Before I use an encounter utility or limited class feature or weapon power or some other power to increase my defences as an immediate interrupt, do I first get to know the attacker's attack value? If the Zombie Ogre attacks my Wizard and gets a 30 vs. AC, I'm not going to bother with shield, but if it rolls low, like a 22, shield would save my bacon. Am I entitled to know these numbers, by RAW? I know its ultimately up to the DM, but it seems to significantly nerf Staff of Defence, Shield and similar if you don't get to know the number.
No. Technically, you are never going to be explicitly told any of the enemies bonuses. The only things the game ever recommends the DM to notify the players about is when a target becomes bloodied, when a target drops, any modifiers the player gets on his end... and I believe when a "save ends" property dissipates on the monster, but that one I'm not sure of.
I've always done my attack roll, added the modifier and then asked my players if "X" hit their AC. If your DM plays that way, then you can use shield the way you think it seems most useful.
I think what he was asking wasn't if he got to know the attack bonus, but what the final attack value is. I would say yes, but if the DM doesn't like player's knowing the ogre's attack bonus, he would have to roll behind a screen.
I've always done my attack roll, added the modifier and then asked my players if "X" hit their AC. If your DM plays that way, then you can use shield the way you think it seems most useful.
Oh, in that case I'd say yeah... because just as you say, the general consensus I've seen at tables is that etiquette dictates the usual attack roll statement as "Does an [attack roll + bonuses] hit your [name of targeted defense]?"
I roll my dice in the open, and mentally add up the bonuses. Then i ask what the characters AC is. Then tell them if I hit. This way it doesn't explicitly tell the players what the bonus is, but they get a general idea. If someone wants to use a power like shield, I will tell them outright beforehand if it will turn a hit into a miss, so t hey don't waste it
My DM was of the impression that Shield was overpowered, so he stopped telling me the attack bonuses. I don't think I've used Shield or SoD effectively since, and I've now changed characters to a BMR because I was so fed up of my defensive powers failing me and being wasted when I got engaged in melee.
Geez.
If you went that way, you wouldn't get hit at all. Your DM just didn't get over the initial "gotcha" moment of having his hit against the party wizard negated.
Shield may seem overpowered if you consider that it's 100% effective when the player knows the attack roll, whereas the user of an attacking encounter power must risk missing, and thus wasting the power. (I think the chance of missing with a normal attack power and 'missing' with Shield are about the same.) However, the consequences of wasting Shield are far worse than, say, missing with Ray of Enfeeblement. The wizard can theoretically miss lots of times and still be in the fight, but two or three solid hits will take him out of it.
Some people make me
.In any event It is my impression that the DM has to tell you what AC he hits due to situational modifiers (Second wind exct) you cant just assume a hit because you hit thier tipical AC. In fact I would say its out right wrong to say you dont get to know before hand. Especialy since RAW you get to even know the damage and nasty effects that occur before you use it.
Shield only goes off it it will stop the attack. You don't choose to use it, it just goes off if you're hit by an attack that hits by less than 4 points.
That wouldn't be ideal. It'd mean the wizard might be forced to have it deploy against a knife scratch, when he'd rather have protected himself from Brutus the Barbarian's axe strike.
Shield only goes off it it will stop the attack. You don't choose to use it, it just goes off if you're hit by an attack that hits by less than 4 points.
You can't wait til the next hit? You can't save shield? That sounds silly. Are you sure about that?
My DM was of the impression that Shield was overpowered, so he stopped telling me the attack bonuses.
I just tell my player when he is under the impression that shield would have helped him avoid the blow. Once he uses it, I stop telling him.
Shield only goes off it it will stop the attack. You don't choose to use it, it just goes off if you're hit by an attack that hits by less than 4 points.
While relevant to the topic, I don't think anyone's interested in your house rules.
I see no real reason to have such an ability that only lasts for a single round if you can't actually use it to defend yourself. Now if the ability had a longer duration, then I would not be so forthcoming with the info.
love,
malkav
At the start of the campaign we dedided that I (the DM) would roll all dice in the open. We also had a "no fudging" rule, which I have held to, that says I will basically let the chips fall where they may when it came to the outcome of a combat. Hit is hit, down is down, and dead is dead. We have had the first two, but not the third one yet. The wizard in the group has staff of defence, so he knows when it will work and not work. I think it would be unfair to him to make him guess blindly about the effects of the power.
This is the way I prefer to play. Unless you're playing with little kids, that you don't want to kill, there should be no need for fudging.
Unless you're playing with little kids [...] there should be no need for fudging.
I can think of many reasons to fudge the dice:
- Long string of bad luck rolling for/against a single player.
- Exciting encounter that the players are seriously into would end anticlimactically.
- PC with incredible luck remains unchallenged for to long of a string of encounters.
- Recurring BBEG that is needed for later suffers an extremely unlucky attack.
- Result would kill a PC around which you centered or designed the "next" encounter.
The way our DM has always done it is to narratively describe how close the attack was to our AC.
For example if the attack meets your AC and hits he would say something like:
"You raise your shield to block, but the axe glances off the side and pierces through your armor."
If the attack was something like 1-3 (within shield range) over your AC he might say something like:
"The Hobgoblin thrusts he spear and just catches you in the side."
If the attack is well over your AC he might say something like:
"BAM! The greatsword crushes into you."
In this manner it keeps the mysterious and picturesque part of D&D alive, and legitimately allows the player to judge when it is best to use certain abilities such as shield.
I can think of many reasons to fudge the dice:The game is about having fun. Sometimes, the fun is conditional upon prolonging or cutting short an encounter.
- Long string of bad luck rolling for/against a single player.
- Exciting encounter that the players are seriously into would end anticlimactically.
- PC with incredible luck remains unchallenged for to long of a string of encounters.
- Recurring BBEG that is needed for later suffers an extremely unlucky attack.
- Result would kill a PC around which you centered or designed the "next" encounter.
Why use dice at all then? Why not have the DM just say what happens?
I know where you're coming from, but it's not my preference. We're playing a game with mechanics and dice, I say just let it flow. Good luck and bad luck happen, let it ride. If a PC or NPCs life effects the story severely, make adjustments if they die. The DMG talks about dealing with players going off track, just change the story or intro a new NPC.
- Exciting encounter that the players are seriously into would end anticlimactically.
- PC with incredible luck remains unchallenged for to long of a string of encounters.
- Recurring BBEG that is needed for later suffers an extremely unlucky attack.
I've long held that the only acceptable fudging is if it benefits the PCs, never if it hurts them.
Fudging to help the PCs = DM tries to offset terrible luck.
Fudging to hurt the PCs = DM is against the players.
The former is acceptable, the latter is not. DMs have two roles - storyteller, yes, controlling the world and antagonists, but they are also the arbitrator of the rules, and in that role they are supposed to be impartial.
In that sense, there are any number of reasons why the DM fudges the dice for the players, none of which anyone would object to - everybody's tired and the last kobold just wouldn't die, or a throwaway encounter has dragged on for hours and the puny goblin minion almost killed the entire party, or the DM messed up and almost TPK'd through no fault of the players. The motive is for the entire play group - everybody benefits. To fudge against the player is to remove what free will and influence upon the world they have, and the motive to benefit the judge and arbitrator - the DM.
Under no circumstances is that acceptable. If there's someone you can't have die, then the possibility that he could die shouldn't exist. If the party can't be allowed to steal the Crown of the McGuffins, then the real crown shouldn't be on the pedestal in the first place.
This also applies to situations where you feel the need to fudge for the players. If the party can't fail a skill check, then you shouldn't set them up to be able to fail. If they need to get the Map to the McGuffin, then even if they fail they should get it - they might have to pay through the nose instead of getting the map for free.
If the encounters are properly set up so that you don't have failure conditions that screw your campaign, there are only two reasons anyone would fudge dice:
1. Bad Luck. (The last level 1 minion keeps rolling 20s and will kill the Paragon fighter with one more crit.)
2. Screw the Party. (The DMPC smacks the stuffing out of the players, Gary Stu always succeeds, Mary Sue runs up the elephant's trunk and puts arrows through it's brain.)
The latter is never acceptable. It would be like a cop with the authority to suddenly make up rules on the spot totally screwing you over. The former would be like the cop overlooking you going 1 mph over the limit.
One is being helpful, the other is antagonistic.
Specifically, my issue with the first two quoted points above - the players are screwed over by "god" by actually doing well. WTF.
The last point is never acceptable, and a good DM should never have that situation comes up. The BBEG dies, but searching his corpse reveals that he's working for someone else. Or the players leave his body to rot, and he gets resurrected or revived as undead. Or he had a device that sent his soul to a cloned body (instant side quest to destroy said device).
Bottom line, you do not punish players for good luck, playing well, or poor DMing.
I've long held that the only acceptable fudging is if it benefits the PCs, never if it hurts them.
Fudging to help the PCs = DM tries to offset terrible luck.
Fudging to hurt the PCs = DM is against the players.
The former is acceptable, the latter is not. DMs have two roles - storyteller, yes, controlling the world and antagonists, but they are also the arbitrator of the rules, and in that role they are supposed to be impartial.
In that sense, there are any number of reasons why the DM fudges the dice for the players, none of which anyone would object to - everybody's tired and the last kobold just wouldn't die, or a throwaway encounter has dragged on for hours and the puny goblin minion almost killed the entire party, or the DM messed up and almost TPK'd through no fault of the players. The motive is for the entire play group - everybody benefits. To fudge against the player is to remove what free will and influence upon the world they have, and the motive to benefit the judge and arbitrator - the DM.
Under no circumstances is that acceptable. If there's someone you can't have die, then the possibility that he could die shouldn't exist. If the party can't be allowed to steal the Crown of the McGuffins, then the real crown shouldn't be on the pedestal in the first place.
This also applies to situations where you feel the need to fudge for the players. If the party can't fail a skill check, then you shouldn't set them up to be able to fail. If they need to get the Map to the McGuffin, then even if they fail they should get it - they might have to pay through the nose instead of getting the map for free.
If the encounters are properly set up so that you don't have failure conditions that screw your campaign, there are only two reasons anyone would fudge dice:
1. Bad Luck. (The last level 1 minion keeps rolling 20s and will kill the Paragon fighter with one more crit.)
2. Screw the Party. (The DMPC smacks the stuffing out of the players, Gary Stu always succeeds, Mary Sue runs up the elephant's trunk and puts arrows through it's brain.)
The latter is never acceptable. It would be like a cop with the authority to suddenly make up rules on the spot totally screwing you over. The former would be like the cop overlooking you going 1 mph over the limit.
One is being helpful, the other is antagonistic.
Specifically, my issue with the first two quoted points above - the players are screwed over by "god" by actually doing well. WTF.
The last point is never acceptable, and a good DM should never have that situation comes up. The BBEG dies, but searching his corpse reveals that he's working for someone else. Or the players leave his body to rot, and he gets resurrected or revived as undead. Or he had a device that sent his soul to a cloned body (instant side quest to destroy said device).
Bottom line, you do not punish players for good luck, playing well, or poor DMing.
You have a lot of anger, my young friend.
Why use dice at all then? Why not have the DM just say what happens?
While I won't argue against the value of your point of view, dice are there to keep things more exciting. The risk of failure makes success all that much more satisfying (which is why gambling is such a successful industry). However, dice, like any other random event, can systematically and repeatedly fail for you, creating extremely unlikely but possible results.
In any case, I think that what most warrants fudging the rolls is when a series of very lucky or very unlucky rolls is ruining fun for the players. Fun should always be a top priority.
You have a lot of anger, my young friend.
If I didn't I wouldn't have enough hate.
While I won't argue against the value of your point of view, dice are there to keep things more exciting. The risk of failure makes success all that much more satisfying (which is why gambling is such a successful industry). However, dice, like any other random event, can systematically and repeatedly fail for you, creating extremely unlikely but possible results.
In any case, I think that what most warrants fudging the rolls is when a series of very lucky or very unlucky rolls is ruining fun for the players. Fun should always be a top priority.
I agree. Dice should aid the game, not be the game.
Why use dice at all then? Why not have the DM just say what happens?
By the same token, why does the DM get to decide anything about the adventure or encounters? Why isn't the DMG just a big book of random tables?
Every group will have a different preference for level of DM intervention. Some people like a bit of judicious fudging, some people don't, but the most important thing is for people to do whatever they find the most enjoyable.
I find that, as DM, the easiest way of handling attacks it to tell the players the total and have them tell me if it hit. Spreads out the work nicely.
What do I care if they know the monster's attack bonus? I have far more interesting secrets than that.
If I need to "fudge" a battle one or way or another, I'll find more interesting ways of doing it than altering die rolls.
By comparison, the setup where players & DMs keep track of their own defences, and call out the result of their attack rolls & what defence was targeted, is far simpler. Groups may pick the first method if that's what they prefer, but I think it's safe to assume that the second method will be the default.
I find that open rolls are most exciting for everyone.
I find that, as DM, the easiest way of handling attacks it to tell the players the total and have them tell me if it hit. Spreads out the work nicely.
What do I care if they know the monster's attack bonus? I have far more interesting secrets than that.
If I need to "fudge" a battle one or way or another, I'll find more interesting ways of doing it than altering die rolls.
Exactly, you're controlling the other side. If the PCs are hurting too badly the monsters can suddenly come down with a bad case of stupid. You know, the enemy soldier decides that the bloodied TWF Ranger can be finished off with his two skirmishers and turns his attention elsewhere instead. Or he "forgets" to use some special ability he has.
And dice are never fudged at my table.