The DM That Never Rolled

[Chacal]

What you COULD use is a pre-generated list of random numbers per die.

Instead of rolling, you take the next number on the list.

AR

This works really fine for battles with many opponents, and for rolls you don't want the players know about.


Chacal

 

[MadBlue]

As a DM I wouldn't have the players roll. As Madfox mentioned, it tempts the players to metagame since they'll easily be able to figure out what their opponents need to roll in order to hit them or succeed in their saving throws.

If, for example, a party spellcaster casts a spell that calls for a Fortitude saving throw and the players roll for the opponent's saving throw - and it passes the save with a "5", the players will know that effects that call for a Fortitude saving throw aren't likely to be effective. There's really no way the party should know that information, but it would be asking too much IMHO to expect the players to not metagame, especially when they know they'd just be wasting their spells/poison/etc.

MadBlue

 

[Nellisir]

If, for example, a party spellcaster casts a spell that calls for a Fortitude saving throw and the players roll for the opponent's saving throw - and it passes the save with a "5", the players will know that effects that call for a Fortitude saving throw aren't likely to be effective.

How is this different from a fighter rolling a "15" and not hitting an opponent, or seeing the damage done by a silver weapon heal quickly? The players know essentially know the same thing (that a particular property of the opponent's is difficult to overcome).

Would it make a difference to you if, instead of rolling "the opponent's saving throw", the player rolled a "spell attack" vs a fixed Fortitude number?

 

[two]

good question

As a DM I wouldn't have the players roll. As Madfox mentioned, it tempts the players to metagame since they'll easily be able to figure out what their opponents need to roll in order to hit them or succeed in their saving throws.

If, for example, a party spellcaster casts a spell that calls for a Fortitude saving throw and the players roll for the opponent's saving throw - and it passes the save with a "5", the players will know that effects that call for a Fortitude saving throw aren't likely to be effective. There's really no way the party should know that information, but it would be asking too much IMHO to expect the players to not metagame, especially when they know they'd just be wasting their spells/poison/etc.

MadBlue

I try to keep this to a minimum, this sort of meta-game stuff/calculation, and will call the players on it if it gets stupid.

However, it also might make sense in-game ("you cast your most powerful magic, and the enemy X easily shrugs off your spell"). Spellcraft check? (to see how easily the bad guy resists it?) Can a PC ever "know" that his "hold person" won't effect that 10th level evil cleric except on a very low roll? Maybe. Might be a good flavor effect.

Of course, it's usually moot; most savvy players either know monsters from the MM's and thus "know" the bad saves already, or can figure it out quickly (good fighter=poor will, fast/sneaky = good reflex, magic use = good will).

I'm not sure how much you are "giving away" by rolling in the open. Plus, good players won't metagame, however, if (for example) a fighter is fighting something and rolls a "2" for IT to hit, and it HITS, I would let the fighter (in game) realize that what he's fighting is WAY skilled and VERY dangerous (i.e. "you dodge, use your shield, parry, etc. the attack that you saw coming and it STILL gets through"). Etc.

In general, I don't think meta-game thinking is much worse this way. So far. I'll keep my eyes peeled.

 

[Aaron2]

From day 1, I initiated what i called player active rolling.

When a beast took three claw attacks at one of the players, they rolled d20 three times and added their current AC to each. These were applied to a DC already figured for my monsters (22+the attack bonus) and if they made the "evade check" they were missed. If not, they were hit.

Same thing applied for when the PCs threw spells at my bad guys. They rolled a "spell check" of a d20 plus their spell save DC and I compared it to my bad guy's save bonus+22 DC.

The few rolls i would make were damage for when the PCs were hit and the occasional opposed checks.

I did something similar but I used AC and Save DC as bonuses rather than 10+bonus. So, for example, if your AC is normally 15, you have a +5 AC and roll your +5 AC versus 12+monster's attack roll. I cut and pasted monsters from the SRD and changed attack bonuses to like ...

Attack: +2 (14) claw

and saves to

Fort: +4 (14)

Where the first is the bonus and the second is the player roll DC.


Aaron

 

[jgsugden]

How is this different from a fighter rolling a "15" and not hitting an opponent, or seeing the damage done by a silver weapon heal quickly? The players know essentially know the same thing (that a particular property of the opponent's is difficult to overcome).

Would it make a difference to you if, instead of rolling "the opponent's saving throw", the player rolled a "spell attack" vs a fixed Fortitude number?

Some things are obvious to the character. When you hack at a big beastie and it seems unphased by your sword (ie; you failed to pentrate the natural armor), it is obvious.

Saving throws, on the other hand, are generally less obvious. If I use my will power to resist your spell, it should not be obvious whether I barely managed to resist or whether I shrugged it off like minor chill.

This would be one reason why saving throws, etc ... for the monsters should remain unknown to the PCs.

 

[Master Psion]

The most important thing is that your players enjoy the way you're running the game. If you prefer for the players to do most of the rolling so you can spend more time concentrating on other things then so be it. There's nothing that says you can't run it that way. In fact, as everyone has heard many times, the DM always has the final ruling on anything in his/her campaign. I personally would prefer to do all the rolling to keep the players guessing.

 

[Harlock]

I think it's a passable idea, so long as the players dig it. I don't see it as being lazy at all. I mean if you're too lazy to grab a die that's at arm's length you are probably too damn lazy to DM anyway. As for "feeling guilty" I've felt guilty as a DM before. Heck, every session these days. The poor Dwarven Monk hasn't had a successful stunning fist yet. I in fact, have started rolling critter saves for that in the open. It's sad. I rolled in the open for (almost?) and entire session and next session likely won't, but still, in 7 or so sessions this character hasn't gotten lucky even once using stunning fist and I felt bad. Yeah, I know, the RBDMs are all snickering at me behind their screens...

 

[Corinth]

I farm out the dice rolling to the players, with only one restriction: a player never makes attack rolls against their PC if said PC is the only target of the attack. I've had PCs make Spell Penetration checks, skill checks, saving throws, attack rolls, etc. against other PCs and against the group as a whole. I enjoy seeing one yell at another when the latter scores a critical hit for the BBEG and forces the former to make a series of saving throws.

 

[Madfox]

It all depends on how you describe saving throws and attack rolls. It might be easy to think that a low roll (but successfull) is a meager success, while a high roll shows the ease with which the creature made it. Personally, I am not too sure about it. Especially since combat also has that damage roll. I could score a critical and still only deal 4 damage (hack, I have seen characters score criticals with dwarven axes and only deal 13 damage - which was lower then the maximum with a normal attack).