Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Uratoh 06-05-05, 07:01 PM	Don't get me wrong, I run as well, and I know how its nice to be able to roll a listen/spot etc for your PCs so they dont know how they did...but today I was playing a wizard who cast invisibility to sneak into a room to check out enemy defenses...so he insists on rolling my move silently for me and declares I got a 4 total. I cant even see his dice, cause he uses a computer to do it...I just dont like it, it was MY roll to fail horribly and as such of the failure, my character is now standing in front of an open door, with a large number of enemies (including people with area effect spells) ready to rape me horribly.
Kalli 06-05-05, 07:08 PM	Some rolls make more sense for the DM to roll -- Spot and Listen checks when something's after you, for example. Unless your DM throws in a lot of mundane events and calls for checks, you know something's up. In this case, it doesn't make sense. You know you're sneaking, you ought to have the dieroll. By the by -- the DM used a computer program to roll, does this mean it's an online game, or a tabletop where the DM has a computer to assist? If it's an online-IRC game, I'm ready to call 'foul;' I've never had a DM make rolls out of view, he uses the same dicebot script and OOC channel as everyone else.
Uratoh 06-05-05, 07:12 PM	He uses a laptop, and rolls all his stuff on it. He's got a program to manage things like that. We've just taken his word on how he's done...and since hes had combats where the enemy couldent roll above a 10, we tend to generally believe him.
DM Zoc 06-05-05, 07:13 PM	Whenever one of us try to move silently, our DM would always roll the dice and say, "Okay, you think you're moving silently." As long as you're trying your hardest, there's no reason to know how well you're doing, short of your results. What I would have done if you complained, though, is roll a listen check for you. In every situation, all you should be able to tell is whether or not you can hear that you're making any noise. I also think that the RAW supports this.
Uratoh 06-05-05, 07:17 PM	I'm not arguing that if i'd rolled for myself and failed i'd not do it...the GM told me I rolled a 3 + my dex of 2. it wouldent change my characters action. my argument is that is's my ruddy roll to fail, especially since my character will pretty much die now.
Kalli 06-05-05, 07:21 PM	True, I hadn't thought about that side of it as a concealed roll. I wonder why he uses a diceroll generator for a tabletop game; most of them tend to have issues with -actual- randomization. Maybe you could get hold of the program (assuming it's one of the generic ones floating on the Web and not one he made) and give it a few test rolls, to check the randomization?
Nom 06-05-05, 07:44 PM	I agree with Zoc. The problem in this situation is that the DM rolled for the player and then told them the result. if the DM could tell the player the result, then obviously the roll didn't need to be secret in the first place! That said, failing a move silently check with invisible just tells them that "something" odd is "over there somewhere" (DMG pg 295). Pinpointing the exact square requires that the listen check beat DC +20. Unless the opponents are fairly cavalier with their area attacks ("blanket the entire area, and who cares about friendly fire") they won't be using AoE spells against you. Besides which, blanket AoE against a hiding (including invisible) opponent is usually mechanically dumb. Odds are your target has evasion and good Ref saves (your wizard doesn't, but they don't know that), which means that your AoE attack is likely to be completely ineffective.
Radijs 06-05-05, 07:50 PM	True, I hadn't thought about that side of it as a concealed roll. I wonder why he uses a diceroll generator for a tabletop game; most of them tend to have issues with -actual- randomization. Maybe you could get hold of the program (assuming it's one of the generic ones floating on the Web and not one he made) and give it a few test rolls, to check the randomization? Well a few rolls doesn't allow you to test how random a random number generator is. Even the poorly made ones only begin to degenerate after a thousand consecutive rolls.
Uratoh 06-05-05, 07:51 PM	well the also irritating bit is that the GM said they pretty much know what square I'm in since ther was only one square I could have walked into the room onto...>_<
Board_Rider 06-05-05, 08:06 PM	Yeah I feel your pain. After a couple of times of this happening to me I pretty much told my DM that since I bought dice I am going to use them. Sure, there was a slight pause because I "challenged" him but hey, get over it I say. Gaming is supposed to be fun...when it isn't..change things.
Draco Strang 06-05-05, 10:26 PM	I think players should be able to roll their dice in every situation where they'd know if they were going to win/lost. Things like bluff, diplomacy, climb, jump, and others are easy to determine. The GM should roll stuff like forgery, hide, and move silently to keep an element of suspense in the game, however.
Starstuff 06-06-05, 12:19 AM	Since Hide & Move Silently are both contested rolls, I usually let my players roll their own. Yes, they know it's not likely they have successfully moved silently on a 4, but it is possible, and it has happened. I like it this way because it brings the players further into the game. But it is the DM's prerogative to roll for things the player shouldn't know. Since your DM told you the roll, I tend to agree that you should have made it. *Star*
Asmodai_00 06-06-05, 01:20 AM	I do move silently for my players since they will metagame if I don't: "I rolled a 1, so Im not moving anywhere until I get to try again!" -or- "I rolled a 20, so I can do something stupid!"
Nom 06-06-05, 01:24 AM	well the also irritating bit is that the GM said they pretty much know what square I'm in since ther was only one square I could have walked into the room onto...>_<In the general case, that's not an overly well thought out ruling. It might work if there was a single open square inside the doorway with a bell trap on it. If the bell rings, there's obviously someone on that square, and since they can't go anywhere else they must still be there. Of course, if we're talking a door, things change, since if the door makes a sound you'll know someone is there. However, even if they are combat-ready (ie have weapons out), they'll still suffer a 50% miss chance. And there aren't that many situations where an entire room of people are sitting just waiting for someone invisible / hidden to sneak into the room so that they can attack. If we're talking normal sneaking around corridoors, there's no specific cue to say exactly where the sound is coming from. If you don't pass the DC by 20, you only get a round idea of the direction. It's likely that you can't even tell whether it's inside or outside the room. People will go on the alert and some will probably move to investigate, but "A sound? Open fire!" is rarely appropriate. Imagine what happens if someone throws a rock, or it's just a rat?
amethal 06-06-05, 07:51 AM	My players make all their own rolls. Usually I tell them what its for, as well. They are very good at not metagaming, and the players enjoy the tension of the characters opening the "untrapped" chest after seeing the rogue's player roll a 1 on the search check. Speak to your DM and ask to make as many rolls as possible. Promise not to metagame, and if he's not sure, suggest a trial basis to start with. I agree that its much more fun to make your own rolls. As the DM, the more open the game is, the more I like it. I make all my own rolls in the open. I appreciate this extreme approach isn't for everyone!
was_fired 06-06-05, 07:59 AM	I let players roll move silently and hide. You generally should have a good idea of how much noise you make. Besides it beats having them then roll listen checks to find out how quietly they think they are moving.
Kalli 06-06-05, 11:32 AM	Well a few rolls doesn't allow you to test how random a random number generator is. Even the poorly made ones only begin to degenerate after a thousand consecutive rolls. Most of the faulty ones I've found give it away early on. Well, and when I said a few rolls...should've said more like 'a few dozen.' They seem to latch onto favorite numbers, too, and cluster them together. So maybe I've just been absurdly lucky when dieroller-testing... :embarrass I let players roll move silently and hide. You generally should have a good idea of how much noise you make. Besides it beats having them then roll listen checks to find out how quietly they think they are moving. Well, usually I assume after the number turns up the ball is in the DM's court. You could still roll abysmally and succeed due to an even more abysmal opposed Listen/Spot check, too, but you tend not to know that until after the fact anyway.
Thoronmir 06-06-05, 11:55 AM	As others have noted, the DM's most blatant offense was rolling the Move Silently check in private then announcing the result, completely obviating any purpose for secrecy. As for players who metagame based on their results of a contested roll, that's a dangerous practice to adopt. I suppose if my players ever started misbehaving in such a manner, I'd simply require that they announce their full action before any roll was made so they couldn’t see that they rolled a “1” and then decide not to risk moving past the guards … nor could they see their “20” and decide that it’s “safe” to take the -5 modifier to move at normal speed.
Bruunwald 06-06-05, 12:16 PM	Move Silently is a gray area for the DM rolling. Because your opponent's Listen check may succeed or fail wildly, you may as well roll it. But it is an area in which the DM might want to keep suspense by rolling it himself. The dumb thing was telling you the result of the roll. If he was going to do that, he may as well have just let you roll it.
celtredleg 06-06-05, 12:55 PM	I always let players roll thier own everything. It keeps them more in the game. BUt, no declaration, no action. If the dice hit the table before they anounce why, its just playing with the dice. I havent had to many dice cheaters over the years, but I have had a few. One time my 5 year old daughter looked over a players shoulder for a few rolls then announced to the room in a loud voice "he is cheating on the dice!!" Everybody was quiet, but then most had already suspected that he was. After that there always seemed to be another player close by to where he was rolling.
True Archon 06-06-05, 11:40 PM	As a DM, I like to roll the opposed Move Silently and Listen rolls in secret. I think it adds a bit of tension to the whole game. However, I did have a player that didn't like when I did this, because basically I failed their roll. So I compromised for a session, and it may be something that you may want to bring up to your DM. I had the players roll a series of d20's and recorded the results. Then, I would pick randomly on the list of results, and any time that either the PC required a check, I'd take that number. Likewise, if something were being done by an enemy or NPC to that PC, I would take the result rolled from the PC's list of results. Thus, the PC was kinda rolling for the "enemy's" roll and the PC couldn't keep track of results that they had rolled for good or ill. For example, I would ask the PC to roll a d20 ten times, and record the results as follows. 1. 15 2. 12 3. 8 4. 7 5. 19 6. 5 7. 17 8. 10 9. 3 10. 12 Then I'd roll 1d10 to find out where to start and get, let's say... a 7. The PC then decides to perform a Spot check to see an enemy. I look at 7 and see a 17, and the enemies opposed Hide check is the next result, or a 10. Thus, the enemy is spotted by the PC. Maybe it's an option for your group.
TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe 06-06-05, 11:47 PM	I typically allow all rolls for a PC to be made by that PC...unless I'm up to something. I simply roll the opposing check. PC: "I got a 20 on my move silently check! Woo-hoo, I'm going to DisneyLand!" DM: "The black dragon got a 30 on his Listen check." :smirk:
wizkid 06-07-05, 12:25 PM	Uratoh i can some what under stand what your saying so don't feel lonly. ;) But if your DM is going to use a dice rolling program on his laptop i might suggest the dice roller on the D&D home page.(click the d20 ;) ) But the only time my DM rolls in secret are the checks rolled by monsters unless it directly affects the group.
mvincent 06-07-05, 08:14 PM	If you don't want your DM to roll for you, you could just announce that you will always be "taking ten" (i.e. whenever possible, which is pretty much anytime you are not in combat... and he's unlikely to want to roll for you once combat starts anyway).
devinmdp 06-07-05, 11:30 PM	Regarding having the PCs roll allist of D20 rolls and then picking randomly from it...that helps a little, but I still hate that system as a player because it still allows me to metagame. "Gee, I rolled one bad roll and 10 pretty good ones. I know I just blew that last roll, so now I know I have all good rolls left..." As far as GM rolling, I have two comments: 1. If you cannot trust your DM to roll for you and not fudge your roll, then you might as well find a new DM, since there are simply too many rolls they can cheat on anyways. 2. The DM should roll almost every opposed check UNLESS the result whether succeed or fail is a fait accompli. Example: If the DM needs a Spot check simply to decide how far away combat begins, then might as well let the players roll. But, for things like Sense Motive or Search, it is just plain stupid to have players roll. A lot of DMs allow players to roll these things and it is IMPOSSIBLE not to metagame. Devin
allenchan 06-07-05, 11:37 PM	First, the fact he told you the result defeats the whole purpose of a DM rolling for a PC. Secondly, I hate DM rolling for PCs, especially because I play with action points (or for a core example, clerics with teh luck domain). I have a right to choose to reroll any d20, so I have to see the result to see if I want to use my ability.
Always-Late 06-08-05, 12:46 AM	Yeah, but it's a pain when somebody's using a cursed weapon. "Dude, a 11 hits. I have +3 str, +2 weapon, and +2 BaB. His AC is 15." "Well... You just miss. I said so." "Ah ha! It's not a +2 after all! It's the cursed -2 longsword!" "Stop metagaming."
The Man from Uncle 06-08-05, 02:17 AM	I agree with was_fired in regards to players rolling their own move silently, though no so much with hide. I mean, you can't tell how well a shadow conceals you, but you sure as heck can hear if your own movement is quiet or not. I also think that a character 'choosing' not to approach the enemy when the player rolls a move silently badly, is not necessarily metagaming. I mean, if the rogue can hear his own footsteps clear as day, he isn't going to wonder up to the enemy encampment regardless. Though I do see that if the roll is made after he's committed he can't go back in time and choose a new course of action. It really is a common sense issue. But there aren't any rules on common sense. So I guess we have to discuss it one example at a time.
True Archon 06-08-05, 05:07 AM	Regarding having the PCs roll allist of D20 rolls and then picking randomly from it...that helps a little, but I still hate that system as a player because it still allows me to metagame. "Gee, I rolled one bad roll and 10 pretty good ones. I know I just blew that last roll, so now I know I have all good rolls left..." I just gave an example of how to do it. In reality, when I had everyone roll those rolls, I had them roll about 50-60 times. The numbers were rather random. On top of that, I also used the same list for the enemies' rolls that those PCs were confronting. For example: PC X is listening for Enemy Y who is sneaking up behind PC X. The previous random roll result that the PC made is a 3. PC X misses Listen check and Enemy Y sneak attacks PC X. The next roll result on the list that the PC made is an 18, and Enemy Y successfully hits PC X. The random roll list can also help for those DMs who roll behind a screen when something is about to happen. Instead, of the players knowing that something is up because the DM is rolling a die, they now don't know if the DM is looking at his roll list or his campaign notes.
Tenzhi 06-08-05, 06:02 AM	I do move silently for my players since they will metagame if I don't: "I rolled a 1, so Im not moving anywhere until I get to try again!" The jokes on that player - he had to move to attempt it in the first place. It's "Move Silently" not "Be Silent and Then Move."
Phrennzy 06-08-05, 10:11 AM	today I was playing a wizard who cast invisibility to sneak into a room to check out enemy defenses...so he insists on rolling my move silently for me and declares I got a 4 total. I cant even see his dice, cause he uses a computer to do it...I just dont like it, it was MY roll to fail horribly and as such of the failure, my character is now standing in front of an open door, with a large number of enemies (including people with area effect spells) ready to rape me horribly. Big deal - so they heard you. So now, run. They can't see you - that's a 50% miss chance (since they know what square you are in). On your action, move back your move (30' or so) and defensively cast shield or other buffs. Or, if you can full out RUN, then I would run. This is why the wizard should be casting Invisibility on the rogue. Let him sneak. As for rolling for PCs - Move Silent & Hide checks I roll for. It's easier for the PCs to play if they don't know if they succeeded. Takes away the metagame. Honesty, I doubt you would be complaining about not getting to roll if the DM would have said, "20! You stealthily creep right up to their table and get a good view of their battle plans before exiting the room, moving like the wind."
RogerWilco 06-08-05, 02:27 PM	Move silently should just be rolled after they've moved, to check if they accidentally stepped on that twig. Then the opposed listen check is to see if anybody heard. Nobody is 100% silent, except maybe a ghost ;)
Cymraegmorgan 06-08-05, 02:57 PM	I'm not arguing that if i'd rolled for myself and failed i'd not do it...the GM told me I rolled a 3 + my dex of 2. it wouldent change my characters action. my argument is that is's my ruddy roll to fail, especially since my character will pretty much die now. You and your DM should discuss a House Rule that our group has used successfully. At the start of every session, every player rolls seven times, recording their rolls in order. The DM will then use those rolls to determine the outcome of rolls that need, from the DM's perspective, to be secret. If any player uses all seven, then all players start with a fresh seven "secret rolls". The beauty is that you roll your own rolls, and the DM's secrets are protected.
Ut-Napishtim 06-08-05, 03:32 PM	What fun is there in using a computer program in a tabletop game? Sure, I can understand the neccesity in online play, but tossing "funky dice" is part of the fun of D&D. I roll things from time like Spot checks for the PC's when it's important they don't know if they missed something. Of course, I don't use a screen so if they want to take a peek at what I'm rolling they can. It's not like they know what I'm rolling for. Screenless DMing is the best way to go for Player-DM trust at the table. It's a bit more lethal since you can't save PC's by fudging, but that just makes the rewards sweeter for the players when they know they made it on their own steam.
Phrennzy 06-08-05, 04:13 PM	What fun is there in using a computer program in a tabletop game? Sure, I can understand the neccesity in online play, but tossing "funky dice" is part of the fun of D&D. I roll things from time like Spot checks for the PC's when it's important they don't know if they missed something. Of course, I don't use a screen so if they want to take a peek at what I'm rolling they can. It's not like they know what I'm rolling for. Screenless DMing is the best way to go for Player-DM trust at the table. It's a bit more lethal since you can't save PC's by fudging, but that just makes the rewards sweeter for the players when they know they made it on their own steam. Amen to screenless rolling. I know that I fudge at will if given the chance. The players actually asked me to roll in the open - not because I was brutal before, but because they wanted the excitement of seeing the un-fudged rolls and just taking the beating if need be.