So a player was practically offended by me being so open ended with my party and also other... Stuff happened. But my DMing style is the following example
PC: "Okay so does a 15 hit?"
Me: "Yes has 12 AC and 45 hp"
also me during latest encounter
"So Strahd has 4 actions every round and +9 to anything he does and not to mention 144 hp and he regains 20hp every his turn."
Objectively, there is nothing wrong with being this open. The honest truth is, some players will look this stuff up anyway, whether you tell them or not, and you can not (and no DM has ever been able to) prevent the players from buying the module or the sourcebook and reading the details ahead of time.
However, traditionally, DMs do not provide this much information. Rather, they simply say an attack hits or misses. The players may, if the battle goes long enough, be able to deduce the AC (I.e., "I have 14 to hit", "Miss," followed by, "I have a 15 to hit," "hit"), but if you surveyed all the DMs out there, the vast majority of us do not tell players the AC ahead of time. We also usually do not tell players the hp, but rather, make qualitative descriptions. "It looks slightly hurt," "it is barely standing on its feet," and so on.
Personally, as a player, I would prefer not to know this kind of thing. Knowing too much takes the fun out of the player's job, which is to deduce from just "what you see on the board" what the bad guys are doing, rather than the DM saying, "Yeah he has +9 to all saving throws and regens 20 hp/rd."
But this is all up to the style of the DM and the players. You should probably have a talk with your players ahead of time about what they want out of the campaign and make sure that what you, and they, want is compatible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A big part of the game for players is the tension of not knowing until the DM says so that they hit, or the cheer when they find out they beat the bad guy, the terror when the hydra regrows two heads.
If they know the AC, the hp and all the twist and turns you take that option to be surprised and caught up in the fight. Instead of a tense encounter it’s a drawn out maths puzzle
Agreed. For many players this would ruin the suspense. Like knowing the ending of a movie before you walk in.
However -- some people like that. I know someone who has a family member who reads the last chapter of a book first, and then starts on page 1. I can't possibly imagine enjoying this, but some people do. So if the players and the DM like doing it this way, there is nothing wrong with it, and nothing in the rules says you can't do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
One of the normal jobs for the DM is to keep information from the players.
After all, why limit it to stats? Why not tell them where all the traps are and the DC to disarm them? Why not tell them where the secret doors are? Why not tell them the NPC is going to betray them later in the story?
If you reveal everything it becomes impossible to build suspense.
Under normal circumstances, the DM just describes what the players could see with their 5 senses (and any magical enhancements that apply) and tells the dialogue of the NPCs and actions of monsters, and lets the players figure the rest out on their own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'll agree with the other DMs above. It's your game, but generally you keep things like monster HP, AC, and legendary actions under your hat. Sometimes I will reveal those stats to a player who is helping me run an encounter in a large group, but I never announce it to the entire group.
I do not tell the players what the monster stats are, but during the course of combat the characters can figure it out. A have told a skilled fighter the monster's AC after a few rounds of combat. That gave them more tactical leverage against them. And after the 5th time you have killed a lizardman totaling 25+ HP damage, it is not that bad to tell them they have 22 HP. That way when they run into tougher lizardmen they are really surprised.
It can also lead to some meta-gaming when you tell them that kind of detail. If players know the AC, they’ll know how big a risk it is to use the feat that gives a -5 to hit, +10 to damage. If they know the enemy’s to hit, they’ll know how big the risk is of taking an opportunity attack. If they have a sense of how many hp it has left, they’ll decide if they want to use a spell slot or a cantrip. If they know it’s got an action with a 10’ radius, they’ll know where to stand. In a way, you are undercutting your monster’s abilities by letting players know things like this in advance. Some Players may try to ignore that, since their character wouldn’t know such things with that kind of mathematical precision, but it gets really hard to separate the information once it’s out there.
As a GM and player myself, I think this makes it very hard to get into the story and the mood. It reduces this ancient vampire (Strahd) to a sack of hp and numbers. It mis a game of make believe after all and not a combat simulation. I don’t habt 127 HP but I hate this evil soab who just drained my fighter friend and now looks rejuvenated because of drinking my friends blood.
Of course, some groups may prefer the combat simulation more and t he metagaming but I personally don’t want to know that stuff as a player. I know a lot of stats as I DM a lot myself and I still don’t use fire against a troll if my character wouldn’t know it.
To me as a player, not knowing the monster's stats helps me to really visualize what's going on in the story, as I'm relying on what's in my mind's eye rather than just knowing the monster is a collection of numbers. I've definitely never heard of any players thinking it's wrong of a DM to keep that information on their side of the DM screen. It's part of the implicit understanding between players and DMs: DMs are the ones running the world, they'll know things the players don't.
That's not to say you can't ever share that information, you just have to be conscientious of how/why. Maybe I'm running a monster that's immune to Charm effects, but the bard in my party is committing multiple turns to trying to charm it. After the second try, especially if the player is starting to seem frustrated, I might say "after the second spell fizzles, you can surmise that from this creature's fae bloodline, it is protected from attempts to charm it by magic." Or, there's also the classic 4e example of the Bloodied condition, which is not in the 5e rules but most people (myself included) still like to use. Essentially, if your players ask you "how's the monster looking health-wise?", instead of giving them an exact HP total that might effect the meta of the players' strategy, you can reply that it's "bloody", meaning at or below half health. Or "very bloody" meaning at or below a quarter health. This answers the players question while still in a narrative framework (vs a numerical one) so it does not interrupt the player's immersion. And sometimes, you can get away with straight up telling players the numbers, i.e "oh wow, he's got exactly 1hp left after that hit!", "yup, that's their exact AC, so that just barely hits", or "I intended this to be a strategic encounter, so I gave the enemies Pack Tactics that you'll need to try and get around." The thing you need to remember is that these are entirely context-based, so if you don't yet know when those contexts are, I'd err on the side of caution and keep that information to yourself.
Not to mention the fun of messing with min-maxer-stat-looking-up-players by changing monster stats. “Your mighty thrust cleanly pierces the Orc’s armor. He merely shrugs, cracks his neck, and uses the sword wedged in his shoulder to force you to decide whether to hang on and face his meaty fists or abandon your weapon.” Legendary Orc. Reaction: trap blade.
There’s also abilities, traits, feats, skills and items that let a player find out some of this information.
by giving it out freely you render that inert
Yes that is a really good point. Why take "Detect Good and Evil" if the DM just says, "He's evil?" Why cast "Detect Magic" if the DM just says, "His sword is magic?" Etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There’s also abilities, traits, feats, skills and items that let a player find out some of this information.
by giving it out freely you render that inert
Yes that is a really good point. Why take "Detect Good and Evil" if the DM just says, "He's evil?" Why cast "Detect Magic" if the DM just says, "His sword is magic?" Etc.
As well as the Monster Slayer Ranger’s 3rd level “Hunter’s Sense” feature, the Battle Master Fighter’s 7th level “Know your Enemy” feature, the Mastermind Rogue’s 9th level “Insightful Manipulator” feature to name a few.
So a player was practically offended by me being so open ended with my party and also other... Stuff happened. But my DMing style is the following example
PC: "Okay so does a 15 hit?"
Me: "Yes has 12 AC and 45 hp"
also me during latest encounter
"So Strahd has 4 actions every round and +9 to anything he does and not to mention 144 hp and he regains 20hp every his turn."
*laughs as a player goes O.o*
Objectively, there is nothing wrong with being this open. The honest truth is, some players will look this stuff up anyway, whether you tell them or not, and you can not (and no DM has ever been able to) prevent the players from buying the module or the sourcebook and reading the details ahead of time.
However, traditionally, DMs do not provide this much information. Rather, they simply say an attack hits or misses. The players may, if the battle goes long enough, be able to deduce the AC (I.e., "I have 14 to hit", "Miss," followed by, "I have a 15 to hit," "hit"), but if you surveyed all the DMs out there, the vast majority of us do not tell players the AC ahead of time. We also usually do not tell players the hp, but rather, make qualitative descriptions. "It looks slightly hurt," "it is barely standing on its feet," and so on.
Personally, as a player, I would prefer not to know this kind of thing. Knowing too much takes the fun out of the player's job, which is to deduce from just "what you see on the board" what the bad guys are doing, rather than the DM saying, "Yeah he has +9 to all saving throws and regens 20 hp/rd."
But this is all up to the style of the DM and the players. You should probably have a talk with your players ahead of time about what they want out of the campaign and make sure that what you, and they, want is compatible.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Why are you sharing it?
A big part of the game for players is the tension of not knowing until the DM says so that they hit, or the cheer when they find out they beat the bad guy, the terror when the hydra regrows two heads.
If they know the AC, the hp and all the twist and turns you take that option to be surprised and caught up in the fight. Instead of a tense encounter it’s a drawn out maths puzzle
Agreed. For many players this would ruin the suspense. Like knowing the ending of a movie before you walk in.
However -- some people like that. I know someone who has a family member who reads the last chapter of a book first, and then starts on page 1. I can't possibly imagine enjoying this, but some people do. So if the players and the DM like doing it this way, there is nothing wrong with it, and nothing in the rules says you can't do it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I just feel keeping monster stats to myself is a bit wrong I suppose I mean a player could always google the critter if they really wanted to.
One of the normal jobs for the DM is to keep information from the players.
After all, why limit it to stats? Why not tell them where all the traps are and the DC to disarm them? Why not tell them where the secret doors are? Why not tell them the NPC is going to betray them later in the story?
If you reveal everything it becomes impossible to build suspense.
Under normal circumstances, the DM just describes what the players could see with their 5 senses (and any magical enhancements that apply) and tells the dialogue of the NPCs and actions of monsters, and lets the players figure the rest out on their own.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'll agree with the other DMs above. It's your game, but generally you keep things like monster HP, AC, and legendary actions under your hat. Sometimes I will reveal those stats to a player who is helping me run an encounter in a large group, but I never announce it to the entire group.
I do not tell the players what the monster stats are, but during the course of combat the characters can figure it out. A have told a skilled fighter the monster's AC after a few rounds of combat. That gave them more tactical leverage against them. And after the 5th time you have killed a lizardman totaling 25+ HP damage, it is not that bad to tell them they have 22 HP. That way when they run into tougher lizardmen they are really surprised.
It can also lead to some meta-gaming when you tell them that kind of detail. If players know the AC, they’ll know how big a risk it is to use the feat that gives a -5 to hit, +10 to damage. If they know the enemy’s to hit, they’ll know how big the risk is of taking an opportunity attack. If they have a sense of how many hp it has left, they’ll decide if they want to use a spell slot or a cantrip. If they know it’s got an action with a 10’ radius, they’ll know where to stand. In a way, you are undercutting your monster’s abilities by letting players know things like this in advance.
Some Players may try to ignore that, since their character wouldn’t know such things with that kind of mathematical precision, but it gets really hard to separate the information once it’s out there.
As a GM and player myself, I think this makes it very hard to get into the story and the mood. It reduces this ancient vampire (Strahd) to a sack of hp and numbers. It mis a game of make believe after all and not a combat simulation. I don’t habt 127 HP but I hate this evil soab who just drained my fighter friend and now looks rejuvenated because of drinking my friends blood.
Of course, some groups may prefer the combat simulation more and t he metagaming but I personally don’t want to know that stuff as a player. I know a lot of stats as I DM a lot myself and I still don’t use fire against a troll if my character wouldn’t know it.
To me as a player, not knowing the monster's stats helps me to really visualize what's going on in the story, as I'm relying on what's in my mind's eye rather than just knowing the monster is a collection of numbers. I've definitely never heard of any players thinking it's wrong of a DM to keep that information on their side of the DM screen. It's part of the implicit understanding between players and DMs: DMs are the ones running the world, they'll know things the players don't.
That's not to say you can't ever share that information, you just have to be conscientious of how/why. Maybe I'm running a monster that's immune to Charm effects, but the bard in my party is committing multiple turns to trying to charm it. After the second try, especially if the player is starting to seem frustrated, I might say "after the second spell fizzles, you can surmise that from this creature's fae bloodline, it is protected from attempts to charm it by magic." Or, there's also the classic 4e example of the Bloodied condition, which is not in the 5e rules but most people (myself included) still like to use. Essentially, if your players ask you "how's the monster looking health-wise?", instead of giving them an exact HP total that might effect the meta of the players' strategy, you can reply that it's "bloody", meaning at or below half health. Or "very bloody" meaning at or below a quarter health. This answers the players question while still in a narrative framework (vs a numerical one) so it does not interrupt the player's immersion. And sometimes, you can get away with straight up telling players the numbers, i.e "oh wow, he's got exactly 1hp left after that hit!", "yup, that's their exact AC, so that just barely hits", or "I intended this to be a strategic encounter, so I gave the enemies Pack Tactics that you'll need to try and get around." The thing you need to remember is that these are entirely context-based, so if you don't yet know when those contexts are, I'd err on the side of caution and keep that information to yourself.
Not to mention the fun of messing with min-maxer-stat-looking-up-players by changing monster stats. “Your mighty thrust cleanly pierces the Orc’s armor. He merely shrugs, cracks his neck, and uses the sword wedged in his shoulder to force you to decide whether to hang on and face his meaty fists or abandon your weapon.” Legendary Orc. Reaction: trap blade.
There’s also abilities, traits, feats, skills and items that let a player find out some of this information.
by giving it out freely you render that inert
Yes that is a really good point. Why take "Detect Good and Evil" if the DM just says, "He's evil?" Why cast "Detect Magic" if the DM just says, "His sword is magic?" Etc.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As well as the Monster Slayer Ranger’s 3rd level “Hunter’s Sense” feature, the Battle Master Fighter’s 7th level “Know your Enemy” feature, the Mastermind Rogue’s 9th level “Insightful Manipulator” feature to name a few.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting