Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dralan 03-28-07, 01:17 AM	I had this guy playing a game with me and he is a fellow DM like me but he has been playing a little longer than I have and DMed longer as well, but he raises a question that I think would spool the whole thing, "What do I have to roll to hit this guy?", He asks me. I stair at him and wonder if I should answer, and knowing from previous experience that you are not suppose to tell that part. It can make the game boring and stupid to play then. I tell him to just roll and pray but that just makes him ask again and again. Finally i break and tell him in the best imitation of his voice i can do. Frankly I know imitating him was not right but telling him might of been wrong. so here i am asking (in a polite manner), should i have told him what he had to get to hit the mob? or told him to just roll the D20 and pray?
Salla 03-28-07, 01:23 AM	I don't actually mind spilling DCs or ACs on occassion. One, it does speed play ... the player can just throw the dice and say 'Ah, no'. Second, most reasonably experienced players can figure out a target's AC plus-or-minus two in two or three rounds of full attacks if they pay attention. An option, if you don't want to just out and say it, is to make sure your descriptions of the action is somewhat indicative of the dice rolls. If he misses by one or two, describe it as a 'near miss', have the attack damage his clothing or hat or hair. Then the player knows he's close. If he misses by five or more, it's a clean miss, etc etc.
Nom 03-28-07, 02:12 AM	There are a few ways of dealing with this. One option is just to tell the players the AC, but I'd rather let them work it out. It becomes pretty obvious after a couple of rounds. In the meantime, it encourages them to try things out and figure out what sort of magic and unusual defenses the creature might have. Assuming you want to make them work a little for it, here are some ideas: (1) Firstly, you can tell a lot just from creature type, description and equipment. A hobgoblin in full plate and heavy shield obviously has an AC in the ~ 20 range, sans magic or Dex. A bulette is Huge, but has "really tough skin". (2) An appropriate Knowledge check might provide more exact info, especially for creatures. "Dex mod is likely to be 3, has about 5 points of natural armour, and often uses magic."
FriendoftheDork 03-28-07, 07:17 AM	Just ask him to tell you what AC he hits, it doesen't take that much more time. "You don't know" is a legitimate answer. If he keeps asking I'd say "quit it or leave".
Frugal 03-28-07, 08:57 AM	Agreed, roll and deal with it. For the first couple rounds they shouldn't know what the AC is. It's easy to work out after that but I think that's part of the fun of a combat. Plus, just take the example of Power Attack, it can really improve the damage but you need to balance the sacrifice to the lose of to hit bonus. The player can take a chance on the first few rounds with how much to put into Power Attack or choose to play it safe and not use it at all. Once the player knows the opponent's AC though he can quickly figure out how much to sacrifice and still keep a reasonable chance of hitting. And there's any number of other feats that work in similar ways.
aotrscommander 03-28-07, 09:18 AM	Generally in our groups, after you've hit the first time, the DM will usually tell you the AC if you ask. As has been said though, it's pretty easy to figure out otherwise.
Augurer 03-28-07, 10:18 AM	What exactly is the purpose of concealing the AC? Unless you're using Action Points, or suspect a player is cheating, I don't see the harm. It certainly speeds up play.
Wopple 03-28-07, 10:32 AM	Well some people have already mentioned the harm in it. Power attack is a great example, and alot of people have alternate weapon sets/strats which will be better or worse depending on how hard it is to hit an enemy. But more important than whether or not, in general, it is a good idea to tell them the AC is the player's disrespect. If the DM decides to tell AC, or not tell AC, you have to live by that. My DM tells ac most times, but if he randomly decides not to I don't press the matter.
Frugal 03-28-07, 10:46 AM	What exactly is the purpose of concealing the AC? Unless you're using Action Points, or suspect a player is cheating, I don't see the harm. It certainly speeds up play. Player: "Hey, what's the AC?" DM: "Hmmm, it's 20." Player: "Okay, well I have a +12 to hit so I only need an 8 or more, I'll use Power Attack for -2 for the +4 to damage and that's still only a 10 or more to hit so it's 50/50." Compared to: Player: "Hey, what's the AC?" DM: "You don't know." Player: "Hmmm, do I play it safe and do less damage or go for Power Attack and deal more damage? I wonder how much I can Power Attack for. I'd better play it safe." *rolls dice, gets a 16* Player: "Did that hit? I got a 26 total?" DM: "Yep." Next round: Player: "Hmm, well I know a 26 hits but that was a really good roll. Steve hit his opponent with an 18 but that was a touch attack, I think I can risk some Power Attack though, I'll go for a -4." *rolls, gets a 12* Player: "Does an 18 hit?" DM: "Nope, that's a miss." Next round: Player: "Hmm, well I know he's got better than 18 for AC but Doug got into combat too and he hit with a 23 so I don't think he's much higher than 18, I'll go for a -2 and play it safe." *rolls, gets a 13* Player: *Groan* not much better than last time, does a 21 hit? DM: Yes Player: okay, now I know that he's somewhere in the range of 19 to 21 to AC." Yes it's a contrived example but notice how while the metagaming still happens it takes the player a few rounds to really dial in how much he can risk with Power Attack. That's just 1 example but there are several instances when those types of situations will occur. If you know you need a 20 to even hit the creature right at the start of combat (from other players taking actions before you for instance) then you probably won't even engage in melee but will adjust your tactics instantly to account for this but that's using metagame knowledge that the character wouldn't have. That's very different from charging in, then finding out you need a 20 to hit (which might not even happen for a round or 2 depending on how you roll) and having to deal with being engaged in melee.
lastknightleft 03-28-07, 11:10 AM	Look, it's actually easy to deal with, just say this "any reasonably intelligent player could figure it out in a few rounds" Most players consider themselves intelligent and don't want to come across as an idiot so will shut up and try to figure it out. If he continues to ask afterwards say "well since the basic math is too hard for you it's X" after a couple of times of this he'll stop asking. for the record, I never tell players the enemies AC and my players have never had a problem, their round, I got this do I hit. After about three rounds they know whether or not they'll hit and only ask if they roll low.
Millennium 03-28-07, 11:18 AM	Honestly, giving away the AC of a creature is a bad idea. Players can often figure it out in a few rounds anyway, of course. But if they start out with a run of bad luck and don't know the AC yet because they're constantly missing, you can fudge the stat a bit to make it easier without altering the rolls. If done right, your players will never know the difference, but it can spell the difference between a TPK and otherwise.
Frugal 03-28-07, 11:25 AM	Honestly, giving away the AC of a creature is a bad idea. Players can often figure it out in a few rounds anyway, of course. But if they start out with a run of bad luck and don't know the AC yet because they're constantly missing, you can fudge the stat a bit to make it easier without altering the rolls. If done right, your players will never know the difference, but it can spell the difference between a TPK and otherwise. Personally, I don't like to fudge like this because luck can swing pretty quickly. They might get off to a bad start and you fudge the AC and all of a sudden their dice turn hot and they're still expecting the AC to be low. I think there are better ways to pull back to avoid a TPK.
mvincent 03-28-07, 12:26 PM	Honestly, giving away the AC of a creature is a bad idea.That is not always a truism. Since it can speed play (greatly), it is often a good idea. While I sometimes withhold this information, it seldom serves a purpose with my group i.e. if they are going to power attack, they have already announced by how much (and typically have rolled the attack) before they ask for AC. I have greater surprises to spring on them than how tough their opponent's hide is.
Frugal 03-28-07, 12:48 PM	That is not always a truism. Since it can speed play (greatly), it is often a good idea. While I sometimes withhold this information, it seldom serves a purpose with my group i.e. if they are going to power attack, they have already announced by how much (and typically have rolled the attack) before they ask for AC. I have greater surprises to spring on them than how tough their opponent's hide is. I don't think it speeds play that much and there are circumstances within combat that can affect the AC such as any number of conditions or effects or even things like Combat Expertise or Dodge. I'd much rather that my players told me their to-hit roll and I determined if they hit or not rather than being told, "yeah, that's a hit" and then having to question what their total was in case something has affected things.
Augurer 03-28-07, 12:58 PM	I don't think it speeds play that much and there are circumstances within combat that can affect the AC such as any number of conditions or effects or even things like Combat Expertise or Dodge. I'd much rather that my players told me their to-hit roll and I determined if they hit or not rather than being told, "yeah, that's a hit" and then having to question what their total was in case something has affected things. I believe the intent of the discussion was telling the player what they needed to hit the target. If you're hiding a host of other information which causes the AC to fluctuate, you aren't really telling the PCs anything if you announce the enemy's base AC. In that case, you might as well not tell them anything.
mvincent 03-28-07, 01:22 PM	I don't think it speeds play that muchThen you likely aren't playing with say: six high level players, many with 6 (or more) attacks in a round, plus whirlwind and/or cleaving, facing hoards of mooks. My groups play fast, and we get a lot done. I'm positive I have more experience in this area.
Frugal 03-28-07, 01:33 PM	I believe the intent of the discussion was telling the player what they needed to hit the target. If you're hiding a host of other information which causes the AC to fluctuate, you aren't really telling the PCs anything if you announce the enemy's base AC. In that case, you might as well not tell them anything. I just meant that it can speed up play if you tell them the AC (or they figure it out) and then it doesn't change that's fine. But if conditions do change I think it's easier for the players to tell the DM his totals and find out which hit than it is for the DM to keep announcing changes to the AC and expecting the PCs to track that properly. Or, they have to keep asking every turn, which isn't much different from simply asking if they hit.
Frugal 03-28-07, 01:35 PM	Then you likely aren't playing with say: six high level players, many with 6 (or more) attacks in a round, plus whirlwind and/or cleaving, facing hoards of mooks. My groups play fast, and we get a lot done. I'm positive I have more experience in this area. You probably do have more experience, my experience is that the hoards of mooks type of combat is mostly just a die rolling exercise at that point anyway since the power curve with levelling means that just about anything below a certain threshold is almost completely ineffectual against the higher level PCs.
olshanski_home 03-28-07, 01:52 PM	I stair at him and wonder if I should answer, and knowing from previous experience that you are not suppose to tell that part. It can make the game boring and stupid to play then. It makes the game boring and stupid? What game are you playing? Where in the rulebooks does it say that A DM is not supposed to tell the players what the AC of an opponent is? There are all types of DMs and all types of players. In my games everyone rolls dice in the open, including the DM. When players are making their rolls, they announce out loud what their attack modifier is and any circumstance bonus applied to it. A player might say "I'm at plus 9, normally 6, plus 2 for flanking and plus 1 for bless". As a DM, I say the exact same thing. I tell the players what the attack modifier is for each of the opponent's attacks. I generally do not give away the AC until a creature's been hit, but if a character rolls a 17 and its a miss, and then later rolls a 19 and its a hit, they can pretty much figure the opponent's AC is between 18 and 19. Once in a while, if I am busy with something, I'll tell the party what the creature's AC is. I don't exactly tell how many HP a creature has remaining, but I announce when it is about half dead and about 3/4 dead. If I were to say exactly what a creature's HP and AC were, I don't think it would have any negative impact on our game. Even knowing exactly what you need to hit, it is still a random shot with the dice. The thrill in the game comes from wondering what tactics the opponents are going to use (I use a lot of tripping, grappling, reach weapons, tanglefoot bags, etcetera), or wondering what's around the next corner, or wonder how certain plot elements will unfold based upon the actions of the players.
Frugal 03-28-07, 01:59 PM	I generally do not give away the AC until a creature's been hit, but if a character rolls a 17 and its a miss, and then later rolls a 19 and its a hit, they can pretty much figure the opponent's AC is between 18 and 19. Once in a while, if I am busy with something, I'll tell the party what the creature's AC is. Right, well obviously they'll figure it out, that wasn't what we were arguing. But as you've even pointed out, you won't usually tell them until after they've hit the creature. That's very different from a player getting ready to make the first swing and asking what the AC is before the dice are rolled, and apparently before declaring things like PA. I'd agree that if you are in a bigger combat or occupied with something else it is easier to just give out the AC but personally I like that little element of the unknown.
mvincent 03-28-07, 02:07 PM	my experience is that the hoards of mooks type of combat is mostly just a die rolling exercise at that point anyway since the power curve with levelling means that just about anything below a certain threshold is almost completely ineffectual against the higher level PCs.As a general rule, if they are below the point where they are worth XP to the PC's, I just treat them as terrain (i.e. PC's can kill them without rolling). However, the term 'mook' typically refers to the standard opposition that PC's face, which are supposed to be somewhat effective (or at least survive long enough to give the BBEG a chance to do something). It should not be just a dice rolling excercise (indeed, I nearly TPK'd my group with just mooks in the last session).
Frugal 03-28-07, 02:12 PM	As a general rule, if they are below the point where they are worth XP to the PC's, I just treat them as terrain (i.e. PC's can kill them without rolling). However, the term 'mook' typically refers to the standard opposition that PC's face, which are supposed to be somewhat effective (or at least survive long enough to give the BBEG a chance to do something). It should not be just a dice rolling excercise (indeed, I nearly TPK'd my group with just mooks in the last session). Yes, but then you shouldn't really have much of a "hoard" of them unless you're completely blowing the CR guidelines. Granted, you can do a lot with humanoids with class levels within a few levels of the party and get the numbers up there and still make things interesting.
mvincent 03-28-07, 02:46 PM	you shouldn't really have much of a "hoard" of them unless you're completely blowing the CR guidelines.A "hoard" typically refers to about dozen or more mooks (which usually means that there will at least four on each of the front-line fighters). The 'average' expected EL for a group of six 14th level pc's is EL 16, which would be about sixteen CR 8 creatures (I usually go higher as my group is experienced and enjoys a challenge). Looking at the CR 8-10 creatures (here (http://www.d20srd.org/filters/monster.php)), you can see that taking them down is likely not just a 'rolling exercise" even for a 14th level fighter. It will take some effort. However, if I didn't allow my players to do some math for themselves, we'd be there all night.
Frugal 03-28-07, 02:54 PM	A "hoard" typically refers to about dozen or more mooks (which usually means that there will at least four on each of the front-line fighters). The 'average' expected EL for a group of six 14th level pc's is EL 16, which would be about sixteen CR 8 creatures (I usually go higher as my group is experienced and enjoys a challenge). Looking at the CR 8-10 creatures (here (http://www.d20srd.org/filters/monster.php)), you can see that taking them down is likely not just a 'rolling exercise" even for a 14th level fighter. It will take some effort. However, if I didn't allow my players to do some math for themselves, we'd be there all night. Right, generally the EL system falls apart around 12 creatures but that's with a 4 member party so with 6 you can certainly go higher. And if you're using class levels though CR 8-10 creatures can still be pretty effective.
DarkRhystar 03-29-07, 01:23 PM	The only thing to be wary of when telling PCs the enemy's AC is them making judgments on it. Frugal touched on this a little in his power attack example, but it's a bit broader subject-wise. Examples are: High Enemy AC Let's use magic instead. I think I won't power attack. Could I get some help over here? I think Person X should handle this enemy. I think we're a little out of our league, let's run! Low Enemy AC Power attack for the win. The minute you tell your PCs this out of game information, they know the enemy a bit better and how to handle it. Sometimes a shift in tactics won't be as blatantly obvious as the ones above and sometimes you simply may not be looking for it. When you don't tell the PCs the AC, they have to make judgment calls on what to do. Sometimes they make poor judgments and then they have to learn from their mistakes and adapt. Sometimes they make good judgment calls (a sign of luck or experience). As the fight goes on and they see misses and hits, they learn. It's part of the game and a good one.
mvincent 03-29-07, 01:44 PM	The only thing to be wary of when telling PCs the enemy's AC is them making judgments on it.Correct. Mind you; the PC's are typically experienced fighters with access to a lot more visual/tactile clues than the player. When they see something that appears to have thick armor or hide, they'll act appropriately (reflexively even, thanks to their weapon training). Also, the tactile feedback from their first swing should often be enough to confirm this. Now, I don't state the opponent's AC before the player declares their first attack (and any power attack adjustments), but afterwards (i.e. when they ask me for the AC), there's typically no reason not to (I also tell them the DR, too). This allows them to do the math (I trust them) so I can move on to the next player. After the first one falls, they even remember the HP so that they know when to roll their cleave. Besides; D&D is a 'gamist' system anyways. If players are overly concerned about calculating the best power attack option (mine aren't, mainly because the game moves too fast for that)... well, at least they are having fun.
Frugal 03-29-07, 01:52 PM	Correct. Mind you; the PC's are typically experienced fighters with access to a lot more visual/tactile clues than the player. When they see something that appears to have thick armor or hide, they'll act appropriately (reflexively even, thanks to their weapon training). Also, the tactile feedback from their first swing should often be enough to confirm this. Fair enough, but that's where description can come into play and if they make judgements based on that it might not be accurate. The same goes for describing creatures, if you say "troll" most players will pull out the acid and fire attacks, but if you give a description it might take them a little while to clue in. Now if they have the appropriate knowledge and make a check, sure I'll give them some info because that represents the PC's knowledge, as opposed to the knowledge of the players.
mvincent 03-29-07, 02:28 PM	Now if they have the appropriate knowledge and make a check, sure I'll give them some info because that represents the PC's knowledge, as opposed to the knowledge of the players.No matter what you do, players will *always* have access to information that their PCs don't, and Vise-verse. AC is just one of those things that players will figure out, and PC's would likely have an idea of anyway. If having to confirm each to hit roll (and there can be dozens of them) before moving on slows down the pace of your game (it certainly would mine), then eliminating this is good advice. I say again: withholding this information after the player has declared their first attack usually serves no real purpose (but of course there are obvious exceptions). Now, if you want to maintain an air of suspense, never give out DC's, and/or use creatures with scary abilities.
Wopple 03-29-07, 04:03 PM	It is annoying, but I sometimes do this: If they make touch AC, I say they hit and ask for damage. If they hit total AC, that damage is actualy applied. If they didn't, ah well. They don't know that, all they know is they smashed the armor. So now they can't even know the AC, or will guess it wrong because I just say "You hit him." Sucks to be a player, but hey that's what you get. ;)
calvinNhobbes 03-29-07, 05:50 PM	I give my players hints for the AC using descriptions: AC4 or less: You completely whiff, the target didn't even need to try and move out of the way. (AC 10 with -5 dex) AC5 to Touch AC -1: The creature dodges out of the way. I add modifiers like easily, skillfully, stumbling, barely, etc, to indicate how closely they got to the touch AC and the creatures dex bonus. Touch AC to AC -1: You hit the creature, but the attack bounces off their shield/armor/hide/etc. I describe AC bonuses in this order: deflection, shield, armor, and natural armor For example, one time my current group was fighting a medium montrous spider (AC 14 (+3 dex, +1 natural). Not exciting, but I remember the battle because they hit AC 13 several times, and their arrows kept bouncing off its "tough" carapace. I do the same thing to describe attacks against the players. Makes players who invest in defensive items feel worthwhile when thier magic shield "knocks away a killer blow" instead of "the attack misses". When they know the shield saved them from the hit, makes them feel good about the choice. EDIT:I play online using software that just adds up all the bonuses for each roll and gives the total, so it's easy to see what AC each attack roll hits.
Man in the Funny Hat 03-30-07, 03:09 AM	It's best, in general, to avoid just outright telling players the AC of their opponents with two notable, even common exceptions. One is when they're fighting creatures they've fought before and nothing about them has changed. If the orcs were AC14 yesterday, unless their armor and training has significantly changed, it'll be AC14 today as well. Just tell the players in this case. Another is if telling them has no effect on either their intended tactics or roleplaying. If this is the first time the PC's are ever encountering an owlbear, and they have reliable information about what they can expect, or have actually already observed it, then playing secrets with the AC of it won't really change anything that happens. Otherwise, as noted, simply TELLING the players the AC of something they ARE NOT familiar with, is providing them with meta-game information that their character should not have and the player should thus not have either. It WON'T slow down play to any significant degree for during the first several rounds of combat to have the players decide FIRST what skills, feats, bonuses, and abilities they are going to use and then tell YOU what AC they should have hit unless it has unknown defenses that might alter that. Again, as has been said with just a few rounds the mystery should be gone for both player and character and you can dispense with "playing games" about the AC. But DO NOT discount the value of those few rounds of "playing games". D&D IS a game. Part of the game is that not everything is always what it seems. Sometimes the fun comes from players and characters NOT knowing everything up front and having to make important, even life-and-death decisions anyway. Enjoy the mystery while it still IS a mystery. RELISH it. Don't just throw it away for the sake of maximum speed. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Talk to your players. Tell them that by default you won't just provide AC's up front, at least not for a few rounds. They must make initial combat decisions based on what their CHARACTER sees and knows. A character knows what chainmail and shields do for defense, and he knows the reputation of trolls in combat, but normally he doesn't know and cannot see dexterity modifiers, magical effects, fighter class training, and so forth until he's IN combat. Explain all the above to them. VERY few players will then whine about the approach because it's exceptionally reasonable, and even enjoyable. As time goes on you will gain a better sense of when and why you will want to just provide AC's, but let the players WORK for some of that kind of information.
epifreak 03-30-07, 10:52 PM	I can't recall ever telling my party an enemy's AC, though I have on at least one occasion given out a save DC. The party walks down a flight of stairs, and peaks around a corner. They see a blue-skinned (read: cryo) hydra. They lined up single-file within breath weapon range. 4 players making 7 reflex saves each, yeah, I told them the DC there.
Dragonteuthis 03-31-07, 01:22 AM	Personally, I just tell my players the AC. That way they can tell me if they hit or not. Plus, for things like Power Attack, it levels the playing field. the monsters I run know exactly what AC to aim for; why shouldn't the players?
Frugal 03-31-07, 09:46 AM	Plus, for things like Power Attack, it levels the playing field. the monsters I run know exactly what AC to aim for; why shouldn't the players? Because you shouldn't be playing your monsters that way (with metagame knowledge). A DM can metagame just as much, if not more, than the players. For instance, suppose I've made an ogre barbarian who's general tactic in combat is to hit things hard, and if they don't fall down then you hit them harder. Sounds like he should be using power attack for most of his attacks, probably for at least a couple of points to start out. Now if he's consistently missing, or even if he's hitting and his opponents are still standing, his personality is that he's probably going to get frustrated with that and start trying to hit even harder (more points put into power attack). Is this a smart thing to do? Of course not. Does it fit his personality though? Yes, and that's the point; he's not the brilliant tactician who's going to think, "gee, I need a 15 or better to hit these guys, I'd better stop power attacking," he's the kind of enemy who will think, "grr, smash harder." I'm all for NPCs using intelligent tactics, but it should be as a reflection of the NPC's personality and knowledge, not the DM's metagame knowledge.
JustinA 03-31-07, 04:39 PM	I had this guy playing a game with me and he is a fellow DM like me but he has been playing a little longer than I have and DMed longer as well, but he raises a question that I think would spool the whole thing, "What do I have to roll to hit this guy?", He asks me. I stair at him and wonder if I should answer, and knowing from previous experience that you are not suppose to tell that part. It can make the game boring and stupid to play then. I tell him to just roll and pray but that just makes him ask again and again. Finally i break and tell him in the best imitation of his voice i can do. Why do you believe that revealing the DC or AC of the check makes the game "boring and stupid to play"? There are occasionally situations in which the DC or AC shouldn't be revealed, because that revelation would also reveal other information the PC wouldn't be privy to: The DC of a Search check, for example. Or an abnormally high AC resulting from a magical protection. But here's the thing with AC: Once you've gone through a couple of rounds of combat, attentive players can figure it out. In addition, letting the players know the AC can actually speed up play: http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/running-combat.html So unless you've got a very specific reason for keeping it secret, there's really no reason not to let the target number be publicly known. IOW, if you're facing a creature you've never faced before, it makes sense to say, "You've got no idea how fast or how tough this creature is." If they're facing a goblin in scale mail, there's really nothing to be gained by playing coy. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
mvincent 04-01-07, 09:43 PM	exceptions. One is when they're fighting creatures they've fought before and nothing about them has changed. If the orcs were AC14 yesterday, unless their armor and training has significantly changed, it'll be AC14 today as well. Just tell the players in this case. Another is if telling them has no effect on either their intended tactics or roleplaying. Agreed. This is almost always the case for my group, but if it's not for yours, then I completely agree that AC should be withheld. It WON'T slow down play to any significant degreeThat is not a truism: it would CERTAINLY slow down my various groups (and has), but I recognize that this may not be true for all other groups. DO NOT discount the value of those few rounds of "playing games". Noted. I recognize that many people enjoy various aspect of the game (that might not be realistic and/or even make sense to others). That's cool. Of course: from (extensive) real-life combat experience, I can testify that this aspect does not necessarily add to realism (but then, many things we add to games for 'realism' sake do not either). But if you enjoy the mystery for other reasons, that's cool. I personally feel that handling things rapidly and delegating overall increases everyone's enjoyment (as they get to do more and are less bored). However (as always) this might be in part especially true for my groups because I seek out like minded players. I not telling people how to play, I’m just hoping they acknowledge that not everyone (possibly not even a majority) likes AC to be withheld. Fair? Also, I have witnessed some DM’s withhold information simply because they are selfish (i.e. they were spotlight and/or power hogs… yes, it’s true: some DM’s are like that ;) ). It doesn’t hurt to be aware (i.e. wary) of such behavior. Fair? As time goes on you will gain a better sense of when and why you will want to just provide AC'sI have such experience.
Timori 04-06-07, 06:19 PM	I'm not understanding the speed of play issue. Assuming you roll the damage at the same time as the attack (if speed is that important, I'm assuming you would), how is: "I hit AC21, 15 damage if that hits" any slower than... "I hit. 15 damage" :confused: Personally I never reveal AC or DR, but try to describe as above, near miss, clear miss, clear hit with unexpectedly little damage, etc.
Frugal 04-06-07, 06:35 PM	I'm not understanding the speed of play issue. Assuming you roll the damage at the same time as the attack (if speed is that important, I'm assuming you would), how is: "I hit AC21, 15 damage if that hits" any slower than... "I hit. 15 damage" :confused: Personally I never reveal AC or DR, but try to describe as above, near miss, clear miss, clear hit with unexpectedly little damage, etc. Exactly, I really don't get the whole "game slow down" argument. If you roll to hit and damage at the same time it's really no different.
Man in the Funny Hat 04-08-07, 11:59 AM	Exactly, I really don't get the whole "game slow down" argument. If you roll to hit and damage at the same time it's really no different.My only guess is that it takes players too long to do the math on their bonuses because they don't know when they start to roll the D20 what all they are going to try to apply. For example... DM: They are AC18. Player: I rolled 14, +1 for the sword, +2 for strength, and then the flanking bonus and more... so I hit! Or perhaps... DM: Tell me what AC you hit. Player: Well I rolled 12, +1 for the sword, +2 for my strength, and then the bonus for bulls strength, can I get a circumstance bonus for having just come around the corner where he might not have known where I am? No? Lesse, that still seems too low... I'll make it a smite attack then, oh, and HEY! I can take a 5' step and get a flanking bonus so I'll do that... Um, I should hit AC18 at least, is that enough? No? Well, gimme a second I know I had a bonus last week I was using that I keep forgetting about. It was a prestige class ability I think... When it should be... DM: Tell me what AC you hit. Player: This is a Smite attack and I'm flanking so with those bonuses added in I hit AC 19. DM: That hits. Roll damage. Player: 12 points. DM: Okay. Next... That's why it takes some players substantially longer when they aren't just told what the AC is. Or at least, I can think of no other practical reason. I mean, to just state the AC WILL always make things move just that much faster, but the speed increase SHOULD be quite insignificant to the overall scheme of things, and it simply tosses out the window any benefit that goes with NOT being just told outright.
mvincent 04-08-07, 01:07 PM	I really don't get the whole "game slow down" argument.Here are a few reasons: 1) "I hit for 10" is quicker than "I hit AC21 for 10 damage" because the DM does not need to shift gears to remember that particular creatures AC (and there might be several on the board). This might seem trivial, but DM distraction (i.e. divided attention) directly affects the group's pace. 2) The DM does have to now inform each player if his PC hits on each hit, and since subsequent iterative attacks can often be contingent on this knowledge, this can be a big difference. 3) I often delegate the tracking of damage (directly on the battle mat) to a player, which gives her some to do that she finds enjoyable. This allows me allocate considerably more attention to other players in a timely manner. This can really only be (effectively) done once the players know when to call out damage to her. 4) I've played with some DM's that kept AC a secret. One of them was even exceptionally talented, organized and experienced (i.e. a WotC developer... essentially a career DM). In each case, the pace moved much slower than I was used to... because of this. 5) Editted to add what was mentioned above: Often, players can tell at a glance their approximate to-hit total. If they know the AC, they only have to accurately calculate the total if the roll is somewhere in the neigborhood of missing or hitting. This method is fairly commonly used (by both DM and players) to speed up other rolling as well. Let's give an example: Player: I hit 5 times for a total of 98 damage DM: It's dead. Next. vs. Player: I hit AC 38 for 23 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 40 for 19 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 36 for 21 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 34 for 18 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 29 for 21 damage DM: Miss Player: I hit AC 30 for 17 damage DM: Hit. I think you sunk my Battleship. Let me add this up.
Frugal 04-08-07, 06:49 PM	Or perhaps... DM: Tell me what AC you hit. Player: Well I rolled 12, +1 for the sword, +2 for my strength, and then the bonus for bulls strength, can I get a circumstance bonus for having just come around the corner where he might not have known where I am? No? Lesse, that still seems too low... I'll make it a smite attack then, oh, and HEY! I can take a 5' step and get a flanking bonus so I'll do that... Um, I should hit AC18 at least, is that enough? No? Well, gimme a second I know I had a bonus last week I was using that I keep forgetting about. It was a prestige class ability I think... When it should be... DM: Tell me what AC you hit. Player: This is a Smite attack and I'm flanking so with those bonuses added in I hit AC 19. DM: That hits. Roll damage. Player: 12 points. DM: Okay. Next... Yep, although I'd point out that things like smiting, power attack, or taking a 5' step even, are supposed to be done before the attack roll, so if you have a player who's trying to snag bonuses like that after the roll you've got bigger problems.
Frugal 04-08-07, 07:06 PM	Here are a few reasons: 1) "I hit for 10" is quicker than "I hit AC21 for 10 damage" because the DM does not need to shift gears to remember that particular creatures AC (and there might be several on the board). This might seem trivial, but DM distraction (i.e. divided attention) directly affects the group's pace. The DM still needs to be keeping track of damage for several creatures and their defences (resistances, DR, etc). He already has to shift gears to figure that out (if he's occupied with something else) and if he's well organised, should have the AC information just as readily available as the HP totals. 2) The DM does have to now inform each player if his PC hits on each hit, and since subsequent iterative attacks can often be contingent on this knowledge, this can be a big difference. Yes but in those situations you have to resolve each attack separately anyway or else you can't take contingent actions. I don't have to declare a full attack until I've decided to make more than 1 attack roll, so if I'm anticipating I might be able to kill this guy with 1 hit I need to work that out before I can figure out my next action (moving away for instance). If you're looking at dividing attacks you can still just as easily roll all your attacks and damage and start applying them to the 1st creature, then apply the later rolls to the next creature if you do drop the 1st. 3) I often delegate the tracking of damage (directly on the battle mat) to a player, which gives her some to do that she finds enjoyable. This allows me allocate considerably more attention to other players in a timely manner. This can really only be (effectively) done once the players know when to call out damage to her. Okay, well obviously this requires at least that player to know that information then, in which case you might as well tell everyone. 4) I've played with some DM's that kept AC a secret. One of them was even exceptionally talented, organized and experienced (i.e. a WotC developer... essentially a career DM). In each case, the pace moved much slower than I was used to... because of this. That's certainly your experience and there's nothing I can say to refute that. I still don't think it should bog things down much, if at all. 5) Editted to add what was mentioned above: Often, players can tell at a glance their approximate to-hit total. If they know the AC, they only have to accurately calculate the total if the roll is somewhere in the neigborhood of missing or hitting. This method is fairly commonly used (by both DM and players) to speed up other rolling as well. Well yeah, but I'd argue that not accurately knowing your modifiers causes more slowdowns across the board. Think you're borderline on the roll? Gotta work them all out then. I'd much rather my players knew that information ahead of time and were used to applying it correctly so that they're not slowing things down in the middle of combat to work it all out. Let's give an example: Player: I hit 5 times for a total of 98 damage DM: It's dead. Next. vs. Player: I hit AC 38 for 23 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 40 for 19 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 36 for 21 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 34 for 18 damage DM: Hit Player: I hit AC 29 for 21 damage DM: Miss Player: I hit AC 30 for 17 damage DM: Hit. I think you sunk my Battleship. Let me add this up. Okay, but let's see: Player: I hit 5 times for 98 damage. DM: Um okay, but I need to know the individual damage totals (for DR and/or resistances) Player: Um, crap, I just picked up all the dice, um, I think it was 18, 21, and, um not sure. Another player: No, I think you rolled a 20 for that first roll, I remember seeing a few 6's Player: Um, yeah, maybe then it was 19? DM: Sorry, I need you to roll out each damage and give them to me separately Player: Aw, no fair! I rolled awesome. Game degrades to an argument about that, especially if the player rolls worse on the rerolling. Vs. Player: I hit AC 21 for 18 points of damage, 19 for 20 points, 23 for 17 points, 21 again for 20 and 22 for 22 points DM applies any DR and/or resistances, totals it up: Okay he's dead
mvincent 04-08-07, 10:24 PM	That's certainly your experience and there's nothing I can say to refute that. I still don't think it should bog things down much, if at all.Mind you, I have no vested interest in changing how you play. I'm simply attempting to convey to you why I know (without a doubt) that keeping AC's a secret would (and has) slowed down my game. And I am doing this only because you appear to want to know. Also, I do at times keep AC a secret when I feel that doing so has more value than the lost speed/time. I understand the value in this, I just believe many (possibly most) DM's do not understand the value of a quick pace. Think you're borderline on the roll? Gotta work them all out then.My players normally just have to calculate the one (or so) borderline roll (if it shows up). All their modifiers are normally known (especially with power attacks) before they roll. It's just a matter on how precise they need to be when adding (say) +19 to-hit with a d20 roll of 14. If the opponent's AC is 25 (or 40), you don't need to do the math. If their AC is say 32, you do the math (and maybe even double-check it). I do this as a DM all the time, so I should allow my players to do so also. Adding multiple two-digit numbers (precisely) seems like a trivial task, but it can slow down the pace more than you'd think. Again: I'm saying I have a *lot* of experience running combat. Whether you value what I'm sharing (or feel you have more experience) is *entirely* up to you. My intent is that this information might someday make some players happier (by allowing them to do more stuff in the same amount of time), but sharing this information is unlikely to benefit me. DM: Um okay, but I need to know the individual damage totals (for DR and/or resistances) Player: Um, crap, I just picked up all the diceI normally give DR to my players (also for speed), but they know enough to keep the dice down if I have not (actually, they generally keep the dice down even if I have). Player: I hit AC 21 for 18 points of damage, 19 for 20 points, 23 for 17 points, 21 again for 20 and 22 for 22 points DM applies any DR and/or resistances, totals it up: Okay he's deadI'd be fairly surprised if any DM was able to (accurately) handle a player rattling off a string of numbers like that. Seriously: is that really something that might happen in your games? Maybe if the player were talking slowly and the DM were writing it down...
meabolex 04-10-07, 03:58 PM	I think there's a line where the AC is a factor and a line where it isn't a factor. The whole point of AC is to slow down damage output and thus prolong combat. That's not necessarily what is being discussed here - the example of speeding up the resolution of combat rounds - not the actual combat itself. Sometimes combat tempo requires the DM's use of struggling against an AC - but as has been pointed out, this process can be streamlined. I would recommend something similar to what calvinNhobbes suggested; except I would extend it further to indicate ahead of time - in the initial description of the opponent - that the mob is quite agile and twitchy (dodge bonus to AC) or has tough, scaly skin (natural armor bonus to AC). In essence, the mob itself should usually indicate the AC - although this is definitely not always the case. The elderly dwarven monk with a 50 AC should look like a pushover - until you just try and swing at him. But as mvincent suggested, there's no point in drawing out the resolution of combat rounds with the concept of AC - particularly when it doesn't *really* matter. One possible idea is to let the PCs know AC/DR when it's not an issue or no longer an issue. If a fighter can hit a dragon 80% of the time with all his attacks, you might as well just let the fighter know the AC total. If the PCs struggle for a few rounds on high AC and they finally hit, you might as well just tell them the AC. Furthermore, if the PCs will almost always hit, just tell them the AC. Another idea is to let fighters know the AC immediately. Due to extensive training in hitting things, fighters may have better judgment than other classes in dealing with hard-to-hit opponents.
mvincent 04-10-07, 04:18 PM	there's no point in drawing out the resolution of combat rounds with the concept of AC - particularly when it doesn't *really* matter.To be fair, I acknowledge that the 'really matters' line is different for each group. Some players have trouble keeping Out-Of-Character knowledge separate from In-Character knowledge. Balancing that requires experience. Other things I might reveal to my players (but not their characters) is say, magic item abilities before it's identified. If the group thinks something is a periapt of wisdom, and a character wears it (before they've had a chance to identify it), I'll likely tell the player what stats need to be adjusted (so that I don't have to remember to adjust each time it comes up, which is cumbersome). My players are good enough not change decisions after getting this information (hopefully most other players are like that too). If however, it's something like a periapt of proof against poison, they may not be told. I'm curious: how many DM's do not say, tell their players how many rounds they are stunned for?
meabolex 04-10-07, 04:32 PM	I'm curious: how many DM's do not say, tell their players how many rounds they are stunned for? My guess is many. While the concept of AC is fairly tangible in many circumstances, how long a period of time you have a status ailment is something that is not always as obvious.
JustinA 04-10-07, 07:41 PM	I'm not understanding the speed of play issue. Assuming you roll the damage at the same time as the attack (if speed is that important, I'm assuming you would), how is: "I hit AC21, 15 damage if that hits" any slower than... "I hit. 15 damage" :confused: Some of us play games where a Full Attack is a meaningful option. Thus the true difference is: "I hit AC 21 for 15 points of damage. AC 15 for 12 damage. AC 17 for 16 points of damage." and "I hit twice and do 31 points of damage." It further speeds up play because it means that the player doesn't have to add up his damage dice for hits that he knows weren't successful. It is quite true that these are all quite minor things. But if I shave off just 5 seconds from every player interaction in a six-player game, then I'm saving 30 seconds every round. If combat lasts for 20 rounds, I've just saved 10 minutes. And that's not just a matter of having an extra 10 minutes at the end of the night, it's a matter of the combat itself being faster-paced and more exciting for both myself and the players. DM: Um okay, but I need to know the individual damage totals (for DR and/or resistances) I see you haven't fully grasped the "don't keep info secret unless there's a reason to keep it secret" principle, yet. Game degrades to an argument about that, especially if the player rolls worse on the rerolling. Which leads me to another time-saving tip: Don't play with people who have the emotional maturity of five year olds. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Timori 04-10-07, 07:46 PM	Which leads me to another time-saving tip: Don't play with people who have the emotional maturity of five year olds. Or the math skills of similar age group. ;)
Frugal 04-10-07, 07:48 PM	I see you haven't fully grasped the "don't keep info secret unless there's a reason to keep it secret" principle, yet. No, I play with a pretty good group of people but I do like to keep them guessing a bit and have them have to figure some stuff out. I don't mind giving away stuff in-game using in-game mechanics like knowledge checks, heck, I'll even give spot checks to notice that certain attacks are more effective or that some of the older wounds are healing up (maybe not even a spot check for that one if it's obvious). But I also damn well know that if I just happened to say they were running into a group of skeletons that the bludgeoning weapons would come out pretty fast, even if the party's never encountered them before. And we're really only talking the first round or 2 where this will be a "mystery", for prolonged combats I have no problem with the players figuring out what the AC is or what the creature's weaknesses are. And from what I've seen my group likes that "how do we beat this thing?" period of time. So for me, and my group, that little bit of mystery is fun, doesn't mean it'll be that way for every group. Which leads me to another time-saving tip: Don't play with people who have the emotional maturity of five year olds. Yeah, it wouldn't be an issue in my group, but can be one in other groups.
Frugal 04-10-07, 07:51 PM	Or the math skills of similar age group. ;) Yeah, I really don't get the argument that you can speed up play by having people not need to know their attack bonuses right away (or work out short-term modifications quickly).
JustinA 04-10-07, 10:07 PM	for prolonged combats I have no problem with the players figuring out what the AC is or what the creature's weaknesses are. And from what I've seen my group likes that "how do we beat this thing?" period of time. So for me, and my group, that little bit of mystery is fun, doesn't mean it'll be that way for every group. The "unless there's a reason to" part of the equation isn't just there to fill up space.
Man in the Funny Hat 04-11-07, 12:47 PM	Yep, although I'd point out that things like smiting, power attack, or taking a 5' step even, are supposed to be done before the attack roll, so if you have a player who's trying to snag bonuses like that after the roll you've got bigger problems.But it's illustrative of the counter-argument. The loss in time between players adding bonuses and telling you what AC they hit, and players adding bonuses and telling you "hit/miss" instead is NOT significant. Therefore that is not where the delay comes in when the DM is not revealing the AC of things up front. The delay must come in when players actually aren't as familiar with their bonuses and how/when to apply them as they might claim to be. If they only have to say, "I hit/I miss" they aren't providing the DM with any clue as to how high they actually rolled on that d20 if they hit, nor how much in bonuses they might appear to be adding to the roll. Accordingly, they get lax. Many times it won't matter, but sometimes it will. In any case, there is good reason to NOT just go for speed and convenience above all. Just to reiterate - the ideology and methodology in not providing AC's up front isn't to NEVER provide AC's, or to ALWAYS insist that players tell you the AC they hit. The idea is that it is desireable NOT to disregard the mystery and interest that comes of not knowing - especially when the character shouldn't know. You don't refuse to ever give the AC of common orcs in a run-of-the-mill encounter, that would be tedious and needless delay. You occasionally refuse to give it to keep players honest, and on their toes, and because YOU know that one day they will run into an orc that is NOT a standard orc AC, that there will be no VISIBLE sign for the character to suspect, and if you routinely just TELL them AC's in every encounter for every foe, they will apply additional skills and abilities to get more/better bonuses based on information their characters shouldn't have. It affects character tactics. You don't refuse to give the dragons AC at the start of a combat and then CONTINUE to refuse, even after die rolls have definitively bracketed the creatures AC. Once the characters have established what they need to roll in order to hit then it IS needless delay to not just let the players state "hit/miss". But until then keeping the AC to yourself is serving a greater purpose, even at the cost of slowing the game. And again, if players really ARE on their toes, the loss of time is NOT significant.
JustinA 04-12-07, 08:34 PM	But it's illustrative of the counter-argument. Really? Is that the counterargument where you admit you're wrong: You don't refuse to ever give the AC of common orcs in a run-of-the-mill encounter, that would be tedious and needless delay. It's a little bit difficult to take your argument seriously when you claim that you can't understand why people are saying "this slows the game down" when you turn around and say, at the same time, that it's a "tedious and needless delay". Just to reiterate - the ideology and methodology in not providing AC's up front isn't to NEVER provide AC's, I haven't actually seen anyone argue that you should ALWAYS provide the enemy's AC, so I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with, exactly.
mvincent 04-12-07, 08:45 PM	The loss in time between players adding bonuses and telling you what AC they hit, and players adding bonuses and telling you "hit/miss" instead is NOT significant.That is an entirely subjective statement (but then, I guess this whole topic is subjective). I have played using both methods (a lot). To me, it is certainly significant in establishing the pace. I'm not saying that it should be significant to everyone (unlike your blanket statement), but I seem to have more experience with your method than you do with mine. Also, I do not have any reason to believe that your advice might be more qualified than my own, and quite a number of reasons to believe the contrary (compare our post counts for example, than review some of my posts to see the quality of my information). Tell you what: I'm happy to simply provide my input to other readers, then let them decide for themselves what is significant (possibly even after trying both options out). You?
Fekk 04-12-07, 09:45 PM	I give my players hints for the AC using descriptions: AC4 or less: You completely whiff, the target didn't even need to try and move out of the way. (AC 10 with -5 dex)... Yeah, I like that approach a lot. It's not so much that I want to keep secrets for the sake of keeping secrets. It's that I don't want my players to think of a monster as a column of stats and combat as rolls of the dice.
Frugal 04-12-07, 09:54 PM	I think the big thing is to ask if the secrecy/mystery adds more fun to the game and if that's worth the (possible) slowdown in play for a couple rounds. If they're just fighting basic orcs that have the same AC as the last 3 encounters of orcs then I really don't see there being any point, unless you want to throw them off a little because later on there will be some orcs who appear to have the same AC but don't and you don't want the players to suddenly go, "hey wait a minute, why did he suddenly stop telling us their AC, somethings up!" But in other cases there can be a lot of fun with holding back some of the info like AC or DR or resistances and having the players work it out in-game. But again, it all depends on your group and the pace they like too. That said, I agree that letting the players get sloppy with their bonuses is just asking for major slowdowns in other cases. I'd like to make sure that they know those at any time. I mean even if they know the AC and just say they hit I'd like to be able to ask something like, "hey wait a minute, you rolled a 6, how'd you beat AC 32?" and expect to get an answer in a reasonable time frame like, "oh, well I have a +14 BAB and and +6 for STR....."
Burgundy Lotus 04-12-07, 10:29 PM	My players figure it out in a round or two of average rolls, but even once they know it they ask if they hit even if they know they do, that can get annoying fairly fast.
calvinNhobbes 04-13-07, 03:33 PM	Yeah, I like that approach a lot. It's not so much that I want to keep secrets for the sake of keeping secrets. It's that I don't want my players to think of a monster as a column of stats and combat as rolls of the dice. Thanks! :) That's exactly my thought on the subject. I think using descriptions instead of naming the mechanics helps with the suspension of disbelief as well as decrease the amount of meta-gaming. Now I will agree that this can slow down the game, but my groups like to get immersed in the imagination of the game as much as possible and we play online with a program that helps calculate roll modifiers. In addition, I try not to have "common" monsters. For example, I am currently using alot of goblins, but I don't just use 1st level goblin warriors out of the MM. I take those "common" goblin warriors and make archers (switch alertness for weapon focus (shortbow), boost their dex, and remove armor), heavy infantry (add scalemail and give them a longspear), and leaders (add extra levels of warrior, boost mental mods to justify tactical combat, give better equipment and feats like longswords and power attack). Plus I have some "generic" goblins mixed in. Now this does take some extra effort as a DM to design encounters. In addition, I usually spend an hour before the session memorizing the variant stat blocks so I don't need to keep referring to them during combat. However, I think this makes the monsters feel more organic and not just an AC and BAB.
Kuronue 04-13-07, 06:14 PM	to those of you who give the players ALL the info... what's your job in combat? Why not just hand them the dice and say "here, it attacks twice per turn at +5, I'mma go make a sandwhich"? IMO, part of the DM's job is to keep track of things: names, places, and numbers, such as AC, Damage, DR... Why are you in such a hurry anyway? If the battle itself isn't fun, why are you having it? If it is fun, why do you want to rush to get it over with?
Jagyr Ebonwood 04-13-07, 06:29 PM	We do it like this: When someone attacks, they roll, add mods, and then ask "Does a X hit?" Then whoever is being attacked says "Yes" or "No". It's that easy. As a DM, I sometimes let my players know the AC of their opponents, usually after they've already killed 3 of the same guy and haven't bothered to crunch the numbers yet. I also use descriptions to give them an idea. "Does a 19 hit?" "Yeah, just barely." "Does a 16 hit?" "No, it glances off the edge of his mail."
Dwarven_Jihad 04-13-07, 07:02 PM	I prefer the players give me the numbers. Due to buffs, dodge bonuses, mobility, etc. the AC of a target sometimes is not the same number for each round (or each player in a round). It's usually not hard for them to ultimately guess what powers or feats make it that way, but until then I'd rather they just act on what their characters know, roll their dice, and let me handle the variables. The other problem is the ones with keen weapons who roll a *potential* threat and try to go straight to confirming, forgetting that non-natural-20s still need to hit the target's AC to threaten :P
mvincent 04-14-07, 02:50 PM	I think using descriptions instead of naming the mechanics helps with the suspension of disbeliefFor me: adding up my to hit roll (precisely) divorces me from my suspension of disbelief far more than rolling and announcing if I hit (and only being precise if it is a close call). Similarly, slow combats and/or DM micro-management does the same for me. Of course, everyone has different preferences. Not saying everyone is neccesarily like me (or should follow my methods): merely that likely have players like me that you might want to consider (just as I have considered the players in my group that might have preferences like yours). Here is some other discussion fodder: 1) Some players simply enjoy crunching numbers (i.e. 'roll-playing') and such more than 'role-playing'. 2) D&D is more of a gamist system than many other RPG systems, and is likely to draw more gamist type players 3) Many RPG systems add complexity (i.e. rolling) ostensiblity to add 'realism' (even though I feel this causes one to focus more on the mechanics than on the 'reality' of a situation). 4) Faster games allow players to do more, and are thus morely likely to make everyone happy (regardless of their varied preferences). 5) The less complicated (and fast) the system, the more it supports my suspension of disbelief (as I am not focusing on the rules) 6) To say again: knowing my opponent's AC allows me to focus on the rules less.
Frugal 04-14-07, 03:25 PM	For me: adding up my to hit roll (precisely) divorces me from my suspension of disbelief far more than rolling and announcing if I hit (and only being precise if it is a close call). Similarly, slow combats and/or DM micro-management does the same for me. Again though, this is information you must know anyway. Ever played with someone who every time they roll to hit they need to work out their attack bonus again? How quickly does that get old? How do you adjudicate if it's a "close call" if you don't know your bonus? For that matter, if I was DMing and there were a few new bonuses (say a buff just cast that turn, or moving into flanking) and the player started adding it up and said something like, "let's see, I got a 16 plus my normal bonus of 9, plus...." I'd cut them off right there if the 25 hit. I'm not trying to hold back the AC number to bog things down, I'm just trying to add a little bit of mystery into it for the 1st couple rounds until they nail it down, so I'm not going to force someone to add a whole bunch of bonuses if I know for sure they did hit. But I definitely don't want someone just telling me they hit and then find out that they don't really know what their bonus is when I ask them for their total (just to confirm). Here is some other discussion fodder: 1) Some players simply enjoy crunching numbers (i.e. 'roll-playing') and such more than 'role-playing'. True, but in any combat you need to crunch some numbers. I mean how would you feel if the DM just started dealing "ballpark" damage against you? For that matter, how closely do you need to be to consider it a "close call" for hitting? Obviously for really high rolls it's easy but where is that line? Because bonuses (to hit or AC) can change pretty quickly in a round, sometimes taking a few seconds to crunch the numbers again will turn out that you're counting a bonus you shouldn't be, or that you were entitled one that you didn't count. For instance, suppose you forget to count the flanking bonus and the opponent is no longer applying their dodge feat on you, well right there that's going to change missing by 3 to being a hit. 3) Many RPG systems add complexity (i.e. rolling) ostensiblity to add 'realism' (even though I feel this causes one to focus more on the mechanics than on the 'reality' of a situation). Yes, thankfully D&D doesn't do this too much. I find it's a pretty decent mix between the 2 extremes. I've played systems that require rolling to hit, then rolling a hit location then working out damage before and it just gets bogged down I find. 2) D&D is more of a gamist system than many other RPG systems, and is likely to draw more gamist type players Yes and no, I've played games that are simpler and I've played ones that are much more complex. I'd put D&D more toward the middle, maybe slightly on the side of being more "gamist" but there's certainly much more "gamist" systems out there. 4) Faster games allow players to do more, and are thus morely likely to make everyone happy (regardless of their varied preferences). I assume by this you mean faster resolution of game mechanics right? If that's the case then I'd agree, although I would point out that it depends on certain things. For instance, if you're playing a system where there are more complex combat rules and you have players who like that then they likely won't enjoy it if you remove those elements to expedite play. 5) The less complicated (and fast) the system, the more it supports my suspension of disbelief (as I am not focusing on the rules) 6) To say again: knowing my opponent's AC allows me to focus on the rules less. These 2 go hand in hand really. What you're saying is that for you, being pulled into working out game mechanics disrupts your suspsension of disbelief and pulls you out of the verisimilitude. I think that's a reasonable summary of what you're getting at. Obviously then, for you, spending less time resolving mechanics is a good thing and if knowing the AC of opponents speeds up the process for you that makes that a good thing too, for you. However, all I'm asking for is the acceptance that for other people play differently. For me, I like to limit the meta-game knowledge I have. I prefer to constrain myself to the knowledge my character would have, that's what helps create the suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude for me. I don't want to be told what the creature is unless my character would know it (and that's where appropriate knowledge checks come into play) and I also don't want to know its AC. For me, being given information like that, which my character wouldn't have access to, is what breaks my suspension of disbelief and sense of verisimilitude. I don't find that the mechanical resolution takes that much longer and, for me, I'm able to maintain that feeling during that time because it helps distinguish what I, as a character, knows vs. what I, as a player, knows.
mvincent 04-14-07, 04:01 PM	Again though, this is information you must know anyway. Ever played with someone who every time they roll to hit they need to work out their attack bonus again?Again: that's not what I'm talking about. I replied to this earlier: I'm talking about merely adding two double digit numbers (your total bonus and your two-hit roll). My players and I already know our to-hit bonuses, but I've seen enough players make a mistake when adding two double-digit numbers in a hurry that having them shout out their calculation is often less precise than my method. How do you adjudicate if it's a "close call" if you don't know your bonus?Although that wasn't what I was refering to, I supposed the need to be precise with modifiers from flanking, higher ground, cover, circumstances bonuses, etc. may not need to acknowledged unless it can make a difference. how would you feel if the DM just started dealing "ballpark" damage against you?That would make me very happy. I get a warm glow from any DM that (without rolling) says I take 35 ponts of damage from a 10d6 fireball. how closely do you need to be to consider it a "close call" for hitting?Close enough that the result is completely obvious to you. Often this can be done with a glance, but if not: my players wish to play honestly, so they will continue calculating until they are positive of the answer (even if that means asking me to corroborate cover, height, etc.) there's certainly much more "gamist" systems out there.Really? I've played a lot of different games, but D&D's precise balance system, accumulation of wealth, gear etc. makes it #1 here amongst the ones I've tried. It has been well refined in this area. all I'm asking for is the acceptance that for other people play differentlyCertainly. Indeed I thought I completely indicated that consideration and acceptance in my previous post. That is all I'm asking for as well.
Frugal 04-14-07, 04:36 PM	Again: that's not what I'm talking about. I replied to this earlier: I'm talking about merely adding two double digit numbers (your total bonus and your two-hit roll). My players and I already know our to-hit bonuses, but I've seen enough players make a mistake when adding two double-digit numbers in a hurry that having them shout out their calculation is often less precise than my method. Maybe I'm just generally good at math, or it's all the points based RPGs I used to play but I can add up 2 double digit numbers pretty quickly in my head, so it's never been much of an issue for me, and we usually have at least 1 calculator kicking around if we need it. That would make me very happy. I get a warm glow from any DM that (without rolling) says I take 35 ponts of damage from a 10d6 fireball. I meant more something like rolling 10d6 and saying, "gee, there's a lot of 6's there, must be at least 50 damage, let's say 53." I know I'd be expecting an accurate total instead. I said "ballpark" as in not bothering to total the rolls, much like you're talking about, not "average". Really? I've played a lot of different games, but D&D's precise balance system, accumulation of wealth, gear etc. makes it #1 here amongst the ones I've tried. It has been well refined in this area. Play any game that's uses points to build your character, much more "gamist" as balance is far more easily calculated (you can immediately compare the worth of anything in the game). Or take a look at any system where your skill in one thing can be affected by how well you know related skills (GURPS does this to an extent with the default values of skills, I understand that Shadowrun had an extremely complicated "skills web" system that took it even further although I haven't seen it myself). Or play anything that has a more "realistic" approach to combat (Cyberpunk's Friday Night Firefight used actual FBI ballistics data to create their combat system). Certainly. Indeed I thought I completely indicated that consideration and acceptance in my previous post. That is all I'm asking for as well. I think the key is that people on both sides of the fence have fallen into the mistake of making absolute statements. I've said that I prefer to withhold it and that I don't think the slowdown is much of a big deal. Some have absolutely said that withholding it will make your combats painfully slow and you gain nothing while others have absolutely said there's no slowdown and that you should never give out AC. Neither one of those statements (as an absolute) are true. But if taken as personal preferences then both can be reasonable opinions.
mvincent 04-15-07, 01:52 AM	I can add up 2 double digit numbers pretty quickly in my head, so it's never been much of an issue for me, and we usually have at least 1 calculator kicking around if we need it.Most people can add the numbers fairly quickly, but it is often jarring (i.e. switching gears), creating a pacing issue when they address the rest of their action. We've never actually had need for a calculator (which would take longer). I meant more something like rolling 10d6 and saying, "gee, there's a lot of 6's there, must be at least 50 damage, let's say 53." I'd likely still be ok if the DM knew is probabilities and averages (but your example DM does not seem to). However, I was refering to binary results (hit/no hit, save/no save, etc.). As a DM I often eyeball such results (allowing obvious to speed play). Hitpoints require accuracy because the running total matters. Play any game that's uses points to build your character, much more "gamist" as balance is far more easily calculatedThis is off-topic, but I'm going to have to challenge that statement. I've spend far more time playing Champions and GURPS than is healthy (check out www.geocities.com/geowars/gurps for an example of my work). It's possible that we are defining "gamist" entirely differently, but points in GURPS don't really help judge balance against opposition, nor does game play focus on such balance. There could be more crunching during character generation, but that doesn't mean play itself is gamist (as D&D was specifically designed to be).
calvinNhobbes 04-15-07, 11:55 AM	For me: adding up my to hit roll (precisely) divorces me from my suspension of disbelief far more than rolling and announcing if I hit (and only being precise if it is a close call). Like I said, I play online using a program that does most of the math for you so I don't have this problem.
Kuronue 04-15-07, 07:53 PM	My players never feel jarred out of the action by rolling up their combat, at least, not that they've complained. Sometimes I give the AC if I'm really distracted or not feeling well so they can tell me if they hit and for how much (I DM online), but other times I'll withold it for a while to make it more suspenseful. If adding up bonuses to a d20 makes you lose touch with the game, maybe you should play a different system?