Shield spell and dice rolling assumptions

For what it's worth, I roll everything in the open and the players know what my total attack roll result and damage result is straight away. They can then decide if spending a spell slot is worth it or not. It might be an attack roll result so high that shield won't help. Or perhaps one where shield would deflect the attack but the damage is so minimal it's better to save the slot. It's still a meaningful decision and the player feels like he or she is not wasting a spell slot on something that might not work or might not be worth it.

I can't see any particular benefit to hiding this information from the players, given how I approach the game.

You're over-thinking it. This edition is not so tightly written as to make consistent assumptions about such a minor detail. The DM is expected to wing it, as necessary, based on what makes sense to them at the time.

Sword of Spirit said:

What does the game assume the players know about DM dice rolls?

Click to expand...

The production of a DM screen at least strongly implies the DM has the option of keeping some, if not all rolls, secret. ;P

Claim: The 5e baseline assumes that the DM rolls the dice in front of the players ... There is no counter-evidence that I am aware of

Click to expand...

When something is not directly stated, and examples vaguely imply one possible interpretation, you have ambiguity, and 5e is not ambiguous about how to resolve ambiguity: the DM decides!

The DMG mentions rolling in open or rolling behind the screen as valid options for the DM.

Click to expand...

Ding!

It does, however, fail to provide any advice for how to handle abilities such as those I referenced above if the DM does keep the dice hidden. Likely that is an oversight.

Click to expand...

IDK, if it requires a lot, the DM can share as much or as little information about a hidden die roll as seems appropriate. A nice DM might even let players simply ask "Would ________ help?"

Shield says you know, prior to casting, whether or not the attack hits. It doesn't specify that you know by how much it hits.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right.

OTOH, some DMs will hide the roll, but then call out the AC hit, rather than tracking each PC's AC all the time, which is all the info you need to use Shield efficiently.

As an aside, a related feature, Defensive Duelist works similarly. In this case it includes "potentially causing the attack to miss you." What bearing, if any, the phrasing in Defensive Duelist should have on interpreting shield is unclear.

Click to expand...

Parsing unclear phrasing is a bridge too far. The DM makes rulings, 5e isn't written with the conscious attention to detail of technical manual or rulebook or other publication where precision & clarity are paramount - it's written in natural language.

I'd like to discuss, "How is shield supposed to work?" and "Which is most balanced?" A further question will be brought up later.

1) How is shield supposed to work?

Click to expand...

It's /supposed/ to work by the magic-user memorizing a spell that, when he casts it (and thus forgets it) using verbal & somatic components and a glass bead, causes a floating disk of invisible force to hover in front of him, providing various degrees of protection vs different attacks for a while. I say 'supposed to' 'cause that's how it was back in the day, so obviously that's how it's supposed to be. ;P

How it works now is totally different. And exactly how it works at a given table is going to vary, like just about everything else...

So there are about three ways one could run shield. The "baseline assumption" method I claim the game assumes

Click to expand...

Making a claim at all is really a waste of time, effort & critical thinking - if there's the slightest ambiguity, there is no baseline, there is only what the DM decides. In essence, any 5e mechanic is non-functional until the DM decides how it will work. Part of DM Empowerment, really.

So, there's really two:

an alternative of "full disclosure" so the player will always block the initial attack when they cast the spell, or a "hit only" method where the player has no direct knowledge of the roll at all.

Click to expand...

I'd say there's "tell the player hit or not" or "tell the player the AC hit" (or minor variations on that which hint at it to varying degrees).

2) Which is most balanced?

Click to expand...

Balance /barely/ comes into 5e. It bears on encounter difficulty, and mostly separately, on balance among PCs. The latter is left to DM-mediated 'spotlight balance,' which shield isn't likely to have a huge bearing on. The former, shield could influence a bit, the more generous sharing what AC is hit method will mean the spell is always used effectively, while the less information-sharing method will leave some doubt in the player's mind (and enable the narrative of shield being used, but not sufficient).

I think the weakest way of running it, the "hit only" way, would still be a viable 1st-level spell.

Click to expand...

Yes. It might get cast more often for it's rider benefit, for instance. So cast more often when the caster is expecting many attacks, and less often in other situations.

3) How would one approximate their chosen method with hidden rolls and monsters?

Click to expand...

Hidden rolls are, IMHO, how 5e works /best/, they help keep the flow of the game consistent with player's declaring actions and the DM determining & narrating the results. Heck, the DM making /all/ rolls, though extra-burdensome, would have definite benefits. The more you let 5e players roll, the more you risk them calling out /and rolling/ actions and expecting certain results, and the more meta-gaming on high- and low rolls you can expect - it also leaves less latitude to 'fudge' rolls when the encounter guidelines let you down...

With a hidden roll, you have complete latitude in how nice you want to be to the Shield-caster. You can make the hidden roll and tell him the AC hit. You can make the roll and tell him hit or not and let him decide based on that. And you can make the roll, and tell him 'solid hit' or 'barely hit' or the like, giving him hints. You can even change it up depending on the circumstances.

Interesting topic. I thought about how the spell should be handled RAW, but I did not think about tables which roll out in the open vs those that do not, or even if the rules were written with certain assumptions (I feel they do a decent job at trying to not assume too much).

I play at a table where the DM rolls behind the screen, but then regularly (not always) tells us the number the attack hits on. I've found that I much prefer to guess if the shield or defensive duelist reaction will work on that particular attack and find myself waiting just long enough to hear the dice stop clattering to say, "don't tell me the numbers!" I find that if there is no mystery and chance of loss, then I am just following a dull script.


I do think that shield and defensive duelist should interact critical hits as well (reducing them to normal hits), but that is a different topic of balance and homebrewing.

There are two things that are pivotal for me:-

1.) Unlike previous editions, 5e doesn't want players to waste stuff. For example, in 3e/Pathfinder you might have an ability that grants you +2 to a single roll once per day, but you have to announce you are using that ability before you roll the die. This means that if you choose to use that ability for this roll, there is only a 10% chance that the ability makes any difference at all. Not an attractive ability!

But in 5e, all such abilities that mention the timing state that the player makes the choice after the roll but before knowing the result, implying that the player can see the d20 but does not automatically know the total, therefore the modifier is not automatically known.

The benefit of this for the enjoyment of the game is obvious: the player either never wastes his hard-earned abilities, or he can avoid wasting them simply by paying attention to what's going on!

2.) I've fenced in real life, I've been in martial arts bouts, and the reality is that you quickly size up your opponent's skill. Not immediately, not perfectly, but pretty accurately and pretty soon. While fencing, you do not even bother to parry an attack that is off-target.

Seeing the d20 is a very good simulation for this. The DM rolls the d20 and tells you the result ('hit' or 'miss' in combat). If the roll is a 2 and the attack misses, or if the roll is 19 and it hits, you really didn't learn much. But if the DM rolls a 19 and still misses then it's not a skilled opponent. If the roll is a 2 and the attack still hits then you know you're in trouble!

As the fight goes on, d20 rolls come and go. The vagaries of random rolling tend to let the players get a better and better idea of the opponent's modifier. If a 13 misses but a 14 hits then (since you know your own AC) you can work out their attack modifier. This parallels our real life ability to get a better and better handle on the skill level of our opponent. Just like real life, it's not perfect, since the d20 might not be kind enough to produce those convenient adjacent results with one hit and one miss, and the players might be misled by an opponent who has, say, +2 to hit humans or something. But this is working as intended.

So, why the DM screen? All the above assumes that the PCs have a source of information, such as observing the opponent in combat. In such cases the d20 should be rolled in the open. But there are plenty of times that the players cannot perceive the creature in question. Invisibility, being in a different room, all sorts. In those situations, the DM rolls behind the screen.

Simples!

Player should as DM: Is +5 to AC enough so that attack misses me?

DM should answer correctly: yes or no.

Scott Thorne said:

I am considering house-ruling the Shield spell to grant +1d8 AC and not a fixed number.

Click to expand...

Neat, but I would tweak it to 1d8+1 AC, given that it has the potential to be a lost resource.

Arial Black said:

1.) Unlike previous editions, 5e doesn't want players to waste stuff. For example, in 3e/Pathfinder you might have an ability that grants you +2 to a single roll once per day, but you have to announce you are using that ability before you roll the die. This means that if you choose to use that ability for this roll, there is only a 10% chance that the ability makes any difference at all. Not an attractive ability!

Click to expand...

And spells can't be interrupted, and the like, yes. If you use a slot, you get something out of it. One reason there are somewhat fewer slots than the peak represented by 3.5, when casters could still, sometimes waste a slot - 5e casters just don't need as many slots to be just as effective - because, as you point out, they waste fewer (if any), and, of course, because they can't stack tons of them by pre-casting, because prepping a spell you don't need doesn't waste a slot due to spontaneous casting, etc...

My motivation for this exploration is consistency and fairness in my game. We have a shared DM situation where I'm the "over-DM" who will make the final decisions, since the campaign and world are my creations. Before I do so, I need to make sure I understand all the implications of my decisions so I can accomplish the goal. Because of our situation, everyone has a PC at all times (or if you prefer, a DMPC when they happen to be the one DMing), so it isn't as simple as just ruling in favor of the PCs (especially since this is also relevant for the monsters) or for DMing expediency. Hence, getting down to the nitty-gritty details of this situation.

Let's set aside shield for a moment, and I'm going to entertain an alternate interpretation relating to Cutting Words and Combat Inspiration, namely that there isn't a "baseline assumption" for dice rolling in the game as a whole, and that the intention is for shield and Defensive Duelist to be left up to the individual group. If that is the case however, we have an anomaly, since Cutting Words and Combat Inspiration explicitly do make an assumption about dice, that being that the player can see the d20 before the DM "determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails" or "before knowing whether it hits or misses". Assuming this wasn't just a design botch, what are they trying to tell us about how these features are intended to work?

We can actually interpret the text in a variety of ways if we want to get creative, based on the presence or absence of words such as "can" and "must" and so forth. But in my estimation the most likely intent seems to be that you must choose to use this feature before you know the total attack/check result but you can wait until you see the raw d20 roll to make that decision.

Arial Black said:

1.) Unlike previous editions, 5e doesn't want players to waste stuff. For example, in 3e/Pathfinder you might have an ability that grants you +2 to a single roll once per day, but you have to announce you are using that ability before you roll the die. This means that if you choose to use that ability for this roll, there is only a 10% chance that the ability makes any difference at all. Not an attractive ability!

But in 5e, all such abilities that mention the timing state that the player makes the choice after the roll but before knowing the result, implying that the player can see the d20 but does not automatically know the total, therefore the modifier is not automatically known.

The benefit of this for the enjoyment of the game is obvious: the player either never wastes his hard-earned abilities, or he can avoid wasting them simply by paying attention to what's going on!

Click to expand...

This is also exactly the framework I'm working under. Maybe I should have made that more explicit from the beginning.

This is why I think the designers intended Cutting Words and Combat Inspiration to work the way that I just mentioned. You are supposed to have some information to help you make the decision, but you aren't supposed to know for certain what the results are going to be. But, taking this angle where I'm not assuming they are basing the whole game around seeing the dice, and therefore aren't making that assumption with shield we have a dilemma. How do we handle Cutting Words and Combat Inspiration to best approximate intent, in a game where the dice are not normally rolled in the open?

One could say that the DM is under obligation to declare the dice roll to the players before announcing success or failure of the attack or check, in situations where one of them has Cutting Words or Combat Inspiration and the feature might apply. That seems to put a heavy burden on the DM, and kind of negates the point of this "there is no baseline" angle, because it requires the DM to break up his normal style and use this particular one just for these two abilities. And since these abilities are generally relevant on a regular basis, it would be more of a hassle for the DM to just use these features when they might apply (ie, most of the time) than to simply change his style--so we're back to the rules for those two abilities setting the baseline assumption of how the game is supposed to be played.

What other options do we have that both preserve the option to hide rolls and/or declare the action total, yet provide the same level of player choice and knowledge?

If the DM declares the final result, then the player has more information than intended. If the DM simply says, "hit" without declaring the total or the d20 result then the player has different information than intended, but not necessarily more. To preserve a similar amount of information during the decision point, the DM could just say "hit" and then allow the player to make the decision at that point. For DMs who generally just say "hit" or "miss" this is a possible alternate solution that can preserve some sort of alternate yet similar point of player choice and knowledge, but it does ignore the actual rule given for the features.

If the DM typically declares the final result, "Does a 17 hit you?" these features require him to either make an exception and only declare the d20 result, or make an exception and only declare "hit" and allow the player to respond as just described. In either case, they place the extra burden on the DM when these two features apply, and due to the prevalence of these situations, require him to change his dice rolling style.

So, other options?

Sword of Spirit said:

So, other options?

Click to expand...

Yeah, don't roll in secret.

Seriously, why are you rolling in secret?

I'd roll in secret for things done that the PCs cannot observe, such as when they are not there or are blinded and so forth. But why would you roll in secret when the PCs ARE observing the action?

It is entirely appropriate the the PCs should be able to use their judgement in making decisions in a similar way that real life people use their observations to inform their own decision making process.

I am fighting a foe. I am watching what he does, how he moves, what his style may be; this is crucial to my survival, so yeah I am very interested indeed! This is equally true whether the 'I' is me in real life or my PC in the game.

Seriously! He just hit me with his sword, but I couldn't see the angle of attack? Cannot even try to judge how good he is?

What is the motivation for the DM to roll these in secret?