D&D 5E RAW Shield activation

[Lucas Blackstone]

Total interpretation, as it's yours. If something is not there at all it's not possible to know which way is the intended one until there's a clarification on RAI. Now, on this particular subject i have no idea if there's a rule somewhere that i just always skimmed over and would like knowing something more if someone has somewhere to point me to.

It is a houserule. Nothing in the rules state that you hide the rolls. The information is meant to be communicated because the result of actions and reactions require the information. ( A DM needing to know what AC a player or monster hit to resolve an attack is a fair example. Another fair example is the player of bard with Combat Inspiration wanting to know the attack roll before using the ability. )

Do you not tell your DM how much damage your character's attack does? The rules don't say you have to share it, you only roll it. Does your DM not tell you how much damage an attack did to your character? We know the answer to this, but it would be different if you didn't tell the DM how much damage you did, or if he didn't tell you how much damage an attack does. It's another example of the results of die rolls being shared between the gamers to show the results of actions.

There is really no reason to hide the rolls within the ruleset. And there isn't anything wrong with keeping rolls secret except that it very much handicaps abilities that revolve around modifying AC or attack rolls.

 

[Shiroiken]

It is a houserule.

No, it's a table rule. Same as what happens to dice that are cocked or fall off the table. There are things that aren't specified in the rules, because they're not directly part of the game. There may be a section on hidden rolls in the DMG, but it's been a while since I've read it.

Generally, most tables accept that the DM may (and probably will) hide at least some rolls from the players, but players may not deliberately hide rolls from the DM. I suppose some tables may allow rolls to be hidden between players, but I've never heard of it.

 

[Willie the Duck]

It is a houserule. Nothing in the rules state that you hide the rolls.

Nothing in the rules rule either way in this case (unless there is some outstanding information that no one has brought forward). Either both interpretations are house rules (in a broad definition of the term), or neither are.

The information is meant to be communicated because the result of actions and reactions require the information. ( A DM needing to know what AC a player or monster hit to resolve an attack is a fair example. Another fair example is the player of bard with Combat Inspiration wanting to know the attack roll before using the ability.)

situation 1

Player: "I hit AC 16"
DM: "you hit"

situation 2
DM: "what is your AC?" p
layer:"16"
DM: "okay, you are hit."

In neither case does the roll have to be revealed. The same is true of the bard.

Player: "I hit AC 16"
DM: "you miss."
Player: "next attack. I hit AC 14, I am going to add my inspiration die, it adds 5." DM: "you hit."

That is completely consistent with either interpretation.

Do you not tell your DM how much damage your character's attack does? The rules don't say you have to share it, you only roll it. Does your DM not tell you how much damage an attack did to your character? We know the answer to this, but it would be different if you didn't tell the DM how much damage you did, or if he didn't tell you how much damage an attack does. It's another example of the results of die rolls being shared between the gamers to show the results of actions.

That is the results, which obviously must be communicated. The die roll? still up in the air. It is certainly not clear that the DM must communicate what a monster rolls, as that might allow the PCs to back-calculate their to-hit.

There is really no reason to hide the rolls within the ruleset. And there isn't anything wrong with keeping rolls secret except that it very much handicaps abilities that revolve around modifying AC or attack rolls.

That is not the same as saying that one or the other is stated in the ruleset or is the rule. Anything that the rules are silent upon, they are silent in all directions.

 

[ThePolarBear]

It is a houserule. Nothing in the rules state that you hide the rolls. The information is meant to be communicated because the result of actions and reactions require the information. ( A DM needing to know what AC a player or monster hit to resolve an attack is a fair example. Another fair example is the player of bard with Combat Inspiration wanting to know the attack roll before using the ability. )

Do you not tell your DM how much damage your character's attack does? The rules don't say you have to share it, you only roll it. Does your DM not tell you how much damage an attack did to your character? We know the answer to this, but it would be different if you didn't tell the DM how much damage you did, or if he didn't tell you how much damage an attack does. It's another example of the results of die rolls being shared between the gamers to show the results of actions.

There is really no reason to hide the rolls within the ruleset. And there isn't anything wrong with keeping rolls secret except that it very much handicaps abilities that revolve around modifying AC or attack rolls.

An houserule is a modification of an existing rule on something that should be allowed/is not allowed/works differently in a certain game. If there's no rule that requires the DM to keep the rolls secret it does not mean that there is a rule that says that rolls have to be known. The only important thing that has to be passed on to players is the result of their actions and have them informed on how difficult things can be, but there's no requirement on explicitly letting them know a numerical value ("it's extremely hard to climb that wall, you do not think you'll be able to do it at all" vs "Clmb wall, DC 25, for you it's impossible.")

In short, it's an interpretation on something that is not stated clearly, not an houserule.

Btw, not saying you are "playing it wrong". It's just not an houserule.

As i wrote, i'm unsure that this is actually the case and there might be a place where it's stated you have to let the rolls be known or the other way around. If you know where those rules are i'll love to have that information, thank you.

@Shiroiken You might be right at calling it a table rule... but somehow i think "table convention" would be even better. I usually refer proper table manners as "table rules", such as no swearing, keep the voice down after x hour and such. But yeah more or less nitpicking on the name

 

[jaelis]

My recollection is that the DMG states you can roll openly or secretly as you prefer, and that most DMs find it best to use a mix of both depending on the situation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure, but you are probably aware scores of gamers feel revealing numbers is abhorrent meta and that any game that relies on it is anathema.

I was unaware of that, but I'll try to keep it in mind for as long as I can. You know that characters can see the in-game reality which corresponds to a high or low roll, right? That a well-aimed swing of 17 is, in-game, visually distinct from a fumbling swing of 3?

I get if that's not enough to sway your position, but I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from on this.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I thought we agreed about common usage of words and ideas here. The common use of rolling a die is not behind obstructions so only you see the roll. Nothing indicates that the dice should be hidden. In Monopoly, one does not hide the dice when they roll. In Yahtzee one does not hide the dice when they roll. The rules of these games don't say the dice are not hidden, and everyone understands that. So why would it be different for this? I understand that many people like the idea, and that the game can be made to work with secret rolls, but if looked at objectively there isn't a reason to do it by the rules, and all the previously mentioned abilities suffer from it greatly.

Also, for people who disagree , I notice that the parts of my posts bringing up the direct rules that show that the player can see the roll ( Combat Inspiration makes the direct note of it ) are always ignored. So while people say " There is nothing saying either way " I have shown that there is, while others have not. It doesn't say Combat Inspiration is the only reason the player sees the roll, it says that they see the roll and THEN can decide if Combat Inspiration will be used.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This thread is off to a good start. I think we can get at least 20 pages out of the "is hidden rolls a houserule?" discussion.

 

[Imaro]

I thought we agreed about common usage of words and ideas here. The common use of rolling a die is not behind obstructions so only you see the roll. Nothing indicates that the dice should be hidden. In Monopoly, one does not hide the dice when they roll. In Yahtzee one does not hide the dice when they roll. The rules of these games don't say the dice are not hidden, and everyone understands that. So why would it be different for this? I understand that many people like the idea, and that the game can be made to work with secret rolls, but if looked at objectively there isn't a reason to do it by the rules, and all the previously mentioned abilities suffer from it greatly.

Also, for people who disagree , I notice that the parts of my posts bringing up the direct rules that show that the player can see the roll ( Combat Inspiration makes the direct note of it ) are always ignored. So while people say " There is nothing saying either way " I have shown that there is, while others have not. It doesn't say Combat Inspiration is the only reason the player sees the roll, it says that they see the roll and THEN can decide if Combat Inspiration will be used.

Page 235 of the DMG makes it pretty clear it's an individual decision for the group... there is no standard, though having players roll out in the open is suggested and the pros and cons of whether the DM rolls out in the open or not are discussed.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I thought we agreed about common usage of words and ideas here. The common use of rolling a die is not behind obstructions so only you see the roll.

No it isn't. The common use of rolling a die, is rolling a die with most other conditionals or situationals left undefined.

Nothing indicates that the dice should be hidden.

One more time, and here we are back at the crux at where I think there is contention. Nothing indicates anything one way or the other*. In the absence of defining information, your assumptions are as valid as, but no more supported, than any others. It is figuratively up in the air.

*We'll get to combat inspiration later

In Monopoly, one does not hide the dice when they roll. In Yahtzee one does not hide the dice when they roll.

If there was a positive benefit to doing so, one probably would. In games such as poker, one definitely hides one's cards. Perhaps more directly, in Monopoly, one rarely reveals how much money they have if possible, as it influences how one's opponent plays.

The rules of these games don't say the dice are not hidden, and everyone understands that. So why would it be different for this? I understand that many people like the idea, and that the game can be made to work with secret rolls, but if looked at objectively there isn't a reason to do it by the rules, and all the previously mentioned abilities suffer from it greatly.

If you look objectively at the rules, there is plenty of reason not to reveal a dice roll. First reason that comes to mind: so that the DM does not have to reveal a monster's AC or to-hit, and let the Players suss it out with the information that they know. As to many people liking the idea, I'm not sure that that is the case. I'm pretty sure most players play roll in the open, and DMs are somewhere in the 50% vicinity on where they fall. You simply called out ThePolarBear's position as a house rule, and we are disagreeing with that assertion.

Also, for people who disagree , I notice that the parts of my posts bringing up the direct rules that show that the player can see the roll ( Combat Inspiration makes the direct note of it ) are always ignored.

I have to mea culpa. I thought I had, and clearly didn't. I see that I was addressing bardic inspiration (since I'm working off of 5e srd), not combat inspiration. I'll have to go check that out when I get in front of the books.

So while people say " There is nothing saying either way " I have shown that there is, while others have not. It doesn't say Combat Inspiration is the only reason the player sees the roll, it says that they see the roll and THEN can decide if Combat Inspiration will be used.

Others have not what? What were others tasked with doing?

As to combat inspiration. It is certainly indicative of open rolls. Given how often the gamebook talks with competing voices, I'm going to hold my opinion, though. I'm going to see if anyone else has found this little gem, and any other passages which might have contradictory implications.

EDIT:

Page 235 of the DMG makes it pretty clear it's an individual decision for the group... there is no standard, though having players roll out in the open is suggested and the pros and cons of whether the DM rolls out in the open or not are discussed.

Ah, I knew something would come up quickly to muddy the water.


Regardless, even if there is wording which supports your position (and I'm sure we'll all go round and round on what that means), that doesn't change what the rest of us see as a serious failure in facultative reasoning. If your position is so unchallengeable, what's all the references to monopoly and yahtzee? Why say " if looked at objectively there isn't a reason to do it by the rules" (which directly contradicts "And there isn't anything wrong with keeping rolls secret except that it very much handicaps abilities that revolve around modifying AC or attack rolls" since that highlights an objective difference)? Do you not recognize that literally none of these are coherent arguments towards your position?

Ignoring Combat Inspiration and DMG p. 235, do you understand the argument that others are making? That in the absence of the ruleset addressing something, it doesn't default to the way that seems most obvious to you, but instead that all possible options are equally supported? Are we even successfully communicating this position?