Sharp Cypher's page

Good points, all around. Thanks!

The point about not being about to Shield Block without a raised shield is something I knew, but forgot while writing. Because shields are so much more than a +X AC, I wanted to be well-read on how they work, so I studied the rules a bunch. I like how it provides more decisions for a fighter during combat - something interesting to think about while fighting.

That's why I was hoping the GM would give me the number she rolled, or at least give me some hint that Reactive Shield would make a difference. I don't think it's metagaming to know if an attack barely hit you. That's the flavor of the shield feats. You're so good with a shield that you can turn attacks aside that might have otherwise hurt you. Or, in the case of Shield Block, your skill with a shield lets you sacrifice the condition of your equipment to mitigate damage.

In my mind, I'm comparing it to how I've seen the spell Shield used in D&D. I know that's another system, but that's how I pictured it. In those games, the GM would say, "Does 22 hit you?" to which the wizard could respond, "I cast Shield".

I see everybody's points, though. I think my GM was being adversarial - playing to beat us. When I asked what her roll was, she gave me a blank stare. I explained that I wanted to know if using my reaction for Reactive Shield was worth it. She responded that she didn't have to tell me. I acquiesced, so the game could continue, but I think it's a shame to withhold info you don't have to withhold, just to make a play harder for a player. Especially one new to the system.

I'm playing in a new group, using Pathfinder for the 1st time. During my third session with them, I was attacked by a monster, and I hadn't used Raise Shield. I was told the attack was a hit, so I wanted to know what the monster's attack roll was, so I could decide if using my reaction for Reactive Shield was worth it. I wanted the option to do an opportunity attack or Shield Block, if the shield's extra AC wouldn't make a difference.

My DM told me that she doesn't have to tell me what the number is. I only then realized that she had never told us the number on any attack so made. She was only telling us if we got hit or critically hit, and by how much damage. I briefly argued that this was unfair, and that it made Reactive Shield nearly useless.

I searched through the rules, but couldn't find anything to back up my argument. The rules do seem to say the DM doesn't have to tell you what they rolled, ever, though.

It seems to me that my DM was technically right, but being cagey about a monster's to-hit bonus is largely unnecessary. So, I ask here, is there a rule that supports either argument? Is Reactive Shield just that much worse with a very secretive DM? Or am I missing something else altogether?