Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 1847642" data-attributes="member: 18832">Yes, presuming that they have a way of judging the difficulty. Like other posters have said, Jump or Climb checks are pretty reasonable things to judge before trying them; Knowledge checks wouldn't be. Passive skills like Spot and Listen would be checks I would roll for the characters myself; I can't imagine running a game where I didn't have an accurate copy of everyone's character sheet.Sure. It's not very likely to help them.I would describe the effect and let the players draw their own conclusions. For example, an explosive fiery burst is probably a fireball, but they don't know if it was Maximized or Empowered or whatever, or what level the caster was and how many dice I rolled for the damage. Spells which don't have an overt effect would need Spellcraft checks to identify, and of course Spellcraft checks are necessary for counterspelling.I see no reason not to reveal this information after they've tried. I might start off by verbally describing the effect of their first few attacks - if they just barely hit above the AC, I could say "You just manage to land a blow past his expert defenses/on a vulnerable spot in its tough hide/et cetera". I think it's also worth distinguishing between different reasons why you're missing - armour, natural armour, dodge feats, and so forth. So after a few rounds of this, I'd just reveal the AC for the sake of speeding things up.The latter. I think players have the right to know whatever their characters would know, and other information if it speeds up combat or would be a reasonable conclusion to draw - revealing save DCs from a fireball is one thing, for example, but if they didn't know they were poisoned I would ask for a Fortitude save and not explain why or what the DC was.Regardless of how many numbers the players know, I think it's important to describe things with a bit of flavour.</blockquote>

Verification