things like Cutting Words function; without open rolls it could not work as written. "After you see the roll but before you know the result..."

What do you think DM screens were made for. The DMs rolls are hidden the players are in the open. It’s why they’re screens and not a place mat.
When I look at cutting words it says
“You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the GM determines”
The ability doesn’t say you get to set it, so it seems the wording changed between the first and second printing of the phb.


Yes? You're supposed to do this. It's easy to have a little table or important stats for your PCs. It allows you to smoothly control the fiction.

Kids these days are allergic to taking notes.

As DM you a dozen things to keep track of and notes on. The PCs know their AC so you roll the dice and call out what ac the npc hit. Tracking their ac isn’t necessary and unlike other stats it can change eaily between encounters or even during battle.
Me: the monster attacks (Insert descriptive stuff) [slight pause for other PCs to insert before results reactions] ac 17
Player 1: hit
Me: 13damage
Me:the monster attacks (Insert descriptive stuff) [slight pause for other PCs to insert before results reactions] ac 19
Player 2: miss

[E’Tallitnics]

The game itself assumes that combat dice are rolled in the open.

This is how things like Cutting Words function; without open rolls it could not work as written. "After you see the roll but before you know the result..."

The game assumes that you can see the roll but do not know the modifier.

Of course, you may be able to work out the modifier (approximately or even precisely) by fighting it for a while, in exactly the same way as fighting someone allows you to judge how good at fighting they are.

Those dice don't suddenly become hidden if you know the shield spell!

So, it's not an exact science, but you can make a pretty educated guess.

I find that lots of players make this false assumption. Here's what cutting words actually says:

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 DM 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.

You'll notice there's nothing in that text that indicates that the players can see the DMs dice. All such similar game mechanics are worded in a like manner. You'll find that playing the game as written, where the characters don't get meta information, results in a game where more resources are expended, and that makes for a more challenging (i.e. "Fun") game!

[DeTess]

How is knowing whether the enemy is stumbling over his own boots or is making an expert slash meta information? Dice roll result is shorthand for enemy skill, so if you're hiding that, I assume you're providing your players with an accurate description of the skill with which the incoming attack is performed?

[ProsecutorGodot]

The way that I run it, as well as how my DM runs it is that the player is told that they have been hit but not the total of the roll. They can choose to use Shield or other such reactions then and after those reactions have been decided, the result is revealed.

I think this is the most fair way to handle it and the most in line with RAW/RAI. I'm of the opinion that these kinds of mechanics should have an element of risk to them because in a realistic sense the character wouldn't always know when a Shield spell is futile and in a gamist sense the effects have no mention of the end result being revealed (in fact most state the opposite).

This is especially crucial for one of the characters I'm playing a War Wizard Gish. The decision of whether or not I use Arcane Deflection or Shield is exciting to me and my character would get a significant boost in power if I knew the total of the roll, I'd potentially be saving spell slots for little to no cost every encounter. I really like the idea that he can misjudge the severity of the attack coming at him and take a hit.

[ImproperJustice]

The way that I run it, as well as how my DM runs it is that the player is told that they have been hit but not the total of the roll. They can choose to use Shield or other such reactions then and after those reactions have been decided, the result is revealed.

I think this is the most fair way to handle it and the most in line with RAW/RAI. I'm of the opinion that these kinds of mechanics should have an element of risk to them because in a realistic sense the character wouldn't always know when a Shield spell is futile and in a gamist sense the effects have no mention of the end result being revealed (in fact most state the opposite).

This is especially crucial for one of the characters I'm playing a War Wizard Gish. The decision of whether or not I use Arcane Deflection or Shield is exciting to me and my character would get a significant boost in power if I knew the total of the roll, I'd potentially be saving spell slots for little to no cost every encounter. I really like the idea that he can misjudge the severity of the attack coming at him and take a hit.

We seem to have different opinions on what is exciting. I find pointlessly burning resources for no benefit to be disappointing and unfun.

I think my character (as listed in your example), who is presumably a well trained adventurer with potential years of combat training under his belt can tell when he is out of position and about to get nailed, and has the training to make effective use of his abilities to turn the killing blow aside at the last second.

Honestly there are two camps of opinio. On this topic. I know out group finds the latter situation to be more fun and exciting.

But that’s the nice thing about RPGs, each table can customize their experience.

[Segev]

You'll notice there's nothing in that text that indicates that the players can see the DMs dice. All such similar game mechanics are worded in a like manner. You'll find that playing the game as written, where the characters don't get meta information, results in a game where more resources are expended, and that makes for a more challenging (i.e. "Fun") game!

Logically speaking, there is no point to waiting for the roll to be made if you don't get to know what the roll's (numeric, not necessarily pass/fail) result was. The notion that they put text in there to permit you to do something that makes zero difference is silly.

[Pex]

It's sad that old school thinking of DMs hyperventilating in seething anger of players knowing things so tell them absolutely nothing about anything is trying to come back in style.

[Unoriginal]

It's sad that old school thinking of DMs hyperventilating in seething anger of players knowing things so tell them absolutely nothing about anything is trying to come back in style.

It's sad that you feel the need to pretend people who disagree with you are hyperventilating in seething anger and are telling their people nothing about anything.

I'd tell you to be careful with that strawman.

Players don't need to know their opponents' stats, nor their dice rolls. A DM can decide to tell them, or not, and there is nothing wrong with either choice.

[mephnick]

It's sad that old school thinking of DMs hyperventilating in seething anger of players knowing things so tell them absolutely nothing about anything is trying to come back in style.

It's sad that your social anxieties limit your ability to trust the people you spend time with.

[Pex]

As much as players need to trust the DM the DM needs to trust the players and not be afraid players know things and act upon the information. Not every DM saying no is tyrannical. Not every player acting upon game term knowledge is a munchkin.

[Tanarii]

Looks to me like RAW doesn't say.

Personally I do not use a DM screen, roll in the open. I'll only play with DMs that roll in the open. I don't understand players that accept DMs that want the ability to cheat (usually euphemized as 'fudging').

Personally I let shield work after they know the total, but that's because I say "the X gets a 17 to attack" and let the player tell me if that's a hit.

Technically I feel that cutting words and the like happen before you know the total of the roll plus bonuses, but since I tend to run very fast combat and say the result of the roll plus total before someone can jump in, I just let it be before the results are applied.

Technically I feel that counterspell is supposed to be used without knowing the spell cast, and in fact no spell should ever be known when it's cast (barring using the new Xanathar's rule), but I have a tendency to blurt out spell names of offensive spells that enemies are casting. Even after Xanathar's came out. Habits die hard.

[Unoriginal]

Habits die hard.

I blame their luck feature.

[Citan]

Hi OP!
Before giving my own view on topic... :)


The game itself assumes that combat dice are rolled in the open.

This is how things like Cutting Words function; without open rolls it could not work as written. "After you see the roll but before you know the result..."

The game assumes that you can see the roll but do not know the modifier.

Of course, you may be able to work out the modifier (approximately or even precisely) by fighting it for a while, in exactly the same way as fighting someone allows you to judge how good at fighting they are.

Those dice don't suddenly become hidden if you know the shield spell!

So, it's not an exact science, but you can make a pretty educated guess.
This. Whether the DM actually rolls in the open or not, player need to know the raw number rolled (but NOT the total) to make an educated guess whether to use a feature or not.


What do you think DM screens were made for. The DMs rolls are hidden the players are in the open. It’s why they’re screens and not a place mat.
When I look at cutting words it says
“You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the GM determines”
The ability doesn’t say you get to set it, so it seems the wording changed between the first and second printing of the phb.



As DM you a dozen things to keep track of and notes on. The PCs know their AC so you roll the dice and call out what ac the npc hit. Tracking their ac isn’t necessary and unlike other stats it can change eaily between encounters or even during battle.

First, on DM screen, you make a completely unecessary leap of reasoning here.
There are plenty of reasons to use a DM screen, rolls being NOT one of them.
As you say yourself, a DM has many things to track, with plenty of informations sheets. Even if players see it in reverse, just having a glance at a map, illustration, or some datasheets (which are codified, so it's quick to identify what represents a number) could give information to players, even unwillingly.
THAT is the reason why you use a screen.
There is no prime reason to hide rolls, besides the added suspense or the fact you are making completely secret rolls, which is usually not the case in a fight.

Second, on player AC... I try my best to not be judgemental but, honestly, why would you find that hard? It's like the top 3 information that come to your mind several times per round, several rounds per encounter, probably several encounters per play session!
It's like your birthday, you never really learned it, yet you know it.
As for AC modifiers in fight like a Shield of Faith or... A Shield :smalltongue:, a simple way for everyone to keep it in mind without memory bursting out of place is using cards that you flip on and off (or a spell card you put half-over a "concentration" card). It doesn't need to be fancy, plain paper is enough. :)

---- Back to OP.
No, they don't. Per RAW.
Now, my actual answer would be, as often, "it depends". That is one thing you should decide, preferably with your players, before starting the game.
My default choice would be "make open roll in fights, don't tell modifiers, just tell if it hits player or not and let them decide".

It's the most logical and the most interesting choice, because it's one more incentive for players to either use Arcane/Religion/whatever check to search their (character)'s memory to find information on a particular monster, or try and guess their modifier with successive attacks they miss or hit.

But, if I know my players are here more for roleplay, or are not accustomed to tactics and don't specially like it, then I may propose them to choose between the "core" version (described) or the "soft" version (I'll tell them if the Shield would make a difference or not).

You could also try a compromise, by not actually tell them if the Shield would make an ON/OFF difference, but by describing the attack in a way that strongly hints whether it's worth trying.
(It's very tiring to do so though, unless you use the same few codified descriptions ^^).
For example...
Player AC 17, monster bonus to hit +5.
- Monster rolls 20: (just in case you'd play with hidden rolls): "The XXX surprises you, delivering an extremely fast strike yet with all shoulder rotation behind, hitting you critically. Before you feel the crushing pain, you just had time to thing 'this is gonna hurt'"
- Monster rolls 19: "In spite of your vigilance, the creature makes a swift attack, so fast and precise that any kind of defense seems useless."
- Monster rolls a 13: "Monster makes an arc strike, you know its attack is gonna connect unless you try something".

The big problem of that method though is that it goes against the presumed behaviour of Shield (what others said above: spell description says "after you are hit", whereas my descriptions are "when you are gonna get hit"), which is kinda clunky unless everyone is fine with that way of ruling fight in general.

This stresses out the big deal of Shield, rather how one imagines it:
- either something you use in desperation when you feel the strike on your body, that would generate a "repelling force field" (like a rubber cushion) that may be enough, or not, to stop the attack in its tracks (perfect for RAW application). IMO this is the correct one, since spell description talks about a "barrier" and you generate it "when you are hit" (with Magic Missile being special case because it's like an instant, auto-hit, force damage).
- or something that you use as soon as you feel high probably of harm arriving, generating a force field that boosts your evasion (enhancing your senses, giving a kind of deflection effect or whatever else), suiting the "compromise" thing I told about.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Hi OP!
First, on DM screen, you make a completely unnecessary leap of reasoning here.
There are plenty of reasons to use a DM screen, rolls being secret is NOT one of them.
There is no prime reason to hide rolls, besides the added suspense or the fact you are making completely secret rolls, which is usually not the case in a fight.
No I'm not and yes it is, with the amount of real-estate a DM screen takes up open rolls by the DM would be very awkward with the screen in place. Hell when I bought my first DM screen a picture of one of those dice trays behind the screen on the box.


Second, on player AC... I try my best to not be judgemental but, honestly, why would you find that hard? It's like the top 3 information that come to your mind several times per round, several rounds per encounter, probably several encounters per play session!
It's like your birthday, you never really learned it, yet you know it. As for AC modifiers in fight like a Shield of Faith or... A Shield , a simple way for everyone to keep it in mind without memory bursting out of place is using cards that you flip on and off (or a spell card you put half-over a "concentration" card). It doesn't need to be fancy, plain paper is enough.
Everything I don't have track saves time. When you've run multiple campaigns to level 20 in 3rd edition you pick up tactics to make combat run smoother and faster. 5e edition has certainly made it simpler as you won't have four different things modifying your AC at once, but I've been telling the PC's what AC the monster hit for fifteen years I'm not about to stop now.

There is no RAW because what information the DM gives out is up to the DM. A DM can keep rolls hidden or not.


Jeremy Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/838919547348398082)
As DM, you decide whether to roll behind a screen or not. If something can change the roll, show the die or report what it rolled.

A DM can declare hits or misses or state the numerical results of the roll there is no RAW on how its done.

Shield does not have a caveat like "before you know the results of" it simply states after you've been hit. Similar abilities all have some caveat mentioned that adds some element of risk in their use. Shield has no such line, nothing in the spell description implies a risk of failure. So again there is no RAW the player either knows or doesn't know depends on the style of DMing you are using. If you simply declare hits and misses he doesn't know if you say AC of X just like the players are doing then they do know.

[Citan]

No I'm not and yes it is, with the amount of real-estate a DM screen takes up open rolls by the DM would be very awkward with the screen in place. Hell when I bought my first DM screen a picture of one of those dice trays behind the screen on the box.


Everything I don't have track saves time. When you've run multiple campaigns to level 20 in 3rd edition you pick up tactics to make combat run smoother and faster. 5e edition has certainly made it simpler as you won't have four different things modifying your AC at once, but I've been telling the PC's what AC the monster hit for fifteen years I'm not about to stop now.

There is no RAW because what information the DM gives out is up to the DM. A DM can keep rolls hidden or not.

A DM can declare hits or misses or state the numerical results of the roll there is no RAW on how its done.

Shield does not have a caveat like "before you know the results of" it simply states after you've been hit. Similar abilities all have some caveat mentioned that adds some element of risk in their use. Shield has no such line, nothing in the spell description implies a risk of failure. So again there is no RAW the player either knows or doesn't know depends on the style of DMing you are using. If you simply declare hits and misses he doesn't know if you say AC of X just like the players are doing then they do know.
I think you're playing strawman here.
Per the own tweet you quote, Crawford says that if something can alter the roll, you have to show it or report the number rolled.
Which amounts to rolling in the open. :)

[Tanarii]

There is no RAW because what information the DM gives out is up to the DM. A DM can keep rolls hidden or not.

A DM can declare hits or misses or state the numerical results of the roll there is no RAW on how its done.Yeah.

A DM can have all the PCs values written down, roll in secret, and describe the results of the roll (hit/miss, damage, effects, etc). Or they can announce the result of the roll and have the players let them know if it's a miss or a hit.

AFAIK there's no RAW saying either is the 'correct' way to do it.

Edit: 5e has very little reason to roll behind the screen, especially with passive checks, which literately exist to be used whenever the players can't even know a check is being made. Literately as in it's a written purpose of the Passive checks rule. But that doesn't mean it it can't be done, if a DM really wants to, and the DMG even has a blurb on rolling behind a screen.

(I have my personal opinions on DMs who do that, but that's different from saying 5e requires rolling in the open.)

[mephnick]

I think you're playing strawman here.
Per the own tweet you quote, Crawford says that if something can alter the roll, you have to show it or report the number rolled.
Which amounts to rolling in the open. :)

Crawford also defended Healing Spirit and tanked Shield Master. I hope no one takes his word as actual advice on how to run the game, because I don't think he's ever done it before.

[jas61292]

I think you're playing strawman here.
Per the own tweet you quote, Crawford says that if something can alter the roll, you have to show it or report the number rolled.
Which amounts to rolling in the open. :)

The thing is, Shield does not alter the roll. It alters your AC. All you need to know is if it hits.

[Sigreid]

We seem to have different opinions on what is exciting. I find pointlessly burning resources for no benefit to be disappointing and unfun.



This statement seems odd to me only because every action that has a chance of failure spends a resource with potentially no benefit.

For shield in particular there's the way I theoretically run it and the way I really run it.

Theoretically, the opponent rolls their attack. I tell them if they are hit and if they are is that hit a crit. The player then decides if they want to use shield to try to avoid that hit. Obviously they won't if I tell them it's a crit, but they don't have a guarantee that shield will or will not protect them. For opponents with Shield, if they would ever use it to avoid a hit, they always do, except on a crit.

In practice, we use FG, and I use tower feature to hide rolls rarely so they can see how high the total roll is and that doesn't bother me.

I will point out though that shield stays active until the caster's next turn so if you are likely to be attacked by multiple opponents, or an opponent with multiple attacks it's not really wasted even if it doesn't stop all of the attacks.

[Arial Black]

I think you're playing strawman here.
Per the own tweet you quote, Crawford says that if something can alter the roll, you have to show it or report the number rolled.
Which amounts to rolling in the open. :)

So all that's needed, even for DMs who roll combat dice in secret, is to have ONE party member who is able to alter a roll, and even if they choose not to alter any roll then they (= the party) get to see every roll.

I'm not kidding when I say that the game has an expectation that these dice are rolled in the open! But JC knows he cannot tell every DM how to play at their own table, so he answers that if they do use hidden rolls they have to show the die result anyway.

So in an environment with open combat roles, shield works as intended.

[Slybluedemon]

I've actually never thought of this question because I play mainly online, where all the rolls are visible, but ultimately I believe it should depend on the DM. At least I personally would allow the caster to know the result of the attack roll.

Same, you see the roll on the screen so you know if shield would stop it or not.

[Segev]

No, JC said you need to tell the player what the roll is. Not that you need to show him the dice. There is a long tradition of DMs rolling behind screens so they can fudge numbers. (Not commenting on whether it's good practice or not.)

[mephnick]

There is a long tradition of DMs rolling behind screens so they can fudge numbers. (Not commenting on whether it's good practice or not.)

I'm absolutely against fudging to the point of actually having left games if I've found out it's happened. But I still roll behind a screen as a DM. The idea that some have here that a DM only uses a screen to cheat is ludicrous to me. Who hurt these people? A ****ty DM is ****. Nothing will change that. I'm not cheating my player by not showing him my roll.

Shield and Cutting Words say absolutely nothing about the player knowing the number on the die, only that they must declare the action before the result is announced. It's actually worded in a way that appears to demand rolling behind a screen.

[the secret fire]

Just to clarify, are you only opposed to the DM telling the players the modifier, or are you opposed to players figuring out modifiers entirely (which seems kinda unavoidable if you're showing rolls and players can figure out that X missed AC Y but X+1 didn't)?

Unless I'm running PbP, I don't care if players try to figure out modifiers in combat. I run a more lethal game than what's in the core rules, and my combats don't tend to last long enough for it to be worth trying to figure out modifiers on the fly (though it might be worth it for recurring villains, which I am fine with, as it does not break my verisimilitude).

[the secret fire]

I'm absolutely against fudging to the point of actually having left games if I've found out it's happened. But I still roll behind a screen as a DM. The idea that some have here that a DM only uses a screen to cheat is ludicrous to me. Who hurt these people? A ****ty DM is ****. Nothing will change that. I'm not cheating my player by not showing him my roll.

While I agree that the game runs most smoothly run by a DM who knows all the numbers, rolls in secret, and doesn't fudge, I still roll enemy attacks (and only attacks) in the open because it is more exciting, and because I want the players to see the roll if their character get cleaved in two by a critical hit.

The enemy to-hit roll is the one roll that can potentially kill a PC which is entirely out of the players' hands. While I agree that trusting one's DM is extremely important, there are a lot of reasons to make it an open roll, as opposed to enemy saves and ability checks, which I always resolve behind the screen.

[Arial Black]

Shield and Cutting Words say absolutely nothing about the player knowing the number on the die, only that they must declare the action before the result is announced. It's actually worded in a way that appears to demand rolling behind a screen.

They say that the player announces the use of the ability after the die roll but before the result is announced.

This implies there is a meaningful impact of that timing. Seeing the die roll result gives you information, which you (presumably) can use to help make your decision.

If the rolls were intended to be secret then there would be absolutely no reason to wait for the die to be rolled, because if the roll were unknown then it could not impact the player's decision.

[RSP]

They say that the player announces the use of the ability after the die roll but before the result is announced.

This implies there is a meaningful impact of that timing. Seeing the die roll result gives you information, which you (presumably) can use to help make your decision.

If the rolls were intended to be secret then there would be absolutely no reason to wait for the die to be rolled, because if the roll were unknown then it could not impact the player's decision.

Cutting Words says that, Shield does not. Shield specifically needs the attack roll to be resolved before even knowing if it’ll be used as it’s Reaction trigger is a hit.

[Arial Black]

Cutting Words says that, Shield does not. Shield specifically needs the attack roll to be resolved before even knowing if it’ll be used as it’s Reaction trigger is a hit.

I'm saying that features like Cutting Words show that the game intends combat rolls to be made openly. Not just when PCs have Cutting Words or whatever, but as standard practice.

The fact that it helps players decide whether or not to cast shield is nice, but shield is not why rolls are made in the open.

[Astofel]

I agree with Pex here, the most fair way to handle Shield is for both players and DM to know for sure whether or not it will be worth using. IME, players always call out the total of their attack roll, and once the DM has learned that information it's very difficult to unlearn it and have the Shielding NPC react like they don't know if it'll work. Yeah, yeah, trusting the DM to roleplay fairly and all that, but to me that means that when the players find and use the secret passage to the BBEG's lair without him having any way to find out, they shouldn't find him waiting fully prepared for them on the other side. The yes/no Shield decision is one that's hard to make unbiased once you already have the OOC information telling you whether or not it's worthwhile.

[LudicSavant]

Generally speaking, the less potential information a player has access to, the less skill-based a turn-based strategy game is.

[unusualsuspect]

Can NPCs also use Shield? If so, do they know whether the attack would still hit or not before they use it? Is there any way the DM can avoid knowing that? For the DMs who enforce a risk of Shield being a waste of resources, how often do you have your NPCs waste their own resources?

[Sigreid]

Can NPCs also use Shield? If so, do they know whether the attack would still hit or not before they use it? Is there any way the DM can avoid knowing that? For the DMs who enforce a risk of Shield being a waste of resources, how often do you have your NPCs waste their own resources?

I covered this earlier. If I have an NPC who has shield prepared, he's going to use it to try to avoid getting hit, whether he would still be hit or not. The fact he has prepared it means he will use it in most cases.

Also, I still dispute that the fact it doesn't stop the first attack means it is wasted. The bonus to AC lasts until your next turn so it might still save you from other attacks.

[PhantomSoul]

Generally speaking, the less potential information a player has access to, the less skill-based a turn-based strategy game is.

I'm not sold on this; if they have all of the information, it's more likely to be procedural than skill-based. At that point you're reducing how much risk is being weighed, which is a big part of what the strategy is. (There's a middle ground, I think -- obviously neither no information nor all information is ideal, and presumably people's sweet spots are going to be different.)

In our groups, we find out whether the attack hit-but-didn't-crit. You have to decide whether to use shield not knowing for sure it'll stop this instance of damage, but you know it has the potential to help (ie. it wasn't a miss or a crit without shield). For us, that's been a nice middle ground. And if it were to still hit through shield, well, you're tankier if other hits come that round -- and at worst, you lost a slot like you would had you missed with a spell attack roll. I like our risk-reward calculation having a little extra uncertainty; it makes it more of a decision, without really feeling robbed if you made the wrong call (it was still reasonable, and it could still give you a benefit).

[kamap]

it will depend from dm to dm and some people will like knowing upfront, others wont.

I have used shield with different DM's and different "rules" around it all of them had good points and bad points.

Knowing upfront if your shield will stop the hit is good for resource management but is bad from a roleplaying point of view.
If you look at it from a roleplaying point of view or "realism" your character will only know he gets hit but won't really know how hard or how good at all times, some times he will know he was hit but just barely (so shield would help) and other times he will know that he was hit fair and square (shield will do nothing) but the in betweens could go either way.

So depending on how much effort the DM wants to put into it he could narate the hit and give hints but that slows down the fight.

Letting you know the dice roll but not the modifier could also be seen as realistic, by fighting a foe you learn how good it can fight and what tactics it uses, so you might learn more information which would correspond with you figuring out the modifier and knowing when to shield.

Then again its magic so telling you the total number and then you get to decide to shield or not could also be seen as a power of the spell.

So I think it would be a good idea to discuss with your DM how he or she sees it and go with that.

[Pex]

it will depend from dm to dm and some people will like knowing upfront, others wont.

I have used shield with different DM's and different "rules" around it all of them had good points and bad points.

Knowing upfront if your shield will stop the hit is good for resource management but is bad from a roleplaying point of view.
If you look at it from a roleplaying point of view or "realism" your character will only know he gets hit but won't really know how hard or how good at all times, some times he will know he was hit but just barely (so shield would help) and other times he will know that he was hit fair and square (shield will do nothing) but the in betweens could go either way.

So depending on how much effort the DM wants to put into it he could narate the hit and give hints but that slows down the fight.

Letting you know the dice roll but not the modifier could also be seen as realistic, by fighting a foe you learn how good it can fight and what tactics it uses, so you might learn more information which would correspond with you figuring out the modifier and knowing when to shield.

Then again its magic so telling you the total number and then you get to decide to shield or not could also be seen as a power of the spell.

So I think it would be a good idea to discuss with your DM how he or she sees it and go with that.

It's not bad roleplaying. You're right there facing the thing attacking you. You know your own defenses. It's in character knowledge to know if the opponent will hit you or not. Dice rolls and numbers are an abstraction for how players relate to what is going on.

[PhantomSoul]

So an attack hitting even when you use shield is an abstraction of misjudging your abilities!

[UrielAwakened]

I've never once played at a table where the DM doesn't ask, "Does a 23 hit?" or "15 doesn't hit, right?"

From an in-game perspective: Shield is putting up a barrier of force magic that blocks someone that would otherwise hit you. Of course your character can appropriately appraise whether or not something would be about to hit them. The times where your AC would be exceeded even without Shield are times when you cannot react fast enough to get Shield up.

Therefore it never makes sense to force players to burn Shield for no benefit.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So an attack hitting even when you use shield is an abstraction of misjudging your abilities!

Or an abstraction of misjudging the enemies abilities. Standing in front of a human doesn't automatically tell you they aren't actually a commoner and have a +14 to hit

How does the logic of standing right in front of the enemy attacking you judging their abilities work against something you can't see. Shield doesn't require you to see what hit you, only that you are hit. It would make a lot of sense for the character to attempt to Shield the attack even without knowing if it will be effective.


I've never once played at a table where the DM doesn't ask, "Does a 23 hit?" or "15 doesn't hit, right?"

From an in-game perspective: Shield is putting up a barrier of force magic that blocks someone that would otherwise hit you. Of course your character can appropriately appraise whether or not something would be about to hit them. The times where your AC would be exceeded even without Shield are times when you cannot react fast enough to get Shield up.

Therefore it never makes sense to force players to burn Shield for no benefit.

From a mechanical standpoint, unless you are surprised or otherwise can't take the reaction, you could always react fast enough to Shield. It makes more sense to assume that Shield does have a chance for failure or the spell would simply read "The attack triggering this spell misses and you gain +5 AC until the start of your next turn"

That said, my personal opinion on the spell aside, those saying that the game assumes open rolling do have a point. The DMG mentions rules of rolling that recommend rolling out in the open as an option to keep fairness, they mention rolling behind a screen for dramatic tension but also mention not to do this all too frequently as it could affect how trusting the group is of you.


-If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you’re playing impartially and not fudging rolls.
-Rolling behind a screen keeps the players guessing about the strength of their opposition. When a monster hits all the time, is it of a much higher level than the characters, or are you rolling high numbers?
-Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t distort die rolls too often, though, and don’t let on that you’re doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don’t face any real risks — or worse, that you’re playing favorites.

Both sides are correct, but the DMG isn't very subtle about encouraging open rolls more often.

[Sigreid]

Or an abstraction of misjudging the enemies abilities. Standing in front of a human doesn't automatically tell you they aren't actually a commoner and have a +14 to hit

How does the logic of standing right in front of the enemy attacking you judging their abilities work against something you can't see. Shield doesn't require you to see what hit you, only that you are hit. It would make a lot of sense for the character to attempt to Shield the attack even without knowing if it will be effective.



From a mechanical standpoint, unless you are surprised or otherwise can't take the reaction, you could always react fast enough to Shield. It makes more sense to assume that Shield does have a chance for failure or the spell would simply read "The attack triggering this spell misses and you gain +5 AC until the start of your next turn"

That said, my personal opinion on the spell aside, those saying that the game assumes open rolling do have a point. The DMG mentions rules of rolling that recommend rolling out in the open as an option to keep fairness, they mention rolling behind a screen for dramatic tension but also mention not to do this all too frequently as it could affect how trusting the group is of you.



Both sides are correct, but the DMG isn't very subtle about encouraging open rolls more often.

I would say do all one or the other. If you normally roll in the open and you all of a sudden want to hide the roll that is more suspicious.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I would say do all one or the other. If you normally roll in the open and you all of a sudden want to hide the roll that is more suspicious.

That's why the expectations and standards for rolling are set at the session 0. At my table DM rolls happen anonymously, unless that roll could be the end of a character. My players are aware of this rule and it's not going to change suddenly.

You're right though, I personally decide to keep the rolls behind a screen because it allows me to roll secret checks that the players wouldn't otherwise know about without handwaiving them suspiciously.

[JeenLeen]

edit/note: I didn't realize page 2 & 3 of this thread existed when I wrote this post. Sorry if it's non-sequitor at this point


I find that lots of players make this false assumption. Here's what cutting words actually says:

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 DM 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.

You'll notice there's nothing in that text that indicates that the players can see the DMs dice. All such similar game mechanics are worded in a like manner. You'll find that playing the game as written, where the characters don't get meta information, results in a game where more resources are expended, and that makes for a more challenging (i.e. "Fun") game!

While I agree that, explicitly, it only states a time when one makes the decision, I think it strongly implies that the roll is seen (that is, the 1-20 of the d20 is shown/told to the player). Otherwise, there's no reason to wait until after the creature makes it roll. To the player, the information would be the same before and after the roll.

[Tanarii]

You're right though, I personally decide to keep the rolls behind a screen because it allows me to roll secret checks that the players wouldn't otherwise know about without handwaiving them suspiciously.Thats not necessary though. There's a game mechanic provided so you don't have to do that: passive scores.
I mean, you can do it anyway if you want. But the rules are written is such a way that you do not need to.

[Citan]

Crawford also defended Healing Spirit and tanked Shield Master. I hope no one takes his word as actual advice on how to run the game, because I don't think he's ever done it before.
I have to agree that I'm far from backing every of his statements. XD
Especially on Shield Master which, from whatever angle I take it from, seems an unnecessary nerf.

To be fair, there is a big difference in giving a ruling about a specific detail and giving general advice on how to manage a game.

The thing is, Shield does not alter the roll. It alters your AC. All you need to know is if it hits.
Completely true. But considering how many other features depend on knowing what was rolled, I'd find dubious that a DM would sometimes tell the roll result and sometimes not. I mean, besides having no reason at all to manage in such a way, how and when would decide whether to show/tell the roll or not?



...
"With a roll".
Okay, your win. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Just thought about something that helps me understand reluctance of DMs about rolling in the open.
At first glance my thought was "rolling open == telling roll result".
BUT, it is actually not.
I forgot about the fact that a DM may want to get a word in destiny and fudge result on the fly at any moment. Something that is easy to do when rolled behind (roll: 20, would drastically increase TPK risk, DM announces 19 instead) but not in the open.
(Please don't derail the topic on "should a DM fudge or not", or make another topic ;)).

So, I made a big mistake when saying it's "amounting to rolling in the open". It's indeed not. :)


I'm absolutely against fudging to the point of actually having left games if I've found out it's happened. But I still roll behind a screen as a DM. The idea that some have here that a DM only uses a screen to cheat is ludicrous to me. Who hurt these people? A ****ty DM is ****. Nothing will change that. I'm not cheating my player by not showing him my roll.

Shield and Cutting Words say absolutely nothing about the player knowing the number on the die, only that they must declare the action before the result is announced. It's actually worded in a way that appears to demand rolling behind a screen.
It could be interpreted as such, then again, unless/until players deducted(or metagamed :/) the bonus of a creature, they wouldn't know the result until you announce it.
So I'd daresay "rolling in the open preserves suspense for a time" (good or bad thing to each group to decide" whereas "rolling behind preserves suspense every time" (same).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Thats not necessary though. There's a game mechanic provided so you don't have to do that: passive scores.
I mean, you can do it anyway if you want. But the rules are written is such a way that you do not need to.

I know this but I spent an actual half hour trying to explain passive scores (separate from perception) to my group and they didn't get it. It might be a side effect of the character sheet only holding the passive perception score but the concept was so foreign to them that we decided to roll such scores.

Unless it calls specifically for a passive check I try to roll a die for them, it's functionally the same but might give them an edge if they've got a low modifier.

[mephnick]

I've never once played at a table where the DM doesn't ask, "Does a 23 hit?" or "15 doesn't hit, right?"

Those DMs should be more organized.

[PhantomSoul]

I know this but I spent an actual half hour trying to explain passive scores (separate from perception) to my group and they didn't get it. It might be a side effect of the character sheet only holding the passive perception score but the concept was so foreign to them that we decided to roll such scores.

Unless it calls specifically for a passive check I try to roll a die for them, it's functionally the same but might give them an edge if they've got a low modifier.

And I hate the lack of randomness -- if I wanted to effectively force an outcome, I'd just say that was the outcome. I want a little uncertainty, and when it's against a DC instead of a contested roll deciding the DC vs. a passive is effectively just deciding the outcome. (Also, 10 was a terrible base number to give it since then you're about as good when not actively and consciously trying as on average when you're working specifically, but that's a separate gripe.)

[UrielAwakened]

Those DMs should be more organized.

Why?

It keeps players attentive.

[Tanarii]

(Also, 10 was a terrible base number to give it since then you're about as good when not actively and consciously trying as on average when you're working specifically, but that's a separate gripe.)Its also one that indicates you have a classic misunderstanding about what passive scores are. They have nothing to do with if the character is actively and consciously trying or not. The word 'passive' in them is there because the player doesn't actively roll a die.

[PhantomSoul]

Its also one that indicates you have a classic misunderstanding about what passive scores are. They have nothing to do with if the character is actively and consciously trying or not. The word 'passive' in them is there because the player doesn't actively roll a die.

I know it isn't about actively trying in principle, but in practice that's the reality as a generalisation. If the player says the character is trying to do something... they typically roll. Which leaves a lot of the "passive actions" being done through "passive scores". Not because the two passives are there for the same reason, but because that's how context works. It's not a lack of understanding, it's an inclusion of in-game context.

[Tanarii]

The most common things I use passive scores for are PCs looking for or figuring out secret things, or doing something repeatedly as they go along. Both of those are what passive scores are supposed to be used for, and very active.

Just because you've had DMs who ignore what passive scores are supposed to be used for doesn't make their practice or the in-game context they're using them for correct.

[PhantomSoul]

The most common things I use passive scores for are PCs looking for or figuring out secret things, or doing something repeatedly as they go along. Both of those are what passive scores are supposed to be used for, and very active.

Just because you've had DMs who ignore what passive scores are supposed to be used for doesn't make their practice or the in-game context they're using them for correct.

Ah, those are just the exact cases I hate passive scores for. Setting the DC means directly deciding who knows, and eliminates not only rolling the dice, but the actual benefit of rolling the dice. (A better mechanic might've been to have a variable DC system to compare against passive scores, but that's not in the game as is.) And repeated things we just say you can't check each room 27 times, but I'd rather people roll if it's a new spot or they have a reason to look again.

[Tanarii]

Ah, those are just the exact cases I hate passive scores for. Setting the DC means directly deciding who knows, and eliminates not only rolling the dice, but the actual benefit of rolling the dice. (A better mechanic might've been to have a variable DC system to compare against passive scores, but that's not in the game as is.) And repeated things we just say you can't check each room 27 times, but I'd rather people roll if it's a new spot or they have a reason to look again.Okay. That makes it pretty clear it's not just passive scores you don't understand, but the entire 5e ability check system.

[PhantomSoul]

Okay. That makes it pretty clear it's not just passive scores you don't understand, but the entire 5e ability check system.

See: Actually liking the uncertainty. It's not a lack of understanding, but instead a lack of enjoying how the "looking repeatedly --> passive score" or "spend more time --> autosuccess" plays out.


Addendum: I think this is a case where I'd (and, in this case, the group) would probably enjoy passive scores more for repeated attempts if the system were that the DM secretly rolls the check and then the player could decide to spend extra time, getting them the passive score. But if the goal is house rules, then the are obviously plenty of options and it's not relevant to a discussion of how the system actually is (should you play in a game where players know the roll total).

[Segev]

Ah, those are just the exact cases I hate passive scores for. Setting the DC means directly deciding who knows, and eliminates not only rolling the dice, but the actual benefit of rolling the dice. (A better mechanic might've been to have a variable DC system to compare against passive scores, but that's not in the game as is.) And repeated things we just say you can't check each room 27 times, but I'd rather people roll if it's a new spot or they have a reason to look again.


Okay. That makes it pretty clear it's not just passive scores you don't understand, but the entire 5e ability check system.


See: Actually liking the uncertainty. It's not a lack of understanding, but instead a lack of enjoying how the "looking repeatedly --> passive score" plays out.


Addendum: I think this is a case where I'd (and, in this case, the group) would probably enjoy passive scores more for repeated attempts if the system were that the DM secretly rolls the check and then the player could decide to spend extra time, getting them the passive score. But if the goal is house rules, then the are obviously plenty of options and it's not relevant to a discussion of how the system actually is (should you play in a game where players know the roll total).

This highlights an interesting question: What is the purpose of the randomness in determining whether a given PC passes or fails a check? This is not rhetorical on my part; I'm not trying to "subtly" imply we shouldn't have it. I'm trying to highlight the question of what purpose it serves. Understanding that purpose will make it easier to determine if and when the randomness is useful, and if and when comparing a static score to a static DC is useful.

[ciarannihill]

This highlights an interesting question: What is the purpose of the randomness in determining whether a given PC passes or fails a check? This is not rhetorical on my part; I'm not trying to "subtly" imply we shouldn't have it. I'm trying to highlight the question of what purpose it serves. Understanding that purpose will make it easier to determine if and when the randomness is useful, and if and when comparing a static score to a static DC is useful.

I mean part of it is that people aren't consistent...What you're able to do without fail today you may struggle with tomorrow, and vice versa. Proficiency is meant to make it more likely to succeed at something you're competent at and...Honestly I feel like it's too little an influencer, but I understand they wanted to squash numbers a bit in 5E so you didn't have overblown +56 to Stealth rolls.

[PhantomSoul]

This highlights an interesting question: What is the purpose of the randomness in determining whether a given PC passes or fails a check? This is not rhetorical on my part; I'm not trying to "subtly" imply we shouldn't have it. I'm trying to highlight the question of what purpose it serves. Understanding that purpose will make it easier to determine if and when the randomness is useful, and if and when comparing a static score to a static DC is useful.

Quite agreed that it's a useful question -- and randomness shouldn't always be there (sometimes, you just succeed or fail). For me it becomes a narrative device and helps make the story "a discovery" for everyone, DM included. It also helps create moments of suspense, or give cases where you're pushed towards finding less obvious solutions.

[Sigreid]

This highlights an interesting question: What is the purpose of the randomness in determining whether a given PC passes or fails a check? This is not rhetorical on my part; I'm not trying to "subtly" imply we shouldn't have it. I'm trying to highlight the question of what purpose it serves. Understanding that purpose will make it easier to determine if and when the randomness is useful, and if and when comparing a static score to a static DC is useful.

Primarily, for me anyway, the excitement comes from working within and around the uncertainty. Chance is what makes it a game and not a thought exercise.

[Pex]

The most common things I use passive scores for are PCs looking for or figuring out secret things, or doing something repeatedly as they go along. Both of those are what passive scores are supposed to be used for, and very active.

Just because you've had DMs who ignore what passive scores are supposed to be used for doesn't make their practice or the in-game context they're using them for correct.

Out of curiosity, what's your spread of DCs for character passive scores to be used against? A character not proficient in something will have a passive score of -9 to 12, occasionally 13. They always beat DC 10 (except for the guy with the 8 ability score, but that's expected and ok), and fail DC 15. You also need to factor in whether a passive score is even needed, i.e. autosuccess/autofail regardless of anything, unless you consider that the same thing. How often are PCs succeeding? How is this different than DM fiat?

[UrielAwakened]

Passive scores are one of those things that are a neat idea but the execution is just terrible. They're either too low to matter or so high that they trivialize everything.

I feel like they're designed to deal with pre-made adventures and useless for things you're tailor-making to challenge your own party.

[RSP]

Out of curiosity, what's your spread of DCs for character passive scores to be used against? A character not proficient in something will have a passive score of -9 to 12, occasionally 13. They always beat DC 10 (except for the guy with the 8 ability score, but that's expected and ok), and fail DC 15. You also need to factor in whether a passive score is even needed, i.e. autosuccess/autofail regardless of anything, unless you consider that the same thing. How often are PCs succeeding? How is this different than DM fiat?

Keep in mind (and I see this forgotten by DMs all the time). That if in dim light or using dark vision in full darkness (the lighting condition, not the spell), visual PP is disadvantaged (-5), so your non-proficient adventurers sneaking about are between -6 to -7, on average, and even proficient adventurers can have their PP drop below 10.

Remembering this is a very valuable piece of the PP puzzle: is the party using a bright light source (and thereby giving away their position in the dark), or are they relying on Darkvision (thereby hurting their chances to see threats).

A DM might set a DC to notice a trap at a relatively easy “13” but when the rogue scouts ahead using Darkvision, their PP 17 becomes PP 12 and they get hurt.

[Xetheral]

This highlights an interesting question: What is the purpose of the randomness in determining whether a given PC passes or fails a check? This is not rhetorical on my part; I'm not trying to "subtly" imply we shouldn't have it. I'm trying to highlight the question of what purpose it serves. Understanding that purpose will make it easier to determine if and when the randomness is useful, and if and when comparing a static score to a static DC is useful.

For me, the purpose of a die roll is to offload from me (as DM) the responsibility for determining the result in borderline cases. The world feels less arbitrary if the DM is deciding (e.g.) "this activity has a 60% chance of success" all the time than if the DM is deciding, 60% of the time, that "this activity is a success".

Another advantage is that a DM can seek player buy-in on the reasonabless of a particular DC prior to the roll. (This can be useful if the stakes are high, or emotions are running strong.) If the DM is determining success outright, getting player buy-in isn't really an option if the player truly thinks the result could go either way.

[Tanarii]

Out of curiosity, what's your spread of DCs for character passive scores to be used against? A character not proficient in something will have a passive score of -9 to 12, occasionally 13. They always beat DC 10 (except for the guy with the 8 ability score, but that's expected and ok), and fail DC 15. You also need to factor in whether a passive score is even needed, i.e. autosuccess/autofail regardless of anything, unless you consider that the same thing. How often are PCs succeeding? How is this different than DM fiat?
Usually DC 10 at 30 ft for hearing with passive perception, and DC 10-15 passive perception for spotting things (usually creatures not hiding) at a distance and/or passive investigatin for searching for hidden things (traps, doors).

But DC 10 - 15 is my goto range for almost all checks, with a strong tendency to use DC 10 as a default. Although I'll use outlier calls of DC 5 or DC 20 for obviously easy or very hard stuff, that still has an interesting consequence for failure.

Remember also, players can always take ten times as long to automatically succeed, if the only consequence of failure is lost time. Be that taking ten minutes searching a room, moving at 1/10 speed while searching for traps and doors, or taking a minute to think about and recall the name of whatchamacallit they met two weeks ago.

A lack of understanding of when to make checks, when to use the automatic success rule, when to use passive or group checks, and what DCs are an appropriate range, is the biggest hobbles on DMs running 5e. And indirectly, hobbling the players as a result.

[LudicSavant]

I'm not sold on this; if they have all of the information, it's more likely to be procedural than skill-based.

"Procedural" and "skill-based" aren't mutually exclusive categories. Something can be purely procedural and involve no luck.

[Tanarii]

See: Actually liking the uncertainty. It's not a lack of understanding, but instead a lack of enjoying how the "looking repeatedly --> passive score" or "spend more time --> autosuccess" plays out.Its not looking repeatedly, it's looking as you move along. (Repeatedly , but in the context of a different 'target' each time, if that makes any sense.)

Otoh if you don't enjoy the static value or auto success rules you don't enjoy them. Also sorry for my attitude, I was apparently on a "being an ass" roll this morning. :smallredface:

In the context of this thread ... and my god we just went down a tangent rabbit hole ... liking uncertainty is certainly an argument in favor of preferring Shield be decided without knowing the total hit roll value.

[PhantomSoul]

Its not looking repeatedly, it's looking as you move along. (Repeatedly , but in the context of a different 'target' each time, if that makes any sense.)

Otoh if you don't enjoy the static value or auto success rules you don't enjoy them. Also sorry for my attitude, I was apparently on a "being an ass" roll this morning. :smallredface:

In the context of this thread ... and my god we just went down a tangent rabbit hole ... liking uncertainty is certainly an argument in favor of preferring Shield be decided without knowing the total hit roll value.

All good! (And I get get what you mean and meant. :) )

Definitely a bit of a tangent, but agreed with the tangent's conclusion!

[LudicSavant]

Just because you've had DMs who ignore what passive scores are supposed to be used for doesn't make their practice or the in-game context they're using them for correct.

Yeah, "passive" scores in 5e don't refer to the character being passive, but the player being passive (as in, not rolling dice). The examples in the book of what passive scores are for explicitly include things like the character actively searching for secret doors repeatedly.


Addendum: I think this is a case where I'd (and, in this case, the group) would probably enjoy passive scores more for repeated attempts if the system were that the DM secretly rolls the check and then the player could decide to spend extra time, getting them the passive score. But if the goal is house rules, then the are obviously plenty of options and it's not relevant to a discussion of how the system actually is (should you play in a game where players know the roll total).

Another skill rule that is often missed is that you can auto-succeed on many skill checks by taking 10 times as long to do it (it's basically 5e's version of Take 20).

[Pex]

Usually DC 10 at 30 ft for hearing with passive perception, and DC 10-15 passive perception for spotting things (usually creatures not hiding) at a distance and/or passive investigatin for searching for hidden things (traps, doors).

But DC 10 - 15 is my goto range for almost all checks, with a strong tendency to use DC 10 as a default. Although I'll use outlier calls of DC 5 or DC 20 for obviously easy or very hard stuff, that still has an interesting consequence for failure.

Ok.


Remember also, players can always take ten times as long to automatically succeed, if the only consequence of failure is lost time. Be that taking ten minutes searching a room, moving at 1/10 speed while searching for traps and doors, or taking a minute to think about and recall the name of whatchamacallit they met two weeks ago.

A lack of understanding of when to make checks, when to use the automatic success rule, when to use passive or group checks, and what DCs are an appropriate range, is the biggest hobbles on DMs running 5e. And indirectly, hobbling the players as a result.

I think we were better off when players could initiate Take 10/20 which is the same thing. DMs have a tendency of thinking 0% chance of failure of anything is bad gaming due to lack of challenge, munchkinism, unbalancing, etc. I mean it sincerely, not my accusatory self. :smallwink: I know 5E tells DMs PCs can autosucceed at stuff, but without the numbers it's out of sight out of mind. The game has to make the DM accept it, so to speak. When the DM has to allow it, instinct comes in and the DM can't or won't do it. This is where refusing to let a PC know if Shield will stop the hit comes in. They cannot or will not accept a player having a guaranteed thing.

[JoeJ]

It's not bad roleplaying. You're right there facing the thing attacking you. You know your own defenses. It's in character knowledge to know if the opponent will hit you or not. Dice rolls and numbers are an abstraction for how players relate to what is going on.

Based on my college fencing experience, I'd have to say that is not correct. If you know where an attack is going, then it won't hit; you'll parry it. But things are happening so fast that you won't always realize that your opponent has just done something you didn't expect them to, and you'll get hit.

[LudicSavant]

I think we were better off when players could initiate Take 10/20 which is the same thing. DMs have a tendency of thinking 0% chance of failure of anything is bad gaming due to lack of challenge, munchkinism, unbalancing, etc.

I wouldn't say that DMs in general have a tendency to do that. I'd say that really bad DMs have a tendency to do that. It's one of those things that's a big red flag, like bad critical miss rules that make veteran fighters disembowel themselves every other fight.

[Tanarii]

I think we were better off when players could initiate Take 10/20 which is the same thing. DMs have a tendency of thinking 0% chance of failure of anything is bad gaming due to lack of challenge, munchkinism, unbalancing, etc. I mean it sincerely, not my accusatory self. :smallwink: I know 5E tells DMs PCs can autosucceed at stuff, but without the numbers it's out of sight out of mind. The game has to make the DM accept it, so to speak. When the DM has to allow it, instinct comes in and the DM can't or won't do it. I don't think that having rule just called take 10 and take 20 were terrible ideas, including putting them in the PHB. Especially when the 5e ones are mighty close anyway. Just written a little more flexibly so it's "can succeed" instead of "can succeed on a 20" in the case of the DMG auto success rule. And expanded to cover secret checks in the case of the passive rule, although the idea of doing it without stress is removed.

But the idea that the players can call for a check, as opposed to the DM deciding if one is even needed, let alone which one is applicable if so, definitely goes against what 5e tries to accomplish. I think that's a statement we can both agree on, even if we disagree on if it's desirable. :smallbiggrin:


This is where refusing to let a PC know if Shield will stop the hit comes in. They cannot or will not accept a player having a guaranteed thing.Apparently some people like that. Although I wasn't clear which are DMs and which are players.

Personally I'm cool as a player with things like not knowing exact target numbers. I can't stand hidden roll DMs, because IMX is most commonly associated with fudgers. It is nice to have a consistent ruling one way or the other at a given table, but I don't mind varian interpretations across different tables. Even when I think a DM is running the rule "wrong". I adapt. As, from various comments you've made indicate, you do. You just express a beef about having to do so. :smallamused: