D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[Thomas Shey]

In D&D 5e, you don't actually need the skill but it obviously helps increase the chances of success.

You technically don't in PF2e either, but its unlikely to work except at the lowest levels, i.e. you're only likely to know things about low level monsters in practice, and then only if you have a decent INT and/or roll well.

Telegraphing mitigates the chances something is seen as a gotcha, be it new monsters, traps, or anything else where someone might feel their lack of knowledge (or inability to act) was used against them.

That's fair, to a point, but then most metagamers will assume the fix is on and won't try it in the first place. The ones that do, though, probably won't take it in good humor.

 

[Vaalingrade]

EDIT: Also, if the result is to keep players on their toes so that they are genuinely on edge/worried about what a monster can do, instead of yawning and saying, "Oh, another one of these", then call it a gotcha if you want but I think it's a good thing.

"Let's see what kind of logical pretzels the DM can twist themself into this time to prevent a completely minor non-issue" is a fun game to play.

"Oh, this white dragon actually just fell into a vat of raspberry jam. That's it. And he hates raspberry, so he didn't lick it off. I am clever and win because I made you waste gold on protection from fire!"

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, if you're defining the difference between a neutral and a negative outcome as a "gotcha" then, yes, that is in fact a tautology.

But that's the point; normally using what you know even if its wrong should be neutral. If your trolls stop regenerating when you do holy damage to them, the fact you're using fire instead isn't intrinsically a bad idea, its just not especially useful. But specifically choosing to have your trolls be fire resistant or explode when hit by flame is a gotcha; the only reason to do that specifically is to use people's expectations against them. And it works even against people who aren't trying to do that fairly often (after all, its not like traditional D&D mages fireballing a set of enemies is a particularly unlikely case even for people who aren't metagaming).

So if you think an enemy is vulnerable to radiant, and it turns out that it isn't, that's not a very negative outcome. But if it turns out they are actually immune to radiant, and you cast Guiding Bolt, it's a wasted spell slot and a wasted turn. Is that a gotcha?

Most likely, yes. Because its not likely a GM would do that without that specific result in mind. Again, this is not a neutral situation; its not like making a whole new monster from the ground up.

How about a monster that usually has a really low intelligence, but yours has a high intelligence, and the player (missing the telegraph that this monster isn't stupid) mistakenly targets it with an Int save, and then does so again because they can't believe the monster actually saved. Is that a gotcha?

That one is muddier because its may well get lost in the variance of the die roll anyway. It depends why its done.

Trying to pin down the DM on "gotchas" is, to me, not much different than trying to differentiate between "metagaming" motivations and "legitimate" motivations with players.

I don't disagree--but note, I've said before some metagaming attempts are clear. I consider some gotchas the same way. That doesn't mean overextending your assumptions on either one is a virtue.

 

[Oofta]

No. I'm talking about if we see a trap that has arrow sized holes in the walls about 3 feet up and I tell you that I belly crawl down the hallway. If you have me roll a dex save, even with advantage to avoid the arrows that are at least two feet higher up than my PC's back, I'm going to be upset. Assuming that they are arrows and not gas tubes or something. My description should have me avoid an arrow trap like that 100% of the time. No roll.

I would call that bypassing a (poorly designed) trap.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Basic monsters would be orcs and goblins, maybe trolls and ogres. Anything more is rare and not basic. And that's if there's a fighter's guild and if you happen to be a member, rather than Joe the Farmer adventurer who picked up a sword and went out to seek his fortune.

I guess we have a different view of how stupid characters are. I tend to think that someone whose job is it is to fight monsters and has likely being doing it for years can learn more than characteristics of TWO (or maybe FOUR) monsters.

Clearly, your worlds are inhabited by a very different type of person than mine are!

 

[Maxperson]

I would call that bypassing a (poorly designed) trap.

Not all traps are works of art. But my point is that if I can describe something that should be an auto success or an auto failure in whatever circumstance, 1) it should be ruled as such, and 2) it's not playing the DM to do so, it's playing the game.

 

[overgeeked]

I guess we have a different view of how stupid characters are. I tend to think that someone whose job is it is to fight monsters and has likely being doing it for years can learn more than characteristics of TWO (or maybe FOUR) monsters.

Clearly, your worlds are inhabited by a very different type of person than mine are!

Well, unless the PC is higher level they haven't been doing it for years. Most 1st-level characters are barely off the farm. I know the trend is to have epic backstories for even fresh-faced adventurers, but that's not how it actually works in the game for most referees and players.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless it's allowed by the DM, then it's not.

I’d invert that and say metagaming is harmless unless it’s disallowed by the DM, then it’s cheating. But 6 of one, half a dozen of the other really.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But that's the point; normally using what you know even if its wrong should be neutral. If your trolls stop regenerating when you do holy damage to them, the fact you're using fire instead isn't intrinsically a bad idea, its just not especially useful. But specifically choosing to have your trolls be fire resistant or explode when hit by flame is a gotcha; the only reason to do that specifically is to use people's expectations against them. And it works even against people who aren't trying to do that fairly often (after all, its not like traditional D&D mages fireballing a set of enemies is a particularly unlikely case even for people who aren't metagaming).



Most likely, yes. Because its not likely a GM would do that without that specific result in mind. Again, this is not a neutral situation; its not like making a whole new monster from the ground up.



That one is muddier because its may well get lost in the variance of the die roll anyway. It depends why its done.



I don't disagree--but note, I've said before some metagaming attempts are clear. I consider some gotchas the same way. That doesn't mean overextending your assumptions on either one is a virtue.

Yeah, that's a fair summary. If changes are made purely to trick/trap the players, rather than because they make sense for the setting, then it changes the feel.

Also, I'm assuming DMs are not announcing creatures, especially creatures they designed that are seen for the first time, by name. It's one thing for players to assume those hulking, regenerating creatures are trolls. It's another thing for the DM to call them trolls.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, unless the PC is higher level they haven't been doing it for years. Most 1st-level characters are barely off the farm.

Then they should be barely more effective than a Commoner. But...they're not.