D&D 5E Cutting Words and game flow

[Chocolategravy]

Still way better than the bog that is 3/4 of the party having to make a con save every time they get hit thanks to concentration. Ugh. I swear it almost doubles combat.

 

[Mistwell]

Still way better than the bog that is 3/4 of the party having to make a con save every time they get hit thanks to concentration. Ugh. I swear it almost doubles combat.

FFSAA?

 

[Tzarevitch]

So my parties bard leveled up and got his level 3 Cutting Words ability.

Normally, I do most of my rolling in private, mostly to occasionally fudge things so that the game flows well and to avoid being questioned/annoyed by players who ask why when the attack bonus on this goblin is +3 when the last one was +4 and other such pointless rules lawyering.

But once he got this ability the bards player asked if I would now be announcing the value of every roll so he can decide if he wants to nuke that roll BEFORE adding any modifiers and determining if it is a success. This seems like throwing a large blob of tar into every encounter and reversing some of 5es advances in playspeed. I ruled at the time that he'd just have to decide to use the ability without knowing what the roll was. It still seems quite powerful, there are plenty of tells that a particular roll is important and if you absolutely HAVE to get bang from every use of the ability just apply it to damage.

I'm still comfortable with that, just wondering if anyone has seen a clarification of the intent of the ability or play it differently.

It doesn't need clarification. Your player is reading extra into the ability. Cutting words does not say the player gets to see the die roll from the DM or the other players. It's in the best interest of the players to let the bard see the roll, but the DM has no obligation to. The die is rolled, he decides if he wants to modify it, and that's it. There are a few abilities that do this in 4e right now. None of them allow the player to see the roll.

 

[Dastion]

It doesn't need clarification. Your player is reading extra into the ability. Cutting words does not say the player gets to see the die roll from the DM or the other players. It's in the best interest of the players to let the bard see the roll, but the DM has no obligation to. The die is rolled, he decides if he wants to modify it, and that's it. There are a few abilities that do this in 4e right now. None of them allow the player to see the roll.

By that logic, you too are reading into things. You're making the assumption that because the ability doesn't state that you get to see the roll that the DM doesn't have to allow it.

Where does it say the DM is allowed to hide his rolls? It doesn't. That's just a common DM ruling to facilitate roleplay (or to let them fudge things). The DM is empowered to make such rulings, but they don't write the rules with such things assumed.

I don't fudge rolls, but I do hint to my players. If it's early on the combat I'll tell the Wizard 'he has X on the die' and let him decide if he wants to try shielding or not. Or, if it's later (or I forget to give him the option) I just tell him the total. By that point they should have a good idea how skilled their opponents are anyhow.

Though I use a screen (mainly to hide monster/adventure info and for the cheat sheets I have on it) I do always roll Saves for my players to see. I logic that when someone attacks they know I'm not fudging anything because they know the result, so I want to give players who use save spells the same benefit. If not for the need to hide my DM info I wouldn't particularly mind them seeing my attack rolls, it's just easier to roll on my side when I'm doing so many.

 

[Mistwell]

It doesn't need clarification. Your player is reading extra into the ability. Cutting words does not say the player gets to see the die roll from the DM or the other players. It's in the best interest of the players to let the bard see the roll, but the DM has no obligation to. The die is rolled, he decides if he wants to modify it, and that's it. There are a few abilities that do this in 4e right now. None of them allow the player to see the roll.

It's a DM call, but here is what tilts it (for me) to being rolled in front of the player.

Assume there is a reason for words in a sentence for a set of rules.

If we assume there is a reason, then what is the reason for the ability to be usable only after a roll?

If the roll is hidden, there is no purpose for those words. There is no purpose for the use to be before, or after, a roll. There are lots of rules that say you can apply a second die roll to a first die roll, without specifying after the die is rolled. It's a lot easier, and uses a lot fewer words, to just say you can apply it to any attack, as opposed to after the die is rolled on any attack.

So if we assume there is a purpose to those words, it seems to me the purpose must be so that the player can see the roll.

And if that is not the purpose of those words - then what is their purpose? Why would it matter if it is after the roll, or before?

 

[Tzarevitch]

By that logic, you too are reading into things. You're making the assumption that because the ability doesn't state that you get to see the roll that the DM doesn't have to allow it.

Where does it say the DM is allowed to hide his rolls? It doesn't. That's just a common DM ruling to facilitate roleplay (or to let them fudge things).

That isn't what I said. The rule in question (Cutting Words) does not give the player an ability to see the DM's die rolls. Whether or not the table convention is to show die rolls already is a different issue.

The DM is empowered to make such rulings, but they don't write the rules with such things assumed.

We are off the original question, but you are correct, they didn't write the rules assuming any form of DM rolling convention. They assumed the rule stood as written. The original question was whether Cutting Words allows the player to see the die roll to know when to use it. The answer is clear by the very wording of the rule itself; it does not. The rule stands as it says regardless of what the table rolling convention is. Now if the OP is asking for a survey of how DMs actually run this ability, that is another story. I've DMed 4e for years now and this type of ability occurs a lot there. I for one, do not tell the player the die roll because if they are getting overmatched when they weren't supposed to be, I like the option of fudging my attack and damage die rolls down to maintain the storytelling flow of the fight, and it crushes believability if they can see when I'm doing it. If it helps the flow and they are in a tight fight, I will; however, sometimes hint to them that it may be worth it for them to modify particular attack rolls.

 

[Dastion]

It's a DM call, but here is what tilts it (for me) to being rolled in front of the player.

Assume there is a reason for words in a sentence for a set of rules.

If we assume there is a reason, then what is the reason for the ability to be usable only after a roll?

If the roll is hidden, there is no purpose for those words. There is no purpose for the use to be before, or after, a roll. There are lots of rules that say you can apply a second die roll to a first die roll, without specifying after the die is rolled. It's a lot easier, and uses a lot fewer words, to just say you can apply it to any attack, as opposed to after the die is rolled on any attack.

So if we assume there is a purpose to those words, it seems to me the purpose must be so that the player can see the roll.

And if that is not the purpose of those words - then what is their purpose? Why would it matter if it is after the roll, or before?

Well said. The ability is a random amount, so even knowing the roll and having an idea what the enemy gets as a bonus you might still waste the die. If you instead have absolutely no idea if it will help or is even needed then you are severely needing the Bardic schools (both allow a player to avoid a hit, if in a different fashion).

I only roll behind my screen because it's easier than reaching over and I have stats and such I need to hide (if they see I have the stats for a doppelgänger up it kind of ruins the surpise). However, I quite like the idea of players seeing combat rolls. I want my players to play smart and get an idea how dangerous the enemy is on their own. If they see me roll low and I still declare a hit they have the idea that they are up against a fearsome enemy. Bound accuracy only allows for so much variance anyhow.

You don't need to fudge die rolls if your players wade in too deep, you should have given them warnings. Adjust the story on the fly if needed. My party walked into a room with a floating skull who had a good chance to kill them. Instead of just attacking them with an 8d6 Fireball as the adventure would have you assume I played on the fact that he's a serviture working off ancient instructions and they had a rather comical discussion as they passed him, the Bard and Rogue managing to find loopholes in his instruction.

 

[vipchicken]

You may find this useful:
https://twitter.com/Wizards_Help/status/534393357816971264

Apologies, I don't seem to be able to embed the tweet in this forum.

 

[guachi]

I guess that settles it. But not revealing the roll really diminishes the power of the Cutting Words to the point of it being not worth doing. Might as well just use your Bardic Inspiration dice on your allies.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Aren't there other similar abilities? Maybe they just jumped out to me and I thought there were more than there are, but the PHB seems to me to have several abilities that allow players to do something in the magical zone between seeing a die roll and knowing the results of the action.

So it seems to me that the issue is bigger than Cutting Words and shield and needs some sort of table convention of dealing with it.

Also, I think the WotC tweet is in error about the intention of the game designers.