Do you reveal NPC stats to your players?

[Albions_Angel]

For me, revealing hard numbers for HP, AC and Saves is a massive red line. I thought I knew why, but recently had to re-examine my reasons and the only one I have is "I don't like it". Instead, I prefer to do things relatively - "the creatures looks like it relies on its innate toughness to survive damage, rather than a scaly hide or quick dodges" or "it looks like it has a higher fortitude than an affinity for quick reflexes or a steely will".

The same re-examination made me realise that lots of tables DO reveal those numbers, as the result of successful knowledge checks, and find my reluctance not just baffling, but counter to the game.

This isn't a "who is right" post. It's clearly personal preference. I could have sworn, back when I was playing 3.5e, that my opinion wasn't just common, it was the "party line". Now I am interested. Had it changed? Was it ever as I imagined? What are peoples thought on the matter?

[animorte]

I don't know how common it really is that this information is revealed so easily. For the more experienced players, they've just seen a lot of the opposition before and use it to their advantage whether their character would have any idea or not.

At my table, we don't freely hand out this information. Something like AC only takes a round or two to find though, just by the nature of combat and rolling the dice. Initially the players will have an idea of what to expect if the opponent is heavily armored or has a noticeable thick skin/hide. If they're much more lean, one could assume them to be agile. If they're wearing robes or start slinging spells, you'd get a solid idea they have reliable mental saves (whether they're healing, blasting, what-have-you).

Even if somebody decides to make some sort of skill check to remember more, revealing the exact numbers don't really make sense. Just as each character doesn't walk into a shop saying, "I need to restore my hit points, got any potions?" Maybe you recall thy are weak or resistant to this particular thing. And then, not every single monster should have the expectation of the exact same stat block as its predecessors.

[Maat Mons]

I've had DMs who would always tell players the AC of enemies, just because they didn't like players repeatedly asking them if whatever result they got on their attack roll hits.

[Biggus]

I've never played with a DM who reveals those things, at least not straight away. There are spells, feats etc which enable you to find them out, or at least a ballpark figure, so I'm pretty certain the intent is that you don't reveal them.


I've had DMs who would always tell players the AC of enemies, just because they didn't like players repeatedly asking them if whatever result they got on their attack roll hits.

I tend to tell my players after a few attacks for that reason, if only because by that point they know roughly what is anyway.

I never tell them before the combat starts, because that might change their tactics, and it doesn't make sense that they'd know exactly. I'll happily answer questions about whether their opponents are wearing heavy armour, whether they're displaying high Dex etc though, so they can make an educated guess.

[JNAProductions]

I'll often tell the AC to the players, if for no other reason than convenience.

I will not reveal the actual HP numbers during a fight, instead tracking it by simply noting total damage dealt.
I play via discord and play-by-post mostly, so the save numbers do get revealed as they make saves.

Sometimes, after a fight, I'll let the players see the entire statblock.

[Zanos]

I don't really care if players metagame the statblocks of stock monsters if they make their knowledge checks.

I'm not going to tell players the stats of enemies that have character classes or are otherwise customized, though, unless there's a good reason for them to have that information. You might know an enemy wizard is renowned for using fear magic or fire magic or something, but I'm not forking over his spell list.

AC I usually just tell people once they start attacking because they figure it out after a few swings anyway. I use HP bars so while I don't tell them exact numbers they figure out that a guy who gits hit for 20 damage and loses about half his bar probably has around 20 hp. Mostly just for convenience and to prevent barrage of questions of "does that hit" and "can i make a heal check to see how wounded he is."

Most other things will be "reveled" because I roll all of my dice, other than for secret rolls like spot to notice a hidden door or something, openly. Not hard to figure out that a dude has a pretty good will save when he starts making DC 20 saves on <10 on the die. That also prevents all the cocked eyebrows when someone throws out a big sleep or fireball and every single monster makes their saving throw.

[KillianHawkeye]

I prefer to do things relatively - "the creatures looks like it relies on its innate toughness to survive damage, rather than a scaly hide or quick dodges" or "it looks like it has a higher fortitude than an affinity for quick reflexes or a steely will".

This is already more information than I would be giving out. I'll only describe what the players can see or sense somehow, and IMO that doesn't include saving throw bonuses.

I'll say some guy is big and muscular, or looks quick and agile, or if they have scales or a stony body. Also any weapons, armor, or other notable equipment they have on them. They're free to metagame that if an enemy is dressed like a spellcaster, they probably have good Will, or whatever other guesses they'd like to make. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. A highly mobile, lightly armored opponent probably has a good Reflex save, but that doesn't always mean their Fortitude or Will aren't also good, for example.

Whether or not I reveal any of the specific stats after the battle depends largely on mood and if there was any particular sticking point during the battle.

[SirNibbles]

As a DM, I prefer not revealing stats. As a player, I prefer not knowing stats.

Regarding attack rolls, "Hit/miss" isn't good enough DMing. If I roll 14 to and the enemy Skeleton has 15 AC (+1 Dex, +2 natural, +2 Heavy Steel Shield), the DM has two realistic options for why my attack didn't connect:
-Natural armor prevented the hit
-Heavy Steel Shield prevented the hit

In both cases, it was very marginal and the feedback from the DM should reflect that.

"The skeleton sidesteps your sword and the blade barely glances off its thick skull."
"The point of your spear (why are you using a spear against a skeleton with DR 5/Bludgeoning) shoots towards a gap in your enemy's defenses but is turned aside by its shield."

Compare that to a bigger miss, such as on an 11:
"Steel rings steel as the skeleton easily guards your attack with its heavy shield."

Indirectly, the DM has given me some amount of insight into the enemy's stats without flat out saying 'you need to hit AC 15 to hit'.


__

If a creature is of a type where HP damage is obvious, the extent of that damage is explained, but never given in numbers.

__

With saves, I just say "roll a <type> save". If the result is something that they would immediately need to know, they are told the result, but not the anything else. In some cases, I roll the save without the player knowing. It's no good when they wade into a stream to say "roll a save against poison" as if they won't immediately know what's going on.

[animorte]

In both cases, it was very marginal and the feedback from the DM should reflect that.
~snip~
Indirectly, the DM has given me some amount of insight into the enemy's stats without flat out saying 'you need to hit AC 15 to hit'.
This is how I prefer to play and DM as well. It also helps greatly with immersion!

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, ideally I'd love to be that descriptive, but I've often got enough on my mind trying to manage all the monsters and the environment. And combat takes long enough with a big group of players as is.

[icefractal]

I don't give most numbers up front, but I'll say whether a hit/miss was close or not, so people can usually figure the AC after a few attacks. Likewise with the attacks/saves as I usually roll in the open. HP, I don't say, but I do say when they hit bloodied / half health.

One thing I do say explicitly is amount of DR / energy resist when someone makes their Knowledge check. It's possible to try to be IC about that, but it either ends up as the same result with more work, or people missing info the characters should probably know. So I figure that if you have enough Knowledge to identify the demon, you have enough experience for your character to effectively know it has DR 10/cold iron specifically.

Also if not identified, I still note things like "[foe] took some harm from your lightning bolt, but not as much as you'd expect" or "[foe] is resisting your sword, its flesh seems as tough as iron" to indicate DR/resistance. It's intentionally a little more feedback for melee (as the above indicates probably DR 10), since it makes sense that you'd notice a little more when you can feel the hit connect, and boosting melee's not a bad thing.

[Biggus]

"The skeleton sidesteps your sword and the blade barely glances off its thick skull."
"The point of your spear (why are you using a spear against a skeleton with DR 5/Bludgeoning) shoots towards a gap in your enemy's defenses but is turned aside by its shield."


I'm not generally that detailed (or eloquent) but if an attack only just misses I'll say so, likewise if they dodge it with ease/it doesn't even come close to penetrating their armor. They could see that with their own eyes if they were actually there, so I feel it's only fair.

[Aotrs Commander]

AC yes, always, but only after they hit it once.

Hit points, not until after it's dead.

Saves, generally not, though I might them if it's laughably low and fails badly. Or really high and fails. It really low and rolls really high. If that information is funny, basically.

DR/ Resistances etc yes if they make the knowledge check (they usually do), provided it's something that they could conceivably know (so not for unique monsters), or once they've hit done damage and found it out.




(Actually, me telling them doesn't always help anyway, since they usually ask even if I have...)

[KillianHawkeye]

HP, I don't say, but I do say when they hit bloodied / half health.

Ah yeah, we also mention "bloodied" status. It's pretty much the only thing we kept from 4th Edition.

[Bonzai]

After the game session, sure. Some times they will have questions on how the NPC was pulling things off, and I am usually more than happy to show them the build. But during the game? No. But my players are usually experienced enough to extrapolate a lot of it themselves.

[False God]

Depends on the game in question. In a beer-and-pretzels, or a more "gamey" dungeon-crawler I have no problem with it, as it doesn't impact the setting, because we don't care much about that.

In a much more RP heavy game, no I won't. But this is also because I run a lot more "custom" and "flavor" monsters.

When I attacked my party with the spawn of the Dark Goddess of Fertility, it was not an enemy to fight. But it had rules it had to follow, for example, it couldn't enter a home without one of that home's entryways being open. Chimneys, cracks in the floor and vents were not "entryways" and therefore it couldn't use them. It was intended to keep the party up, burn through their food and exhaustion and delay their exploration and adventuring progress.

It doesn't really have "stats". Sure, a player can take some lore checks and they did, they never found the key to getting it go away, so it stuck around far longer than I intended. But there's no AC or HP to divulge.

Since I run a lot of very high-powered games, I've found it necessary to focus more challenge on creative problem solving than number-crunching.

[Darg]

As a DM, I prefer not revealing stats. As a player, I prefer not knowing stats.

Same here. Part of the fun is making your own inferences, making mistakes or subpar choices, and keeping things random. If things are predictable, that's exactly what they'll be.

[rel]

Depends on the game. Some aspects of the tactical combat minigame can be more interesting with extra information, but dwelling on the mechanics can hurt immersion.

By default I don't reveal numbers when I GM, but don't see doing so as an issue.

If nothing else, an experienced player can reverse engineer large slices of a monsters stat block just from the info they have to receive to play the game. So in certain groups keeping things vague unfairly penalises the inexperienced.

[AlexanderML]

I usually don't tell my players the AC of an enemy until they have hit them at least once. After that I usually just tell them since they can reasonably guess it anyway and thus telling them saves everyone some 'did it hit?' time.

Saves I do show when playing online, due to the format we play on. In person that information is mostly hidden, besides maybe giving hints towards weak saves or strong ones relative to the DC given (like 'the troll shrugs off the poison without a thought').

HP I don't tell the players about unless the NPC reaches the bloodied state. Which is a concept I stole from another GM who I think stole it from 4e. Lets the players get a vague, but reliable, guess at how the fight is progressing without having to give them numbers.

[ciopo]

I find it incredibly frustating when I make the relevant knowledge checks... and the GM use flowery language to describe the whatever I asked about.

if I ask about defenses, "his skin appear tough" is useless to me, i want to know if I should use a piercing or slashing or bludgeon weapons to penetrate that DR, but those same GM that use flowery language are those least likely to actually give out actionable intelligence.

some even don't tell you *what* kind of knowledge is the appropriate one, as if I dind't know that a duck is a duck! Luckily I solved that 10 years ago by simply having same modifier to all the knowledges, so to that I just say "that's fine, I have the same modifier on all of them, (roll) here's the result, so tell me again what creature this is?". I know already what bane to pull out dude, making the know check is the gentleman agreement of us old saps!

Yes,it's a thing I'm salty about. I don't *want* to metagame it, but I will if you fail to mention it's regeneration/X when I pass the relevant knowledge check.

Information is important :(

[Peat]

Don't think I have strong feelings either way but would lean towards keeping it secret at least at the start. If its easier to just hand out a few numbers midway through, sure, no problem.

I would add that if I'm rolling Knowledge Checks I do expect actionable intelligence, and that if I'm not going to get it I expect to be told "don't bother" at the game's start.

[SirNibbles]

I find it incredibly frustating when I make the relevant knowledge checks... and the GM use flowery language to describe the whatever I asked about.

if I ask about defenses, "his skin appear tough" is useless to me, i want to know if I should use a piercing or slashing or bludgeon weapons to penetrate that DR, but those same GM that use flowery language are those least likely to actually give out actionable intelligence.

some even don't tell you *what* kind of knowledge is the appropriate one, as if I dind't know that a duck is a duck! Luckily I solved that 10 years ago by simply having same modifier to all the knowledges, so to that I just say "that's fine, I have the same modifier on all of them, (roll) here's the result, so tell me again what creature this is?". I know already what bane to pull out dude, making the know check is the gentleman agreement of us old saps!

Yes,it's a thing I'm salty about. I don't *want* to metagame it, but I will if you fail to mention it's regeneration/X when I pass the relevant knowledge check.

Information is important :(

"In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities."

Damage reduction would certainly qualify as a special power. Going back to our skeleton warrior from earlier with DR 5/Bludgeoning, your DM could give you some info like this for your knowledge check:

"The skeleton's tough bones appear mildly resistent to points and edges but may not fare as well against blunt force."

As for DMs not telling you which knowledge skill to use, that sounds wrong. Knowledge skills are a representation of what you know- you either know what the creature is and what its abilities are or you don't- you're not choosing a textbook to try to find info about the creature.

[Thurbane]

Do I reveal NPC stats to my players?

Generally, no, but do bear in mind some in-game abilities let players see things like NPC int score, highest level of spells etc.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619437-3-5-Character-Who-Can-Assess-Others

[RexDart]

"In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities."

Damage reduction would certainly qualify as a special power. Going back to our skeleton warrior from earlier with DR 5/Bludgeoning, your DM could give you some info like this for your knowledge check:

"The skeleton's tough bones appear mildly resistent to points and edges but may not fare as well against blunt force."

As for DMs not telling you which knowledge skill to use, that sounds wrong. Knowledge skills are a representation of what you know- you either know what the creature is and what its abilities are or you don't- you're not choosing a textbook to try to find info about the creature.

I think it can possibly be valid. It's not necessarily going to be obvious what type of creature it is. For example, I think something like this is a perfectly valid exchange:

"I rolled a 21 on Knowledge: Religion for information about what kind of undead this skull dude is."
"Well, you know he's definitely not undead. You suspect he might be an Outsider."
"Damn, I wish I had points in Knowledge: The Planes so I could learn more about him."

Some of the rules are unspoken, but my DMs usually go with something like "If you make a knowledge roll, or you've faced them before, or been briefed (like when we had a meeting with a dragon expert before going off to fight one), then you know what's in the Monster Manual about the creature. But keep in mind that individual creatures might differ from what's in the MM; a high DC Knowledge roll might tell you how."

[Darg]

I simply keep numbers hidden. Normally against a creature with DR 10/silver and a character hits with a normal weapon for 14 I'll say that the character can see that the wound they inflicted quickly healed itself before their eyes. With a good knowledge check result I'll say that lycanthropes are able to instantaneously heal damage recieved from weapons not made from silver. No need to say how much damage it reduces; no need to just say it has damage reduction at all. Or for a wererat, its bite is known to spread diseases, most notably that of filth fever. Filth fever is known to sap strength and mobility over time, leading to eventual loss of any motor control.

I think it adds to the immersion. Numbers are meant to be the abstraction, not the definitive. It's also nice to be vague. Like how I didn't say anything about how much the healing negated the attack. I know some players find it to be frustrating, but it really adds to the atmosphere and even memorizing the MMs aren't a guarantee of meta knowledge about the game. It allows the players to focus more on what their character wants to do instead of what they want to do to optimize their engagement.

[Elkad]

Generally no.

I roll all combat in the open.

Of course some things the players can derive fairly quickly, like AC, so once they've got it down to about a 3 point range, I'll reveal that just to speed combat up.

Mooks just there to clog up the battlefield might get a standard statblock revealed. 60 goblins running around in a level 11 combat are just speedbumps, so I just say "AC14, HP5, let me know which ones to remove". The goblin turn works in a similar fashion - "60 goblins shoot the wizard. They need a 20, so 3 of them hit."

I usually write a running damage total on the board where the players can see it, but they don't know how many HP it has other than a vague description of it's injuries. Scratched, hurt, bloodied, near death...

I've revealed statblocks after the session, but not often. Because my players don't usually ask.

[Lilapop]

I play via discord and play-by-post mostly, so the save numbers do get revealed as they make saves.
I've almost exclusively rolled physically in my two-year Roll20 campaign. The very few cases where I had extensive character sheets (because level 10+ classed spellcaster enemies), I set all macros to print out only for the DM.



I find it incredibly frustating when I make the relevant knowledge checks... and the GM use flowery language to describe the whatever I asked about.

if I ask about defenses, "his skin appear tough" is useless to me, i want to know if I should use a piercing or slashing or bludgeon weapons to penetrate that DR, but those same GM that use flowery language are those least likely to actually give out actionable intelligence.

some even don't tell you *what* kind of knowledge is the appropriate one, as if I dind't know that a duck is a duck! Luckily I solved that 10 years ago by simply having same modifier to all the knowledges, so to that I just say "that's fine, I have the same modifier on all of them, (roll) here's the result, so tell me again what creature this is?". I know already what bane to pull out dude, making the know check is the gentleman agreement of us old saps!

Yes,it's a thing I'm salty about. I don't *want* to metagame it, but I will if you fail to mention it's regeneration/X when I pass the relevant knowledge check.

Information is important :(

The MMIV-style monster entries have little tables with the knowledge results. They don't include numbers either, and I don't think they list resistances at all, but they are at least a little more mechanically clear than what you are describing. My own knowledge results usually do specifically mention which defensive mechanic it is (and in the case of regen and damage reduction, I also add the method(s) of overcoming), but not the exact numbers. However, once I run out of interesting lore bits or combat specials to mention (or writing motivation), I just give my players an "ask me one question about its stats" for every 5 points. Kinda helps that I know their highest possible results beforehand.

You know a duck is a duck, but do you really know what a duck actually IS?

[rel]

The MMIV-style monster entries have little tables with the knowledge results. They don't include numbers either, and I don't think they list resistances at all, but they are at least a little more mechanically clear than what you are describing.

The fixed DC's from the later monster manuals makes a lot more sense than the default method to me.
I generally use a variant of that rule; hitting the fixed DC gives you some information, hitting the old 10 + HD based DC gets you some decent info without hard numbers.
That in conjunction with a decent amount of reskinning and custom monsters and permissive rulings on questions asked strikes a good balance for our table.

Puzzle monsters can actually to actually be puzzles, the PC's have enough info to actually play the combat minigame and I'm not interrupting the action or dragging the players out of the game by quoting stat blocks .

[Lilapop]

The fixed DC's from the later monster manuals makes a lot more sense than the default method to me.

Huh? They only really differ from the earlier format in how they are presented to the DM, as prewritten text snippets instead of the DM having to condense the full MM text and portion it out. Sure, the actual DCs are now challenge rating +x*5 and not hitdice +x*5, but the structure is still the same. In my earlier post, I used them as example for what the designers had always expected to be in there, contrasting that with what ciopo's DM is doing.