Immediate Interrupts: Rule vs Etiquette?

[Lonely Tylenol]

I almost never have the PC's defences in front of me, and they're subject to change, so I always just say "The creature flicks its tail, loosening a spike that whizzes toward you; I hit 29 vs. AC." The effect of this style is that it's always perfectly clear what the stakes are, and the player remains in control of the effectiveness of the power.

Even if my style didn't lead to this kind of sharing of information across the DM screen, I take it to operate something like the advice on "gotcha" powers in the DMG, which I attempt to follow most of the time. That is to say, if you don't provide the player with enough information to make a decision, you're not letting him make decisions. If an enemy has a power that allows them to make an OA if an opponent shifts, I tell the players. Their job is not to try to guess where the hidden traps in a combat are, but rather to weigh their options and make tactical decisions. Besides, from the fluff side of things, if someone is ready to stab you if you so much as budge, an experienced combatant should spot that and be wary.

So, like those "gotcha" abilities, I prefer to give my players a choice: use Shield now to deflect this blow, or save it for later when you might need it even more.

 

[Keenath]

The DM is never required to reveal what he rolled to the players. The default assumption is that all DM rolls are hidden. Obviously the players will know if you say, "Does a 22 vs Will hit you?", but that's your choice whether you say that or check their numbers silently.

That said, the players always know which defense was targeted, if not the exact number of the attack.

In my group, I tend to throw out the monster's total value. I usually just ask, "Does 22 vs AC hit?" if there's any doubt; in most cases I have a good idea of the character's defenses and can eyeball it even if I don't know the specific numbers. (That is to say -- when the monster rolls a 3 and has a total of 12, I know that's a miss; and if he rolls well and gets a total of 28, I know that's a hit. If it's a 23, yeah, I may have to ask about that one.)


However, that's strictly metagame. I may not ask if I happen to know his defense (since I'll remember what it is if I've been hitting him for several rounds), or I may know close enough that a +4 would in fact save him but I don't need to ask. I won't tell him explicitly whether a Shield will save him from this attack or not. That's the risk of using that power.

 

[malraux]

The DM is never required to reveal what he rolled to the players. The default assumption is that all DM rolls are hidden.

I'm not sure that is the default assumption of 4e. I'd agree that it was in the prior editions, but so far 4e really tries to cut down on the adversarial and secretive DM.

 

[Gruns]

Worst Roleplayers Ever!

Hey all.
Apparantly, my group and I are the worst roleplayers ever, and WE LIKE IT!
As DM I roll all dice in front of everyone, do the math and ask if it hits, since I never remember my player's defense scores. We have this "game" down to a science!

1) Announce attack and target. "The Deathlock Wight fires off a Grave Bolt at you, Kravesh."
2) Roll d20 in front of everyone! (12)
3) Do math. (12+6=18)
4) Ask Player: "18 versus Reflex?"
5) Player responds. "My reflex is 16. Hit."
6) If Hit, roll damage in front of everyone! (d6=5 +4 )
7) Tell player: "Take 9 Necrotic damage and you're Immobilized, save ends."
8) Move on to the next in line!

Sometimes I imagine what it would be like to be a good DM...
"The pale, withered figure before you mumbles some foul curse and points in your direction, Kravesh. Suddenly, a bolt of necrotic darkness springs forth from his outstretched fingertips and hurtles toward you. You do your best to dodge, but you are not quick enough. The bolt of energy burns like hellfire as it seeps into your flesh, dealing a moderate wound. You lose feeling in your legs as they go numb from the attack! You try to shake it off, as Merielle steps up to attack the foul creature."

On second thought, I'll stick to the less flavorful way. Interestingly enough, all of the players in our group are either computer programmers or engineers. I wonder if that has anything to do with our preferred number crunchy, less fluffy style?
Later!
Gruns

 

[Engilbrand]

Probably.
The DM for one game has decided to have 2 types of combat. Arcade and Story. An Arcade combat involves making your choice in 5 seconds, doing what you need to do, then moving on to someone else. It's incredibly fast. Story combats will be against the major guys and will involve doing all of the crazy fun descriptions. I look forward to those.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

I also like to provide flavorful descriptions rather than numbers, but I also don't like the "gotcha" feeling of using powers like shield when they will prove to be of zero or near-zero benefit. So my descriptions tend to have different flavors depending on how close the hit was. "The arrow just grazes the rim of your shield and buries itself in your arm," or "you try to dodge away from the blast of acid but the sizzling spray is everywhere, there's nowhere for you to go."

 

[Nail]

The DM is never required to reveal what he rolled to the players. The default assumption is that all DM rolls are hidden.

Prove it.

 

[Nail]

Even if my style didn't lead to this kind of sharing of information across the DM screen, I take it to operate something like the advice on "gotcha" powers in the DMG, which I attempt to follow most of the time. That is to say, if you don't provide the player with enough information to make a decision, you're not letting him make decisions.

There's some gold here for DMs. Well said!

 

[Keenath]

Prove it.

DMG, page 15. It doesn't explicitly say "hidden rolling is expected", I grant -- what it does say is, "It's up to you, but consider:" and then lists three reasons to roll behind a screen, and one not to (which the next point immediately rebutts). Given that it puts it up to the DM to make an informed decision, the writing seems to assume the most division between DM and players, and any information the DM allows out (such as rolling in the clear) is bonus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

However, when the player wants to use an Immediate Interrupt like Shield, I'm not sure if I'm required to state the numerical value of the attack, or whether it's OK to simply state that the character has been hit, and it's up to the player to decide whether to use the power or not

For powers like shield that allow the player to decide whether to use them /after/ a roll is made, yes, they should know the results of the roll.

If that hurst your suspension of disbelief, an easy alternative is to let the player use the power whenever it comes up, but it's only /expended/ if he works.

DM: "The ogre savage swings his club down on you in a terriffic overhand smash, hitting you!"
Player: "Argh! Shield!!"
DM: (depending on how much the Ogre hit by): A) "Your mystic shield shatters under the primal force of the ogre's blow..." or B) "Splinters fly from the ogres club and it grunts in surprise as it realizes you are unharmed behind your shield of glowing mystic force."
Player: if B, checks off/discards card/whatever, showing that his Shield has been expended this encounter, and his immediate interrupt for the turn is no longer availabe. If A, he just records the damage, both the power and the interrupt action remain unexpended.

This has the same net effect as letting the player know the AC hit by the attack roll.

I've been playing it as "You've been hit, do you wish to use Shield or not?" but my player argued that it's not fair to make him decide unless he knows if the power would work and prevent him from taking damage.

Your player is correct. The way the power is written, it need only be expended when doing so would stop an attack from hitting. What you're doing makes it possible - even likely - to expend the power for no benefit.

Question
Since the rules don't explicitly state whether the player must know if the use of an intermediate interrupt would be successful before using it, it seems to come down to a point of etiquette.

While that may be the case with interrupts, in general, the specific cases of the Shield and Staff Mastery powers do, AFAICR, spell out that they can be used after attacks (and even damage, in one case, I think) are rolled.

Many 4e powers work this way. Striker bonus damage (SA, H'sQ, Curse), for instance, many magic items dailies, and so forth.

To keep with the flavor of the game, and in line with the idea that a character wouldn't know if his use of Shield would work until he tries it, I've been sticking to not telling the players if their interrupts would work before they decide to activate them...

Since the net effect of telling the player is that the power is only expended when successful, simply allow the character to 'attempt' to use the power, but only expend it when it succeeds. That can be flavored like my example, above, or, by simply saying "you try to cast your shield but it's too late" if the attack hits by enough that the shield can't stop it.