Bard-Cutting words. Does it or doesn't it? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Jimjams Jul 06, 2015 15:46:22	My Bard player today just reached 3rd level and wanted some clarification on how the ability Cutting words works. He is under the impressiom that he get's to know what my(DM) roll is on the die BEFORE he decides whether or not to use this ability or not. I read it as he doesn't, as this would quite clearly allow for some serious "Meta-gaming" on his part. I said I would ask you guys just incase.
#2 iserith Jul 06, 2015 16:40:02	Jimjams wrote:
#3 mrpopstar Jul 06, 2015 18:55:08	Jimjams wrote:
(Reply to #3) Jimjams	mrpopstar wrote:
#5 DMOny Jul 07, 2015 11:11:59	I feel your desire to prevent meta-gaming but in this case, you'd really be hindering the spirit and usefulness of the skill, which could be the bread and butter of the bard class. In the long run, that might cause an issue between you and the player. This scenario is why my group tends to do combat rolls publicly. The skill does state that you have to declare its use before finding out if it's a hit or a miss and the only way to accomplish that is with open dice rolls. Fortunately, this is D&D so you can homebrew to your hearts content! I still advise open rolls, at the very least during combat, but if you are against that, it's your DM perogotive to ignore that last part about using before finding out if it's a hit or a miss and give your player the option to use the skill, as the post above described. That way, you preserve your hidden rolls and Cutting Words still works as intended, for the most part.
#6 mrpopstar Jul 07, 2015 17:05:28	Jimjams wrote:
(Reply to #6) DMOny	mrpopstar wrote:
#8 ArialBlack Jul 08, 2015 8:12:55	5E rarely makes creatues waste things like this. Look at the 'parry' reaction in the MM: it uses your one reaction, so you don't want to waste it on an attack that missed anyway, or on an attack that would succeed anyway even if you parry. This is how it is worded; I'm quoting the Knight from p347, who has a proficiency bonus of +2: 'Parry: The knight adds 2 to its AC against one melee attack that would hit it'. I hated the abilities in earlier editions that were along the lines of, '1/day you can add +2, but you must do this before you roll'. This meant that I have a 1/day ability that only has a 1 in 10 chance to make a difference. 5E seems to have these abilities always make a difference. These things are worded like, 'after the roll, but before the DM tells you the result'. This only has any meaning if you can see the roll! If you can't, then it might as well just be 'before the roll', and makes a cool ability useless 90% of the time. As for open die rolls: rolls should be open at any time the PCs can observe the creature attempting to do any observable thing. Take combat, for example. When I first learned to fence I was put against an experienced fencer. I was wary that he'd parry my attack and riposte, so my attack was tentative. I wanted him to react to it so that I could put into practice some of the compound attacks I'd just learnt. But instead of reacting, he just calmy watched my point not actually reaching him; he had no need to parry an attack that wasn't going to hit! When I realised this, I lunged. He calmly parried and riposted, and I had learned a lesson. I soon found out that you can gauge your opponent's skill after engaging for a short time. It's not perfect, but it's pretty accurate most of the time. What's this got to do with open combat roll? They represent, faily well, a real fencer's ability to gauge his opponent's skill. Consider: if your enemy rolls a 2 and the DM says 'hit', then you can work out that he must be good, but if the good opponent rolls a 19 and hits this doesn't tell you much. Conversely, if an opponent rolls a 19 and the DM says 'miss', then you know he's rubbish, but if he missed with a 2 then you didn't learn much. So in the course of a combat, you can see what numbers he rolls (without knowing his modifier), and chances are you'll soon narrow down what his modifier must be; maybe not exactly but within a small range. Sometimes you will know exactly, other times the range will be so big as to be uninformative. This maps very well to the ability of combatants to size each other up! This, combined with 5E game mechanics, means that depriving players of seeing the rolls (of an opponent who's efforts they can observe) is unfair and unrealistic. This doesn't mean that all rolls should be open. The things that the PC cannot know anything about should still be hidden. Some perception/insight checks, for example. Certainly anything that the PCs cannot observe.
#9 bawylie Jul 08, 2015 10:03:21	I want my players' to feel like they can rely on their abilities. Therefore I try to interpret the text in the way most favorable to them. I'd allow your player to use it as he proposes.
#10 Rhym Jul 10, 2015 14:56:06	Vou can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the atlack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage.
#11 El_Condoro Jul 10, 2015 15:28:12	Rhym wrote:
#12 Rhym Jul 10, 2015 15:38:01	El_Condoro wrote:
#13 DemoMonkey Jul 10, 2015 20:00:14	JimJams How would you use the ability if you were DMing and playing an NPC bard the players were fighting? Apply the same rule to the player.
#14 FrogReaver Jul 10, 2015 21:49:44	My take is that some abilities are always more effective with different DM's and group playstyles. My take is that the DM decides if his rolls are in secret or in the open. The player uses his abilities in whichever paradigm as best as he can. If doing such makes his class too weak then the DM and him can come up with some ways to make it more interesting.
(Reply to #14) FrogReaver	FrogReaver wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Jimjams

Jul 06, 2015 15:46:22

My Bard player today just reached 3rd level and wanted some clarification on how the ability Cutting words works. He is under the impressiom that he get's to know what my(DM) roll is on the die BEFORE he decides whether or not to use this ability or not. I read it as he doesn't, as this would quite clearly allow for some serious "Meta-gaming" on his part.

I said I would ask you guys just incase.

iserith

Jul 06, 2015 16:40:02

Jimjams wrote:

mrpopstar

Jul 06, 2015 18:55:08

Jimjams wrote:

(Reply to #3)

Jimjams

mrpopstar wrote:

DMOny

Jul 07, 2015 11:11:59

I feel your desire to prevent meta-gaming but in this case, you'd really be hindering the spirit and usefulness of the skill, which could be the bread and butter of the bard class. In the long run, that might cause an issue between you and the player.

This scenario is why my group tends to do combat rolls publicly. The skill does state that you have to declare its use before finding out if it's a hit or a miss and the only way to accomplish that is with open dice rolls. Fortunately, this is D&D so you can homebrew to your hearts content! I still advise open rolls, at the very least during combat, but if you are against that, it's your DM perogotive to ignore that last part about using before finding out if it's a hit or a miss and give your player the option to use the skill, as the post above described. That way, you preserve your hidden rolls and Cutting Words still works as intended, for the most part.

mrpopstar

Jul 07, 2015 17:05:28

Jimjams wrote:

(Reply to #6)

DMOny

mrpopstar wrote:

ArialBlack

Jul 08, 2015 8:12:55

5E rarely makes creatues waste things like this. Look at the 'parry' reaction in the MM: it uses your one reaction, so you don't want to waste it on an attack that missed anyway, or on an attack that would succeed anyway even if you parry.

This is how it is worded; I'm quoting the Knight from p347, who has a proficiency bonus of +2: 'Parry: The knight adds 2 to its AC against one melee attack that would hit it'.

I hated the abilities in earlier editions that were along the lines of, '1/day you can add +2, but you must do this before you roll'. This meant that I have a 1/day ability that only has a 1 in 10 chance to make a difference. 5E seems to have these abilities always make a difference.

These things are worded like, 'after the roll, but before the DM tells you the result'. This only has any meaning if you can see the roll! If you can't, then it might as well just be 'before the roll', and makes a cool ability useless 90% of the time.

As for open die rolls: rolls should be open at any time the PCs can observe the creature attempting to do any observable thing. Take combat, for example. When I first learned to fence I was put against an experienced fencer. I was wary that he'd parry my attack and riposte, so my attack was tentative. I wanted him to react to it so that I could put into practice some of the compound attacks I'd just learnt. But instead of reacting, he just calmy watched my point not actually reaching him; he had no need to parry an attack that wasn't going to hit! When I realised this, I lunged. He calmly parried and riposted, and I had learned a lesson.

I soon found out that you can gauge your opponent's skill after engaging for a short time. It's not perfect, but it's pretty accurate most of the time.

What's this got to do with open combat roll? They represent, faily well, a real fencer's ability to gauge his opponent's skill. Consider: if your enemy rolls a 2 and the DM says 'hit', then you can work out that he must be good, but if the good opponent rolls a 19 and hits this doesn't tell you much. Conversely, if an opponent rolls a 19 and the DM says 'miss', then you know he's rubbish, but if he missed with a 2 then you didn't learn much.

So in the course of a combat, you can see what numbers he rolls (without knowing his modifier), and chances are you'll soon narrow down what his modifier must be; maybe not exactly but within a small range. Sometimes you will know exactly, other times the range will be so big as to be uninformative.

This maps very well to the ability of combatants to size each other up! This, combined with 5E game mechanics, means that depriving players of seeing the rolls (of an opponent who's efforts they can observe) is unfair and unrealistic.

This doesn't mean that all rolls should be open. The things that the PC cannot know anything about should still be hidden. Some perception/insight checks, for example. Certainly anything that the PCs cannot observe.

bawylie

Jul 08, 2015 10:03:21

I want my players' to feel like they can rely on their abilities. Therefore I try to interpret the text in the way most favorable to them. I'd allow your player to use it as he proposes.

#10

Rhym

Jul 10, 2015 14:56:06

Vou can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the DM determines whether the atlack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage.

#11

El_Condoro

Jul 10, 2015 15:28:12

Rhym wrote:

#12

Rhym

Jul 10, 2015 15:38:01

El_Condoro wrote:

#13

DemoMonkey

Jul 10, 2015 20:00:14

JimJams

How would you use the ability if you were DMing and playing an NPC bard the players were fighting?

Apply the same rule to the player.

#14

FrogReaver

Jul 10, 2015 21:49:44

My take is that some abilities are always more effective with different DM's and group playstyles.

My take is that the DM decides if his rolls are in secret or in the open. The player uses his abilities in whichever paradigm as best as he can. If doing such makes his class too weak then the DM and him can come up with some ways to make it more interesting.

(Reply to #14)

FrogReaver

FrogReaver wrote: