D&D 5E RAW Shield activation

[CapnZapp]

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.

I don't have any answers for you. While I definitely am closer to this position than you, I wouldn't presume to champion their cause. Instead let me thank you for your reasoned response, and let me assure you I personally understand your viewpoint.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Sorry Lucas, but you really shouldn't be surprised that when you effectively try to bash the rulebook over people's heads to prove they are playing the game wrong, they choose to not respond.

Perhaps you should consider the alternate approach where you simply assume their tradition as different from yours, yet an equally valid way of playing the game?

 

[Satyrn]

As a Dm, I let my players know the arttack roll's total is on a hit. Most of the time it's because the roll is somewhere between 14 and 22 and since I don't ever try to track the PCs' AC (or any other stat) I have to ask them if this 21 I just rolled is a hit.

I don't always tell them - sometimes I know a PC's AC (because it's just been discussed, say) or I've rolled a 30 - I just say "yeah, that one hits you" and roll the damage. If a player asks (for figuring out if they should bother with shield or whatever else) then I would tell them.

I think it would suck for a caster of shield to not know. I don't think the experience of wasting numerous spell slots on unhelpful castings is balanced by the thrill of the times it does work.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Sorry Lucas, but you really shouldn't be surprised that when you effectively try to bash the rulebook over people's heads to prove they are playing the game wrong, they choose to not respond.

Perhaps you should consider the alternate approach where you simply assume their tradition as different from yours, yet an equally valid way of playing the game?

Sorry for offending you Cap. When the original poster said they wanted to know by RAW, I was referencing rules to show my point. I didn't think I needed to say that anyone can play however they want. That's always the case no matter what anyone has to say here. You could play diceless, you could use a deck of cards to resolve conflict/skill checks. How the rules interact with any groups game is up to each group. I was using the rules (without table/houserules) as a reference because that was what the original poster wanted. When I dismiss something as a houserule, it is not because it has no merit, or should not be used or allowed ever, but it is only in regards to a RAW discussion.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My question is for RAW.

You should always cook your D&D to a safe internal temperature of 165(74C).

 

[ThePolarBear]

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.

You are right about Combat inspiration. A player that has an inspiration die can in fact look at the die being rolled before making the decision. And due to [MENTION=60210]jaelis[/MENTION] suggestion i looked up at the DMG and actually found that the choice about rolling is in fact a "table choice", (or rule, or convention. Still loving convention.) even if the starting point advised is to roll openly and then is provided a list of reasons on "why a DM might want to keep them secret".

I was wrong in calling it an interpretation, the "rule" is there. Still, combat inspiration just gives only the player with the die the ability to see the roll result (not that it would change anything at that point if it was shown to all) if the rolls are made secretly.

By the way [MENTION=6799660]Willie the Duck[/MENTION] i'm actually fine with both methods. I play in a game over Roll20 that goes with "all shown", i play(ed, game got interrupted cause real life reasons) that had the DM hide the rolls, DMing a game where i hide my rolls, playing in a game of Merp where dm hides the rolls but fudges them so blatantly that we all have a laugh about it.

Personally, i prefer "hidden for the DM" as a DM and "hidden for a DM" as a player but I'm absolutely not opposed to changing it if the rest of the group thinks it's better or chooses to use another system. I'm going to have fun regardless.

Now, on the topic of " do not derail this thread anymore", i'll just shut up

 

[Shiroiken]

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?

Sort of. Technically, if the AC was 18+, the 17 and the 3 would have the same result: a miss. Now most DMs (myself included) will try to describe low rolls as bad attempts and good (but failed) rolls as close attempts, but that's not actually required.

 

[Shiroiken]

I thought we agreed about common usage of words and ideas here.

You must be new to forums then. I've seen some incredibly stupid debates on the internet that revolve around the meaning behind the lack of a comma. MOST of the time it's better here, but not always.

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?

Because those are competitive games and D&D is a cooperative game. Players are working against each other to win at Monopoly, Yahtzee or other board games. In D&D Players are working against the challenges, with the DM as judge/arbiter/referee (at least, ideally).

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.

The DMG says differently, so by RAW, the DM may hide his dice rolls. Thus, it is not a house-rule, but a table rule (or convention, or whatever you want to call it).

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.

This is a case of specific beats general. In general, I don't have to reveal my dice as the DM, but Combat Inspiration specifically says that I do.

 

[Willie the Duck]

By the way @Willie the Duck i'm actually fine with both methods. I play in a game over Roll20 that goes with "all shown", i play(ed, game got interrupted cause real life reasons) that had the DM hide the rolls, DMing a game where i hide my rolls, playing in a game of Merp where dm hides the rolls but fudges them so blatantly that we all have a laugh about it.

Personally, i prefer "hidden for the DM" as a DM and "hidden for a DM" as a player but I'm absolutely not opposed to changing it if the rest of the group thinks it's better or chooses to use another system. I'm going to have fun regardless.

Now, on the topic of " do not derail this thread anymore", i'll just shut up

Oh, me neither. As long as the group works under a shared assumption, it works well either way. Heck, Dm-rolls-everything-and-just-shares-outcomes works fine if everyone is on board.

I think the thread has bunny trailed, but yes, let's see if it can right itself.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seriously, folks, consuming RAW D&D could expose you to all sorts of system-borne pathogens. 5MWD, LFQD, DOAM/DOASS, RBDM/DMPC, Dissociative Mechanics Disorder, Oberoni-Stormwind Syndrome...

... MAD CaW Disease.