I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I think you haven't understood the OP's post. The DM hide the players rolls - they cannot know their own rolls. The OP went on another post on this very thread saying he is fine with DMs hiding rolls, as well.
No I fully understood the OP. What I said was completely relevent. I would suggest that you failed to understand my reply.
That is what passives are for, Beardsinger, if a player enters a room to search for something and it's something simple to find then use their passive perception. If a player searches a room and another joins, that's called the help action. It's a system in the game. Taking a player's agency away from them is not fun, the players come here to roll math rocks and hear a story. Taking that system away from them, at that point you only have the story and no game.
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I think you haven't understood the OP's post. The DM hide the players rolls - they cannot know their own rolls. The OP went on another post on this very thread saying he is fine with DMs hiding rolls, as well.
No I fully understood the OP. What I said was completely relevent. I would suggest that you failed to understand my reply.
That is what passives are for, Beardsinger, if a player enters a room to search for something and it's something simple to find then use their passive perception. If a player searches a room and another joins, that's called the help action. It's a system in the game. Taking a player's agency away from them is not fun, the players come here to roll math rocks and hear a story. Taking that system away from them, at that point you only have the story and no game.
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
I've been playing D&D for 3 years and have been to 3 in person games.
The DM hides "our" rolls, the players. If I roll perception, I don't know what I rolled. Think of it as getting up from your chair, walking over to the DM's screen, and dropping the dice behind his screen and then he/she is telling you what you rolled.
For every check, including saves, attacks, etc.
I don't know what games you're playing where that's common. The DM hiding their rolls is fine, but the player rolls? That's a step too foar.
Again, that is exactly how many games were played way back when. The situation is really very clear, the DM is doing nothing wrong. It’s simply a matter of different play styles. You have 2 options - decide it’s a deal breaker and find a different game to play in, or suck it up and carry on playing. All you are doing by coming here and complaining about it is just getting your name added to multiple peoples ‘do not group with’ lists.
The DM hides "our" rolls, the players. If I roll perception, I don't know what I rolled. Think of it as getting up from your chair, walking over to the DM's screen, and dropping the dice behind his screen and then he/she is telling you what you rolled.
For every check, including saves, attacks, etc.
Now you see, that, at least part of it, is utterly alien to me. I never adjust player rolls, and you have to trust players to at least a degree. If they do an attack roll, 80% of the time I don't even check the results. They read them out to me and I take them at their word. If they're cheating...oh well? What does it matter? I'm not in a competition with them. If they want to cheat...then it's their own game that they're robbing. If they need "the win", then losing my Goblin a round early because they declared a Nat20 instead of a 5 is a very cheap way to make them feel better about themselves.
If I had the set up, I would hide their rolls in niche situations where I think it would benefit them to not know the result.
If I want them to know the result, which is the vast majority of rolls, then they roll for themselves and tell me the result. The only time I'll actively try to see is if the fight is exciting and that roll is really important. Not to check that they're telling the truth, but just because I'm excited and want to see the result! Just like I would If I were a player.
The concept of having a player roll, then the DM having sole knowledge of the true result and then the DM describing "the result" is alien to me, I don't see why anyone would do it that way. Even if you don't trust the players and are too uptight to just let possible cheating go, just have them roll in full view of everyone. Unless they're fudging the fight? Giving you hits when you didn't andnvice versa? Personally, I'd just fudge the HP, reinforcements or morale of the enemies. Let the players gave their moment with the dice.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
When we interact with the world, the world gives us feedback. That's just how living things function. If I flub a joke, I am immediately aware of it. If I try to balance on a beam and fall off, I have an idea whether I was doing my best at the time or if some momentary factor threw me off.
If we don't receive that feedback, that context around our own performance, we cannot make accurate conclusions about our capability to influence the world. And so we have very little idea of what the consequences of our actions might be.
This is why the DM rolling for you is not immersive. You get consequences without any context. If you fail an attempt at a challenge, you don't know if the challenge is far beyond you or if you simply did not perform to the best of your abilities. Getting the consequences with feedback on your action provides information about the challenge. Information that can be used to formulate a new approach.
"He rolled a 3, so I'm going to do the same check," is definitely a problem. I don't tolerate that either. There's a whole list of ways to handle that issue and I'd put hiding rolls near the bottom of it.
When we interact with the world, the world gives us feedback. That's just how living things function. If I flub a joke, I am immediately aware of it. If I try to balance on a beam and fall off, I have an idea whether I was doing my best at the time or if some momentary factor threw me off.
You've never told a joke and then afterwards been told that someone found it offensive and you never realised it? You've never hidden something and thought it was well hidden only to have someone find it within a few minutes? You are either a lot more skilled than pretty much everyone I know, or you've duped yourself into thinking you are. Sometimes we get immediate feedback on how we've done, other times we don't. Sometimes we know that we aren't doing our best. Sometimes the first we know that we weren't being stealthy enough is when we feel the tap on the shoulder from the guard. Sometimes we even feel that we haven't done our best, but still manage to smash it out of the park. People aren't the greatest at self judging like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My fix of OSR right now is watching an old fellow who actually was contracted by Gygax for work on AD&D. He runs a You Tube livestream 4 nights a week. Tonight, it is AD&D. Friday night Gamma World. There should be a whopping 13-15 of us watching tonight. The worst part of tonight's livestream is the actual gaming session is under 2 hours long.
As a DM I tend to roll pretty well against players in combat, and folks started to say I was trying to kill them on purpose. So I decided to rolling in the open just to shut 'em up and show them that yes, I did just crit for 5 of the last 7 rolls. Them crits are all real and r20 can back me up. But I didn't like that they could see the full roll. I don't want folks to only cast shield when they know it'll work. IIRC, the game itself is built with the presumption that the DM rolls closed, and so it is expected you'll cast shield and still get hit at least sometimes during your play. Sometimes you hold up a shield and you still get hit anyway, that's just how it is in real life and so makes sense you cast shield one second too late and you still get stabbed. So now I at least let folks see the d20 but not know the full total. I hate open rolling but this is a nice compromise to me at least.
Using up your resources is the point. I can see in your post that you decry my exact example. Personally to me it seems like if the to-hit rolls of the enemies were the only thing that was hidden from you, you casting shield and having it not work once in a while wouldn't be as much of an issue. Your DM, imo, is def going too far here.
I am a fellow player in this campaign. The DM is already working towards a solution that suits everyone in the group. :)
As for a bizarre houserule, my first experience with Dungeons and Dragons was not a good one because the DM would make bad things happen to characters if they do something she did not want them to do. I had a boulder suddenly fall on my character because I shot an enemy's messenger bird that was going to alert the enemies of our presence in their town.
As a DM I tend to roll pretty well against players in combat, and folks started to say I was trying to kill them on purpose. So I decided to rolling in the open just to shut 'em up and show them that yes, I did just crit for 5 of the last 7 rolls. Them crits are all real and r20 can back me up. But I didn't like that they could see the full roll. I don't want folks to only cast shield when they know it'll work. IIRC, the game itself is built with the presumption that the DM rolls closed, and so it is expected you'll cast shield and still get hit at least sometimes during your play. Sometimes you hold up a shield and you still get hit anyway, that's just how it is in real life and so makes sense you cast shield one second too late and you still get stabbed. So now I at least let folks see the d20 but not know the full total. I hate open rolling but this is a nice compromise to me at least.
Using up your resources is the point. I can see in your post that you decry my exact example. Personally to me it seems like if the to-hit rolls of the enemies were the only thing that was hidden from you, you casting shield and having it not work once in a while wouldn't be as much of an issue. Your DM, imo, is def going too far here.
My only counter argument to this here when discussing with the DM, yes, he was nice and had sit down talk with me which I am happy we had, was that if we're hiding our rolls from ourselves and he has all the information and we're fighting an enemy wizard who has shield. He can see our attack rolls, which can then influence his decision to cast shield. It's not different from how I run my games and I the DM tell the players what the enemy rolled, letting them have a chance to block the attack.
It isn't fair that the enemies have all the knowledge that we as players don't get.
We did agree on a compromise for shield though that he will give me a more detailed descriptor of the attack (or tell me outright if it's a crit) so that I as an EK can more easily choose when or when not to use it, doesn't guarantee I'll always deflect, but it gives me a chance to not spend all slots in one fight because I got hit one too many times.
I am a fellow player in this campaign. The DM is already working towards a solution that suits everyone in the group. :)
As for a bizarre houserule, my first experience with Dungeons and Dragons was not a good one because the DM would make bad things happen to characters if they do something she did not want them to do. I had a boulder suddenly fall on my character because I shot an enemy's messenger bird that was going to alert the enemies of our presence in their town.
Elmer. I feel that you should express your concerns about Shield with him instead of random people on the internet. I have almost been in this campaign for a year and he has yet to use that spell on us.
Elmer. I feel that you should express your concerns about Shield with him instead of random people on the internet. I have almost been in this campaign for a year and he has yet to use that spell on us.
They're not concerned about the spell being used on them, they're concerned because the spell is an important part of their character build but with the GM isn't letting them know enough information about enemy attacks to determine whether or not the spell will be useful to cast in a given situation and they don't have enough spell slots to rely on guesswork.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Elmer. I feel that you should express your concerns about Shield with him instead of random people on the internet. I have almost been in this campaign for a year and he has yet to use that spell on us.
To be fair, there's nothing wrong with reaching out to a greater board and discussing the situation and I don't think OP has done anything wrong by opening up a thread for discussion. And from OP's posts, it seems like they have discussed it with the DM but is still having issues with the way things are being ran.
As for my own thoughts on the matter, after reading the rest of this thread:
I for one have never been in a game where the DM refuses to let players know their own rolls, and as someone who runs Eldritch Knight (EK) constantly myself, that would drive me up a wall and make things insufferably not fun. There's very few spell slots to begin with on EK, with few spell options alongside (since spell schools are limited), that not having a good idea of when it'll actually be useful to cast your spell is a huge detriment. EK's don't get their slots back on a short rest like a Warlock, and at a low level and running through battle gauntlets, that's even more of an issue. You exhaust your resources and end up completely without recourse.
Alongside this, OP also mentioned Great Weapon Master-- without having any sort of idea of what you're rolling, you can't do the calculations required to use the Feat consistently and successfully. For GWM you must calculate an AC that’s the “sweet spot” for when you use the ability, and you ONLY use it for that AC and below. If there’s no way to gauge the enemies’ AC via trial and error of hit and miss, there’s no strategic application for the feat, effectively neutering the ability.
It's essentially wasting an entire ASI/feat slot, as well as rendering an entire build highly inconsistent and nigh useless, all for... what, suspense? You can have suspense without hiding players' rolls. There is a level of suspense to seeing numbers (i.e: seeing dreaded Nat 1's, or seeing the most clutch Nat 20's) that are unique to this genre of game, which are being completely snuffed when the players' numbers are hidden in this way, as well. If you are relying on hiding player rolls (especially in combat) to create "suspense," then perhaps there are other issues. Suspense is not created solely "in the moment," there are plenty of narrative ways to create and build suspense without relying on hiding crucial gameplay mechanics from your players.
And on a greater character creation level, one cannot accurately gauge how to progress or play their build when they have no clue how they're actually performing.
Alongside this, I noticed that within the OP, there is this:
What's really odd about this DM is that he tells us he does this because of metagaming. Yet, funny enough in Foundry all of us players can see each other's health bars. Even the monsters when you hover over them you can get an idea of what their HP is like because he has a neat mod that tells you how injured they are. Whereas the literal players I can see this JRPG health meter, and even then, he has a mod that adds these RPG style damage numbers that appear above our heads or the enemies, same goes for healing.
As someone who plays both quite a bit of TTRPGs (in person and online) and RPGs/JRPGs, this raises an interesting flag that I don't believe has been addressed within the rest of the thread conversation. Why is there visible "metagame" information about party members that is normally not available to players in 5e, in the form of health bars? And yet the normally visible information, that being the players' own rolls, are hidden? This reads like the mindset of one that maybe hasn't DM'd much beforehand. I'm not sure if this is a newer DM or what, but the game sounds more like it's being ran like a "video game" as opposed to a "table top" game. Dice rolls and math are an integral part of 5e, the system being used in this campaign.
You can have house rules any day of the week-- like, hide player rolls all you want-- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a fun house rule. And if it isn't fun, then maybe it's something worth reconsidering. If I ever applied a house rule to one of my games that player(s) came to me expressing the difficulty and lack of fun they were having, then I would reevaluate my rule.
I'm guessing you are new to D&D, only played online and never in person with a DM that uses a DM screen so you never see their rolls? There is nothing wrong with a DM not showing rolls at all. In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well". That is why some rolls should be hidden, and some rolls are made by the DM on your behalf. If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise. The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded. That's fairly standard. There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. Your comment about 'hovering over' someone's icon on the screen to see their health is an entirely new thing brought about by online gaming post covid. Prior to that you wouldn't have had a clue what hitpoints somebody had. Even asking "how many hitpoints do you have" is meta gamng pure and simple.
You are welcome of course to dislike it, you are welcome to do things dfferently in the games you run. You also have the right to leave a game that you don't enjoy and find a new one.
“In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well”
Every table I’ve been at the DM grows a spine and would just say “no, there’s nothing in there” instead of hiding rolls, making the game less fun for the players.
“If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise.”
This is why passive perception exists, completely unnecessary measure.
“The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded.”
Shield says nothing about that being the case and abilities with that conditional use are usually keen to include that as part of the descriptor like bardic inspiration. Even granting that, it still doesn’t counter OP’s argument. The argument is that an aspect of skill, and therefore fun, is taken out. Being able to effectively manage a resource is more compelling than just guessing when a shield will work or not. With limited slots this is paramount for his character to be effective.
“There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. “
Good thing no one said anything about a DM telling you what an enemy’s AC is and no one cares about what the attack bonus is, of all things to want to know lol. You feel around for enemies’ AC with hits and misses to determine when it’s good to use something like GWM or Sharpshooter.
Greater player agency and skill are more fun than increasing the luck portion of the game, period. I prefer it when there’s more application of skill in my games, maybe you come from a newer school of gaming where you’re handheld through everything and never make difficult choices. If you think that was rude, then don’t start off your response condescendingly with “Maybe you’re new to D&D” to reject someone’s opinion.
As a DM I tend to roll pretty well against players in combat, and folks started to say I was trying to kill them on purpose. So I decided to rolling in the open just to shut 'em up and show them that yes, I did just crit for 5 of the last 7 rolls. Them crits are all real and r20 can back me up. But I didn't like that they could see the full roll. I don't want folks to only cast shield when they know it'll work. IIRC, the game itself is built with the presumption that the DM rolls closed, and so it is expected you'll cast shield and still get hit at least sometimes during your play. Sometimes you hold up a shield and you still get hit anyway, that's just how it is in real life and so makes sense you cast shield one second too late and you still get stabbed. So now I at least let folks see the d20 but not know the full total. I hate open rolling but this is a nice compromise to me at least.
Using up your resources is the point. I can see in your post that you decry my exact example. Personally to me it seems like if the to-hit rolls of the enemies were the only thing that was hidden from you, you casting shield and having it not work once in a while wouldn't be as much of an issue. Your DM, imo, is def going too far here.
My only counter argument to this here when discussing with the DM, yes, he was nice and had sit down talk with me which I am happy we had, was that if we're hiding our rolls from ourselves and he has all the information and we're fighting an enemy wizard who has shield. He can see our attack rolls, which can then influence his decision to cast shield. It's not different from how I run my games and I the DM tell the players what the enemy rolled, letting them have a chance to block the attack.
It isn't fair that the enemies have all the knowledge that we as players don't get.
We did agree on a compromise for shield though that he will give me a more detailed descriptor of the attack (or tell me outright if it's a crit) so that I as an EK can more easily choose when or when not to use it, doesn't guarantee I'll always deflect, but it gives me a chance to not spend all slots in one fight because I got hit one too many times.
glad you guys have been able to come to an amicable resolution! :)
The shield spell should say "when attacked" rather than "when hit". It's just poor design that creates a meta situation problem for which as you point out the only work around is to either hide the dice or accept that players will only cast it when they have done the math and know it will work.
Whilst I certainly agree that 5e itself certainly has its issues, and that Shield itself is a powerful spell, I also don't understand this general mindset of "If players do the math to figure out when to consistently do [Shield], it's due to poor design choice." Every ability in D&D that's worth its salt has an informed element that helps a player determine when to use it. It is part of the strategy of the game.
For example, Bardic Inspiration right before an ally does something big. Distort Value, which you would probably use on a high-value item to make it worth even more.
Or look at Shield's cousin: Absorb Elements. It has an informed element, such as "a ball of fire descends from the sky, crashing into the earth and surrounding you in scorching flames." You, as a player, know this is fire damage, and know that it is an opportune time to use Absorb Elements to partially negate that damage.
Shield's informed element would be the attack roll against the player, which can be partially informed by context (such as in the case of "a big monster probably has a big to-hit bonus..."), however it's better to just be given a frank answer. This is especially true in the case of homebrew, where monsters can be completely built from scratch with little to no prior context for the players to draw from. Viewing it from a roleplay lens, in the same way that a Wizard would understand what spells could be Counterspelled at that level, a Fighter/EK could understand the durability of their own Shield or how quickly they could cast it to protect themselves from the incoming attack. Changing it to "when attacked" rather than "when hit" turns it essentially into a 'lite' version of hiding player rolls, because the informed element is removed.
There are plenty of ways to work around spells such as Shield that do not require picking the spell itself apart or hiding key informed elements; for example, saving throws. There have been many times where multiple of my tanky-AC Fighters have been caught up by a failed save, even with Indomitable.
5e absolutely has problems, as does any system, but I would argue that players being able to determine (with greater accuracy) when to utilize certain skills or spells-- especially those that are using rather finite resources, such as the paltry number of spell slots an EK has in this case, compared to say a Wizard-- is not necessarily one of them.
As a DM I tend to roll pretty well against players in combat, and folks started to say I was trying to kill them on purpose. So I decided to rolling in the open just to shut 'em up and show them that yes, I did just crit for 5 of the last 7 rolls. Them crits are all real and r20 can back me up.
If you're generally "rolling well", you really ought to float check your dice and if they're fine chrck your technique and consider getting a dice tower. Obviously, everyone has their streaks, but overall, you should be rolling average results, and it kind of defeats the point of having dice if you don't. If it's gotten to the point that they suspect you of "cheating", then either you have a biased set of dice, a biased throw, or they're paranoid.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You shouldn't know what the DM rolled before deciding on whether you use the shield spell. The dm simply tells you it hit, and you decide to use it or not. Sure it is nice to know what the margin was so that you don't waste a spell slot, but that's just the dm being nice. There is literally no requirement for it. People have simply become to molly coddled these days and expect that everything will be fed to them on a spoon.
Sure I understand but consider the implications of that. In order for the player to only know that they are hit without the result, you now have to roll all attack dice hidden behind the screen.
That is neither convenient nor desirable, in a game where you fight monsters by making dice rolls and you accept the results as the "what happened", to have one of the requirements be that the dice are rolled behind the screen is dysfunctional. Play it as it lays has no meaning if you don't know how it lays and it certainly isn't a great design if because of one spell you have to change the operation of the whole game to ensure that one spell has the desired effect at the table.
To me this is just poor design.
And yet thousands of games, in dozens of countries, over multiple decades have played with the DM rolling their dice behind a DM screen. And the game flourished. And people had fun. There is nothing new about the DM rolling in secret, there is nothing new about the DM rolling for the players when appropriate. In regards to the complaint about when to use the sheild spell, unless the player knows the stat blocks for every single monster; or reads it at the table during an encounter then it really doesn't matter if the player knows what the dice roll is on a monster attack. I played in a game over the weekend, and the DM used a s Sphinx of Judgement. I have never used on in any of the games I have run, and had no idea what it's abilities were - though I could make some good guesses. So if the DM told me he rolled a 10, or even a 14 I still wouldn't know whether it had hit me or not unless the DM also told me what the attack bonus was. I can for example guess that the Sphinx had an attack bonus in the +7 to +9 range, so knowing my own AC I can take an educated guess as to if it hit me by enough that using the AC boost from Gift of the Metalic Dragon feat is worthwhile or not, but it is still just a guess. Seeing the dice is therefore irrelevent unless you are metagaming. The only thing seeing the dice means is that you know the DM isn't 'cheating', but if you don't trust the DM not to cheat then there are much bigger issues at the table.
You shouldn't know what the DM rolled before deciding on whether you use the shield spell. The dm simply tells you it hit, and you decide to use it or not. Sure it is nice to know what the margin was so that you don't waste a spell slot, but that's just the dm being nice. There is literally no requirement for it. People have simply become to molly coddled these days and expect that everything will be fed to them on a spoon.
Man, you're entitled to your opinion, but you keep using words like shouldn't, as if people are not allowed to do things differently than you. Let people play as they want man. And let's go back to OP post:
In the End the DM has been open to my criticism about this, but I just wanted to share this out in the world to see if anyone has ever experienced bizarre house rules like this.
The guy wanted to share something that for him was bizarre and ask for people's experience with different house rules - I know you will say that this is not a house rule, but in 5E, players not rolling IS a house rule, as stated in the PHB:
[...]These ability scores, and the ability modifiers derived from them, are the basis for almost every d20 roll that a player makes[...].
[...]Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game.[...]
That is what passives are for, Beardsinger, if a player enters a room to search for something and it's something simple to find then use their passive perception. If a player searches a room and another joins, that's called the help action. It's a system in the game. Taking a player's agency away from them is not fun, the players come here to roll math rocks and hear a story. Taking that system away from them, at that point you only have the story and no game.
Again, that is exactly how many games were played way back when. The situation is really very clear, the DM is doing nothing wrong. It’s simply a matter of different play styles. You have 2 options - decide it’s a deal breaker and find a different game to play in, or suck it up and carry on playing. All you are doing by coming here and complaining about it is just getting your name added to multiple peoples ‘do not group with’ lists.
Now you see, that, at least part of it, is utterly alien to me. I never adjust player rolls, and you have to trust players to at least a degree. If they do an attack roll, 80% of the time I don't even check the results. They read them out to me and I take them at their word. If they're cheating...oh well? What does it matter? I'm not in a competition with them. If they want to cheat...then it's their own game that they're robbing. If they need "the win", then losing my Goblin a round early because they declared a Nat20 instead of a 5 is a very cheap way to make them feel better about themselves.
If I had the set up, I would hide their rolls in niche situations where I think it would benefit them to not know the result.
If I want them to know the result, which is the vast majority of rolls, then they roll for themselves and tell me the result. The only time I'll actively try to see is if the fight is exciting and that roll is really important. Not to check that they're telling the truth, but just because I'm excited and want to see the result! Just like I would If I were a player.
The concept of having a player roll, then the DM having sole knowledge of the true result and then the DM describing "the result" is alien to me, I don't see why anyone would do it that way. Even if you don't trust the players and are too uptight to just let possible cheating go, just have them roll in full view of everyone. Unless they're fudging the fight? Giving you hits when you didn't andnvice versa? Personally, I'd just fudge the HP, reinforcements or morale of the enemies. Let the players gave their moment with the dice.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
When we interact with the world, the world gives us feedback. That's just how living things function. If I flub a joke, I am immediately aware of it. If I try to balance on a beam and fall off, I have an idea whether I was doing my best at the time or if some momentary factor threw me off.
If we don't receive that feedback, that context around our own performance, we cannot make accurate conclusions about our capability to influence the world. And so we have very little idea of what the consequences of our actions might be.
This is why the DM rolling for you is not immersive. You get consequences without any context. If you fail an attempt at a challenge, you don't know if the challenge is far beyond you or if you simply did not perform to the best of your abilities. Getting the consequences with feedback on your action provides information about the challenge. Information that can be used to formulate a new approach.
"He rolled a 3, so I'm going to do the same check," is definitely a problem. I don't tolerate that either. There's a whole list of ways to handle that issue and I'd put hiding rolls near the bottom of it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You've never told a joke and then afterwards been told that someone found it offensive and you never realised it? You've never hidden something and thought it was well hidden only to have someone find it within a few minutes? You are either a lot more skilled than pretty much everyone I know, or you've duped yourself into thinking you are. Sometimes we get immediate feedback on how we've done, other times we don't. Sometimes we know that we aren't doing our best. Sometimes the first we know that we weren't being stealthy enough is when we feel the tap on the shoulder from the guard. Sometimes we even feel that we haven't done our best, but still manage to smash it out of the park. People aren't the greatest at self judging like that.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
what’s the name / channel?
As a DM I tend to roll pretty well against players in combat, and folks started to say I was trying to kill them on purpose. So I decided to rolling in the open just to shut 'em up and show them that yes, I did just crit for 5 of the last 7 rolls. Them crits are all real and r20 can back me up. But I didn't like that they could see the full roll. I don't want folks to only cast shield when they know it'll work. IIRC, the game itself is built with the presumption that the DM rolls closed, and so it is expected you'll cast shield and still get hit at least sometimes during your play. Sometimes you hold up a shield and you still get hit anyway, that's just how it is in real life and so makes sense you cast shield one second too late and you still get stabbed. So now I at least let folks see the d20 but not know the full total. I hate open rolling but this is a nice compromise to me at least.
Using up your resources is the point. I can see in your post that you decry my exact example. Personally to me it seems like if the to-hit rolls of the enemies were the only thing that was hidden from you, you casting shield and having it not work once in a while wouldn't be as much of an issue. Your DM, imo, is def going too far here.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
I am a fellow player in this campaign. The DM is already working towards a solution that suits everyone in the group. :)
As for a bizarre houserule, my first experience with Dungeons and Dragons was not a good one because the DM would make bad things happen to characters if they do something she did not want them to do. I had a boulder suddenly fall on my character because I shot an enemy's messenger bird that was going to alert the enemies of our presence in their town.
My only counter argument to this here when discussing with the DM, yes, he was nice and had sit down talk with me which I am happy we had, was that if we're hiding our rolls from ourselves and he has all the information and we're fighting an enemy wizard who has shield. He can see our attack rolls, which can then influence his decision to cast shield. It's not different from how I run my games and I the DM tell the players what the enemy rolled, letting them have a chance to block the attack.
It isn't fair that the enemies have all the knowledge that we as players don't get.
We did agree on a compromise for shield though that he will give me a more detailed descriptor of the attack (or tell me outright if it's a crit) so that I as an EK can more easily choose when or when not to use it, doesn't guarantee I'll always deflect, but it gives me a chance to not spend all slots in one fight because I got hit one too many times.
Oh? Which character are you?
Elmer. I feel that you should express your concerns about Shield with him instead of random people on the internet. I have almost been in this campaign for a year and he has yet to use that spell on us.
They're not concerned about the spell being used on them, they're concerned because the spell is an important part of their character build but with the GM isn't letting them know enough information about enemy attacks to determine whether or not the spell will be useful to cast in a given situation and they don't have enough spell slots to rely on guesswork.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To be fair, there's nothing wrong with reaching out to a greater board and discussing the situation and I don't think OP has done anything wrong by opening up a thread for discussion. And from OP's posts, it seems like they have discussed it with the DM but is still having issues with the way things are being ran.
As for my own thoughts on the matter, after reading the rest of this thread:
I for one have never been in a game where the DM refuses to let players know their own rolls, and as someone who runs Eldritch Knight (EK) constantly myself, that would drive me up a wall and make things insufferably not fun. There's very few spell slots to begin with on EK, with few spell options alongside (since spell schools are limited), that not having a good idea of when it'll actually be useful to cast your spell is a huge detriment. EK's don't get their slots back on a short rest like a Warlock, and at a low level and running through battle gauntlets, that's even more of an issue. You exhaust your resources and end up completely without recourse.
Alongside this, OP also mentioned Great Weapon Master-- without having any sort of idea of what you're rolling, you can't do the calculations required to use the Feat consistently and successfully. For GWM you must calculate an AC that’s the “sweet spot” for when you use the ability, and you ONLY use it for that AC and below. If there’s no way to gauge the enemies’ AC via trial and error of hit and miss, there’s no strategic application for the feat, effectively neutering the ability.
It's essentially wasting an entire ASI/feat slot, as well as rendering an entire build highly inconsistent and nigh useless, all for... what, suspense? You can have suspense without hiding players' rolls. There is a level of suspense to seeing numbers (i.e: seeing dreaded Nat 1's, or seeing the most clutch Nat 20's) that are unique to this genre of game, which are being completely snuffed when the players' numbers are hidden in this way, as well. If you are relying on hiding player rolls (especially in combat) to create "suspense," then perhaps there are other issues. Suspense is not created solely "in the moment," there are plenty of narrative ways to create and build suspense without relying on hiding crucial gameplay mechanics from your players.
And on a greater character creation level, one cannot accurately gauge how to progress or play their build when they have no clue how they're actually performing.
Alongside this, I noticed that within the OP, there is this:
As someone who plays both quite a bit of TTRPGs (in person and online) and RPGs/JRPGs, this raises an interesting flag that I don't believe has been addressed within the rest of the thread conversation. Why is there visible "metagame" information about party members that is normally not available to players in 5e, in the form of health bars? And yet the normally visible information, that being the players' own rolls, are hidden? This reads like the mindset of one that maybe hasn't DM'd much beforehand. I'm not sure if this is a newer DM or what, but the game sounds more like it's being ran like a "video game" as opposed to a "table top" game. Dice rolls and math are an integral part of 5e, the system being used in this campaign.
You can have house rules any day of the week-- like, hide player rolls all you want-- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a fun house rule. And if it isn't fun, then maybe it's something worth reconsidering. If I ever applied a house rule to one of my games that player(s) came to me expressing the difficulty and lack of fun they were having, then I would reevaluate my rule.
“In fact it is often done at tables where players abuse the fact that they know what was rolled. I hate it when players in games I run see that someone searched a room for treasure or clues or secret doors and say things like "oh he only rolled a 3 so I am going to check as well”
Every table I’ve been at the DM grows a spine and would just say “no, there’s nothing in there” instead of hiding rolls, making the game less fun for the players.
“If the DM says roll perception when you are walking down a corridor, even if you fail the chck you know that something is up. It breaks the surprise.”
This is why passive perception exists, completely unnecessary measure.
“The use of many abilities such as Shield are ment to be declared after the roll but before you know if the attack has landed or skill check has succeeded.”
Shield says nothing about that being the case and abilities with that conditional use are usually keen to include that as part of the descriptor like bardic inspiration. Even granting that, it still doesn’t counter OP’s argument. The argument is that an aspect of skill, and therefore fun, is taken out. Being able to effectively manage a resource is more compelling than just guessing when a shield will work or not. With limited slots this is paramount for his character to be effective.
“There is no reason for you to know what the DM rolled because if you do then you can work out what their attack bonuses etc are. I never tell my players what an enemy ac is, just describe what they are wearing if anything and let the players figure it out for themselves. “
Good thing no one said anything about a DM telling you what an enemy’s AC is and no one cares about what the attack bonus is, of all things to want to know lol. You feel around for enemies’ AC with hits and misses to determine when it’s good to use something like GWM or Sharpshooter.
Greater player agency and skill are more fun than increasing the luck portion of the game, period. I prefer it when there’s more application of skill in my games, maybe you come from a newer school of gaming where you’re handheld through everything and never make difficult choices. If you think that was rude, then don’t start off your response condescendingly with “Maybe you’re new to D&D” to reject someone’s opinion.
glad you guys have been able to come to an amicable resolution! :)
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Whilst I certainly agree that 5e itself certainly has its issues, and that Shield itself is a powerful spell, I also don't understand this general mindset of "If players do the math to figure out when to consistently do [Shield], it's due to poor design choice." Every ability in D&D that's worth its salt has an informed element that helps a player determine when to use it. It is part of the strategy of the game.
For example, Bardic Inspiration right before an ally does something big. Distort Value, which you would probably use on a high-value item to make it worth even more.
Or look at Shield's cousin: Absorb Elements. It has an informed element, such as "a ball of fire descends from the sky, crashing into the earth and surrounding you in scorching flames." You, as a player, know this is fire damage, and know that it is an opportune time to use Absorb Elements to partially negate that damage.
Shield's informed element would be the attack roll against the player, which can be partially informed by context (such as in the case of "a big monster probably has a big to-hit bonus..."), however it's better to just be given a frank answer. This is especially true in the case of homebrew, where monsters can be completely built from scratch with little to no prior context for the players to draw from. Viewing it from a roleplay lens, in the same way that a Wizard would understand what spells could be Counterspelled at that level, a Fighter/EK could understand the durability of their own Shield or how quickly they could cast it to protect themselves from the incoming attack. Changing it to "when attacked" rather than "when hit" turns it essentially into a 'lite' version of hiding player rolls, because the informed element is removed.
There are plenty of ways to work around spells such as Shield that do not require picking the spell itself apart or hiding key informed elements; for example, saving throws. There have been many times where multiple of my tanky-AC Fighters have been caught up by a failed save, even with Indomitable.
5e absolutely has problems, as does any system, but I would argue that players being able to determine (with greater accuracy) when to utilize certain skills or spells-- especially those that are using rather finite resources, such as the paltry number of spell slots an EK has in this case, compared to say a Wizard-- is not necessarily one of them.
If you're generally "rolling well", you really ought to float check your dice and if they're fine chrck your technique and consider getting a dice tower. Obviously, everyone has their streaks, but overall, you should be rolling average results, and it kind of defeats the point of having dice if you don't. If it's gotten to the point that they suspect you of "cheating", then either you have a biased set of dice, a biased throw, or they're paranoid.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You shouldn't know what the DM rolled before deciding on whether you use the shield spell. The dm simply tells you it hit, and you decide to use it or not. Sure it is nice to know what the margin was so that you don't waste a spell slot, but that's just the dm being nice. There is literally no requirement for it. People have simply become to molly coddled these days and expect that everything will be fed to them on a spoon.
And yet thousands of games, in dozens of countries, over multiple decades have played with the DM rolling their dice behind a DM screen. And the game flourished. And people had fun. There is nothing new about the DM rolling in secret, there is nothing new about the DM rolling for the players when appropriate. In regards to the complaint about when to use the sheild spell, unless the player knows the stat blocks for every single monster; or reads it at the table during an encounter then it really doesn't matter if the player knows what the dice roll is on a monster attack. I played in a game over the weekend, and the DM used a s Sphinx of Judgement. I have never used on in any of the games I have run, and had no idea what it's abilities were - though I could make some good guesses. So if the DM told me he rolled a 10, or even a 14 I still wouldn't know whether it had hit me or not unless the DM also told me what the attack bonus was. I can for example guess that the Sphinx had an attack bonus in the +7 to +9 range, so knowing my own AC I can take an educated guess as to if it hit me by enough that using the AC boost from Gift of the Metalic Dragon feat is worthwhile or not, but it is still just a guess. Seeing the dice is therefore irrelevent unless you are metagaming. The only thing seeing the dice means is that you know the DM isn't 'cheating', but if you don't trust the DM not to cheat then there are much bigger issues at the table.
Man, you're entitled to your opinion, but you keep using words like shouldn't, as if people are not allowed to do things differently than you. Let people play as they want man. And let's go back to OP post:
The guy wanted to share something that for him was bizarre and ask for people's experience with different house rules - I know you will say that this is not a house rule, but in 5E, players not rolling IS a house rule, as stated in the PHB:
So chill out and stop trying to tell people how they should feel about and how to play THEIR game...