D&D 5E (2014) If the DM forgets something about a boss, should the player remind him

[iserith]

My favorite thing to do as a player is throw a fairly damaging cantrip with a save on the monster and then ask the DM if they want to use legendary resistance if they fail the save. A lot of times the DM wants to save those for when there's some kind of control effect that really messes up the monster. So when they fail a save against my decently damaging toll the dead or whatever, they have to choose to just eat that damage or burn a legendary resistance at the risk of not having that available later to save against hypnotic pattern or the like. I find that to be a fun dynamic.

 

[Dausuul]

As a DM, I would appreciate it if a player pointed something like that out, but I wouldn’t make it an expectation.

Yeah, this.

I do not think it is "dishonest" or "adversarial," as some folks have suggested, if a player doesn't point it out. There's no way for the player to know if I have forgotten to apply LR, or this is a homebrewed version of the monster that doesn't have LR, or I have chosen not to apply LR on this particular save for reasons of my own. Ultimately, it is my job, not the player's, to keep track of this stuff.

At the same time, I do appreciate a player who's willing to lend the DM a hand, even when it works to their tactical disadvantage.

 

[billd91]

I won't expect it and I don't think less of someone who doesn't pipe up with a reminder when I forget something, rather, I will have more respect for someone who shows that degree of fair play.

 

[el-remmen]

Sounds like something a DM should reward with inspiration (or its equivalent).

 

[Charlaquin]

Sounds like something a DM should reward with inspiration (or its equivalent).

I played in a game where the DM tried this. In practice, it actually led to us pointing things out less often because we wouldn’t do it if we already had inspiration.

 

[el-remmen]

I played in a game where the DM tried this. In practice, it actually led to us pointing things out less often because we wouldn’t do it if we already had inspiration.

Seems to suggest you all weren't using your inspiration fast enough. . .



I play with a variant hero point option (supped up inspiration, basically with a max # equal to 1/2 level +1 rounded down and does not stack with bardic inspiration) and I am always encouraging the players to make use of them, "You can't get more if you don't use what you have."

Edit: Also, you aren't pointing it out FOR inspiration - inspiration is the reward for the thing you'd (hopefully) do anyway

 

[Shiroiken]

As a player, I regularly point out things the DM has overlooked. I feel that victory is meaningless unless we take on the full threat. If we manage to outwit and out plan the enemy (really the DM), that's one thing. If we win because the DM didn't utilize the full capabilities of our opponent, the victory is hollow.

 

[Charlaquin]

Seems to suggest you all weren't using your inspiration fast enough. . .

That’s true, we definitely weren’t. Though that’s because the DM let us use Inspiration to re-roll after the fact instead of just to give advantage on a roll before the fact, which had the effect of causing everyone to save their inspiration for failed death saves.

I play with a variant hero point option (supped up inspiration, basically with a max # equal to 1/2 level +1 rounded down and does not stack with bardic inspiration) and I am always encouraging the players to make use of them, "You can't get more if you don't use what you have."

Nice.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The example I have is the DM forgot about the Vampire's legendary resistance and failed a save, severely gimping him for the rest of the combat.

As a player should I have reminded him about legendary resistance?

Yes. Or at least, I would have. It is only good sportsmanship in my opinion

 

[J-H]

As a DM, yes. It's hard to remember everything for a complex monster that I've never run before. Running a caster-heavy set of opponents is even worse!

My players went through the ENTIRE Castle Dracula (Castlevania) campaign with me treating vulnerability as +50% damage instead of double damage. I said numbers out loud and nobody ever said a word about it. There were quite a few skeletons vulnerable to bludgeoning damage. There were vampires and other things vulnerable to radiant damage (cleric/paladin/zealot).

Not until a couple of months ago did I run across the definition and mention it. The response was "Oh, I thought you just nerfed vulnerability."