TheCR155's page

It CAN be interpreted either way, taking JUST the Regeneration clause into account, but there's a rule that makes certain types of regenerating creatures immune to them, so I always err on the side of special rules being special cases.

In this case, BECAUSE there is a rule for creatures with regeneration becoming immune to them, I'd rule that normal ones are not.

That's a fair interpretation. It seems that the RAW effect of Regeneration vs Death Effects is an ongoing debate which has yet to be FAQ'd, judging by some previous threads, and your interpretation makes deciding what happens to the regenerating creature easier so I think I'll run with that for now.

So... No. The REASON for no isn't because death overrides all, but because death is actually a Condition.

Conditions wrote:

The character’s hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

There ARE creatures who can regenerate from dead, such as the Behemoth. But Dead, unless otherwise specified, is dead.

So are creatures with Regeneration vulnerable to death effects as normal then? The description on the behemoth would seem to imply that, but at the same time the description for Regeneration is clear that a regenerating creature cannot die (ie is immune to the death condition) while its regeneration is active.

The 20th level Bardic performance states that:

"A bard of 20th level or higher can use his performance to cause one enemy to die from joy or sorrow. [...] If a creature’s saving throw succeeds, the target is staggered for 1d4 rounds, and the bard cannot use deadly performance on that creature again for 24 hours. If a creature’s saving throw fails, it dies."

Regeneration states that:

"A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning(although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0)"

By my understanding, the Regeneration's "cannot die" clause overrides the Bard's "creature dies" ability. My question is: What actually happens to the creature then? The vast majority of death effects in Pathfinder simply deal vast amounts of damage rather than killing outright, Deadly Performance is the first thing I've seen that simply says "the creature dies". With something like Finger of Death it's easy, if it would die the creature simply drops into negative hp and continues regenerating. However, since Deadly Performance has no effect other than "it dies", does anything actually happen to the regenerating creature when subject to that performance?

As far as my understanding of the Spell Perfection feat goes, it allows you to apply a single metamagic effectively for free to a specific spell, as long as you don't go above 9th level.

Eg a wizard has Spell Perfection (Mass Hold Person). They can cast Persistent Mass Hold as a 7th level spell without any increase to cast time, however they cannot apply any additional metamagic (since Persistent Mass Hold has a modified level of 9 before reduction, so adding another level would take it to 10 before reduction, thus violating Spell Perfection's "total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level" restriction). Similarly they cannot cast a Quickened Mass Hold since this has a modified level of 11.

My question is, how does this change for a partial caster. For example, a 20th level Bard has Spell Perfection (Overwhelming Presence). For a wizard, this would not allow them to add any metamagic, since Overwhelming Presence is a 9th level spell. However, for a Bard, Presence is only a 6th level spell, and (even though their slots cap out at 6), Spell Perfection explicitly states that the cap is 9th level, *not* the max level you can cast. Thus can a Bard with Spell Perfection (Overwhelming Presence) cast a Persistent Overwhelming Presence even though a Wizard with the same feat and of the same level could not, since for the Bard it has a modified level of 8 and is thus within the restriction given by Spell Perfection?

Related follow-up question: If so, then what kind of metamagic rod would the Bard need to use to Quicken such a spell? Would it be a normal rod, since the spell slot used is only 6th, or would it be a greater rod, since the spell has a modified level of 8 before reduction?

I was looking at the sorcerer bloodlines on the PFSRD and came across the Ectoplasm bloodline. Like all other sorcerer bloodline, it grants you a known spell every odd level starting from third, but what confused me is that this bloodline apparently grants the spell Ethereal Jaunt (a 7th level spell) at level 13.

Is this an error? Does this somehow allow sorcerers to cast this spell at level 13? And if neither of the above is true then how does this work in game for a 13th level sorcerer?

Have you resolved the issue with your players at least?

I haven't yet met up with them, though I suspect it won't be too much of an issue. I'll just have a chat with them about it, see where things go from there.

Saldiven wrote:

Speaking as both a player and a GM, I feel that people who consider a GM's "fudging" a roll hear or there to be cheating are taking this game way too seriously.

Or you appear to take the phrase 'cheating' too seriously in relation to the game.

You can hardly blame someone for taking the phrase "cheating" seriously. It has significant negative connotations. If someone cheats they are generally in some way detrimenting others by performing actions they are not allowed to for selfish reasons, a description which is wholly unfit to describe the process of GMs houseruling and making executive decisions.

Also, please stick to posting from a single account. It gets confusing when you're posting under two different aliases.

Did I miss any?

An excellent summary. Though in the definition war I feel this should also be considered.

Fudge

Noun

A soft crumbly or chewy sweet made from sugar, butter, and milk or cream

I have created a new thread to continue the discussion about GMs cheating, as it seems worth discussing.

This is a discussion which arose on another thread, and deserves its own thread.

Due to the nature of the other thread, the subject of GMs "fudging" rolls came about. While some people seem to think this is perfectly fine, and even expected of a good GM, others apparently believe it is dishonest (and even cheating) for a GM to do this.

While I agree it is dishonest, I disagree with the use of the term "cheating". The definition of cheating states: "to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". I do not feel that GMs can gain an advantage in this way by adjusting rolls, since they are playing a far different game to the rest of the players, and to describe anything the GM does as being "to gain an advantage" implies a strong "us vs the GM" mentality.

So, what do people think on this issue? Does a GM bending rules and fudging rolls constitute dishonest behaviour? Is it cheating? Or simply a sign of a GM who knows how to provide a good experience?

And that GM is cheating.

Reiterating your points without in any way expanding is meaningless. We are aware of your position. It's far more useful to explain the reasoning for your position rather than just repeating yourself.

This thread has also veered quite alarmingly off topic. The original topic for discussion was whether GMs should hide rolls or not, and reasoning for either side. While the existence of fudging is an important aspect of that issue, the other stuff about the validity of houserules and the inherent dishonest nature of fudging is content for another thread.

TheCR155 wrote:

Referring to it as "cheating" is needlessly hostile and is a strong implication of disrespect for, or mistrust in, the person who is running your game.

If a player wants a certain experience, and that experience involves you abiding by what the dice say, then ignoring the dice is cheating them of that experience. If you said you would not fudge, and you fudge, then you are also lying as well as cheating.

Now, the players might not know what they want, they might be mistaken. Maybe a session would go better with the dice not being sacrosanct. But fudging is still cheating to those that view it that way.

Of course fudging is cheating to those that view it that way, that statement is circular. My point was that if you're going to refer to an action that your GM takes as "cheating" then why are you playing with that GM? Pathfinder is not a game, it is a system. Many other systems exist. The one who chooses the system in which the game is run, and any variations which occur within, is the GM, since they plan the game (that being the story and sequence of events through which the players play). That is the inherent nature of an RPG.

If you feel that your GM is not running the game the way you would like it to be run then you have to either talk with them or leave the game. However, the idea that any decision the GM makes is in some way "cheating" is absurd; the nature of the system in which you are playing leaves a lot of things open to interpretation, and so accusations of "cheating" are just saying "my interpretation is factually correct, and yours is not" which is impossible to support.

As an example, I have been accused of "rules lawyering" in the past. A player was stacking buffs that, by RAW, do not stack, and making their character extremely overpowered with respect to the rest of the group as a result. I objected to this on the grounds that not only was it against the RAW, it was also making the experience less enjoyable as a result. The GM agreed with me, and told the player that he could no longer use that tactic.

By your logic, that player wanted the experience of being able to use this tactic, and the GM did not allow it, thus the GM was cheating in that scenario. Now, obviously this is an absurd statement, and not what you meant by your comment at all. But blindly following the logic you presented into grey areas will end up being a suboptimal experience for everyone.

I do agree, however, that the GM actively lying and saying they will not fudge, then fudging, is completely against the spirit of the experience.

To me fudging= \cheating. 100% no exceptions. Oh the monster all of a sudden has more health=cheating. Oh, you weren't really crit and are not dead=cheating. If I wanted a novel where the GM's story happened no matter what the rolls were, I'd hand him a blank journal and just tell him to write. But, that is me. It is evident, at least in this thread, I am the minority. Play how you want to play, if your Monopoly game has money in free parking, then all the power to you. I personally just want to follow the rules and play a game, not a story.

You say play a game vs follow the rules as though the two were mutually exclusive. The beauty of tabletop RPGs over other forms of game is that the game world is run by a human rather than a machine or set of rigid rules, thus meaning it can react to literally everything you do. This allows for far more fluid and organic gameplay, increased player agency and generally a much more enjoyable experience, as well as a more interesting story that the players can genuinely influence.

If you choose to ignore the freedom provided by the simple fact that this is an RPG then why bother playing an RPG at all?

Though I feel I'm digressing from the discussion, since I do agree that fudging to keep players alive also goes against the point of the freedom provided by RPGs. Players having freedom to do whatever they want also means giving them freedom to screw up and get horribly murdered.

TheCR155 wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.

I don't see how you can refer to anything the GM does as "cheating", it's literally the GM who dictates the rules of the game you're playing. Worst you can say about the GM is that they're not very good at it. And I would certainly consider adhering to the RAW blindly without any consideration for the table, setting or players as being bad GMing.

Sorry, I come to play pathfinder, not CR155finder or Tonifinder(my gm) or anyone-else-finder, so any rule that's not in the books and not agreed before the game, I constitute as cheating. Unclear rules, grey areas of intent and similar stuff are discussed with players, not decided behind the screen. I also GM, and almost everyone in my group GM'd at least once (all of ones who are interested in rules, at least).

You consider blind adherence to the rules as paramount over an enjoyable experience?

If you don't want to play the game the way your GM plays it, you find a new GM, or talk to them. That's all there really is to it. Referring to it as "cheating" is needlessly hostile and is a strong implication of disrespect for, or mistrust in, the person who is running your game.

To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.

I don't see how you can refer to anything the GM does as "cheating", it's literally the GM who dictates the rules of the game you're playing. Worst you can say about the GM is that they're not very good at it. And I would certainly consider adhering to the RAW blindly without any consideration for the table, setting or players as being bad GMing.

This is the big one for me. Once a character has been established, developed some natural rhythms within the party, maybe a few idiosyncracies that come out in play, a npc contact or three, it becomes a lot more bothersome for the player to play character development catchup with their replacement. The party kind of has to re-find its groove and in my experience it kind of screws with the flow of the campaign.

I don't want a night of rolling s%#* hot as a gm to wipe the party outside of appropriately climactic events and basically turn another session into character building and development.

Oddly I've often found the opposite. When a character is new my players are usually very invested in the sweet character build that they've come up with, and having that character killed off immediately sucks, so I try to avoid any player deaths for the first couple sessions.

Only exception to this has so far been when a player decided to straight up murder an NPC member of their military unit in the middle of the night during the very first session of the game. I have no idea how he thought he was gonna get away with it, he ended up biting off his own tongue to avoid the drawn out process of court-martial followed by inevitable execution.

I avoid PC death because it's a narrative PitA to work in new characters. There was a point in Carrion Crown where I literally stopped the PCs from going back to a certain dungeon and just gave them the requisite information via an NPC because they were dying so often they were at grave risk of being a bunch of strangers who couldn't even remember why they were originally trying to get through that bloody place.

Also, PC death is quick. If you really want to psychologically brutalize your players, the slow, patient path lined with difficult-to-remove conditions and grinding environmental conditions is much more effective... and more satisfying... like making a souffle of despair and gamer tears...

This I agree with. I've recently had a group of lvl 7 players try to make their way through a crypt, and watching them try to get through with only a single character capable of casting Lesser Restoration, no characters capable of Restoration and (until they levelled up halfway through the process) no access to Remove Disease was both oddly satisfying and added an additional layer of challenge to the process for the players, including a session where they took a break from crypting to seek out an NPC capable of casting Remove Curse on the rogue, who was slowly dying of Mummy Rot.

TheCR155 wrote:

Honestly I wouldn't fudge in that situation. The only time I ever feel like fudging is when a player death is completely out of nowhere, like an absurd crit. In that situation they're on very low health against a creature they should at least suspect to be capable of one-shotting them. If you fudge it then, when will your pcs ever die?

I think if the encounter's gone south for them, letting someone die just makes sense. If they just miraculously win everything despite it seeming desperate then there's no real challenge involved. Pcs have to be mortal.

16 STR enemy using a spiked chain 2-handing it, critical hitting against a level 2 half-orc barbarian who had taken a hit already in the 1st session is an appropriate time to say "make a new character"?

What kind of level 2 Barbarian dies from 14 damage in a single hit? A CON of less than 14 is shaky for a barbarian anyway, and even if they have a CON of, for example, 12 then they would have had to be at 2 HP for that attack to kill them. If a player is sitting on 2 HP within hitting range of a two-handing martial foe I would expect them to have steeled themselves for a character death, and would probably let the dice roll as they will.

And secondly, I likely would also adjust the rolls in that situation, but only because it is literally the first session and getting someone to reroll without even getting to play the character is no fun for anyone. The statement to which I replied carried no indication of that fairly crucial piece of information, thus I stand by my assertion that, in the situation your original statement described, I would not fudge.

If the death is in some way foreseen by the players (or if the players should have foreseen it, based on clues and information already provided) then I have no problem with allowing a character to die. The only situation where I am disinclined to let a character die is if they weren't given a chance to escape their fate.

Megistone wrote:

A GM wanting to fudge can do it without rolling the dice hidden.

He can change tactics, for example: instead of casting the magic missiles that would finish off the wounded ranger, he tries to put the wizard asleep instead...

I feel like nudging the damage down so that the low level character who just took a crit to the face is in "STABILIZE NOW" territory rather than "INSTANT DEATH" territory is a lot subtler than making the monsters fight foolishly.

Like if a low level character is dead instantly if they take 14 or more damage, and the monster is rolling, say, 2d6+4 and two fives come up, if you tell people "okay, that's 12 damage" you're going to get away with that almost every time.

Honestly I wouldn't fudge in that situation. The only time I ever feel like fudging is when a player death is completely out of nowhere, like an absurd crit. In that situation they're on very low health against a creature they should at least suspect to be capable of one-shotting them. If you fudge it then, when will your pcs ever die?

I think if the encounter's gone south for them, letting someone die just makes sense. If they just miraculously win everything despite it seeming desperate then there's no real challenge involved. Pcs have to be mortal.

I hadn't really thought about this issue until I read this thread. For our group the way the GM screen and table are arranged makes it difficult for the players to see the GM's rolls and vice versa. For really important rolls the GM might come out from behind the screen but that is just for dramatic effect, for the most part rolls are made in secret and we have an honesty system that goes both ways.

Regarding the opening post, I don't see a genuine problem. Does it really matter if players metagame?

I generally have a problem with players doing for free something which you explicitly need other abilities or rolls to do under the rules.

Usually this boils down to "If: you want to do something that seems possible from a real world perspective, there exists a feat which allows you to do it that you don't have, and there aren't good circumstantial reasons, then you're not allowed to do it. If you could just do that then the feat is worthless, and nobody would consider taking it."

Metagaming falls under the same banner. As My Self said, it significantly reduces the usefulness of otherwise useful skills and some feats, which actively warps the balance of power in the game away from those who have specialised in non-combat areas. If we're in a situation that can be made far easier by a decent Knowledge or Spellcraft check, and there's a PC who's designed a very knowledgeable character, the last thing you want is for that player's stat investment to be completely ignored and made useless because your other players know the stuff already and are metagaming.

I think there's two ways to get Misfortune to work correctly if you're rolling in secret, and they hinge on different interpretations on "result is revealed".

1) If someone has Misfortune, announce a numerical value and ask if they want to reroll before saying if it's a hit or a miss.

2) If someone has Misfortune, announce it's a hit or a miss and ask if they want a reroll without saying what the number is (e.g. if the monster hits on a 2, and rolled a 2, they can reroll but have a 95% chance of still hitting, but the player doesn't know that.)

We did the 2nd, which makes Misfortune a little better, and players never mind that sort of thing.

One of my players in another game has Misfortune, and we basically have a tacit agreement that if an attack roll is 15 or higher I announce it. He usually warns me when he's likely to want to use the ability for other things, like a crucial save, beforehand; if he does I roll in the open.

I GM entirely from my laptop so concealed rolls for me. I don't mind the players deducing things about their foes as the fight goes on. Makes sense that they start not knowing much and learning as the fight goes on. Fog of war I'd call it.

As a player, I don't mind either way, but I prefer hidden. I like that some rolls are mysterious and the outcome isn't instantaneously known.

I GM almost exclusively over Roll20, so I basically got used to rolling everything on my own computer.

I very much enjoy the flavour side of combat, and using "real" descriptions of the effect to tell the players about aspects of their foes. Eg, if a player hits something with Fire Resist 10 for 6 points of Fire damage I would usually say something like "Your attack dissipates across the creatures body, leaving it unscathed" and expect the players to deduce info about the creature from organic descriptions like that. Might not necessarily be the best method, but it's worked well for all groups prior to this one.

I dispute that buff spells are not observable.

To identify a spell effect that is in place is not Spellcraft, but Knowledge(arcana). Looking at the Knowledge Skill description ...

Table: Knowledge Skill DCs wrote:

Task: Identify a spell effect that is in place

Knowledge Skill: Arcana
DC: 20 + spell level

Since the use of Detect Magic is not mentioned, there must be something observable to identify using your knowledge, correct ?

So then, to expand, how would one deal with getting this information across to the players as a GM without being glaringly obvious? You can't realistically point out something mundane like "he's moving quite fast" without your players immediately twigging that something's going on.

TheCR155 wrote:

they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.

Please send your players my way, if you have no further use for them! I WANT players who act on information, seize initiative, set their own goals, and derail the story. I WANT players who don't follow the railroad. I WANT to constantly have to keep on my feet and keep my wits about me, not knowing what's coming next but knowing I'm going to have to make all the NPCs react appropriately to something I never saw coming.

When I want to control the storyline, I write short fiction. It's fun and satisfying and doesn't require anyone else to tag along for the ride, unless they decide to read it. But when I play a game, I want to play, not dictate. I want the other participants' input. I want to be surprised.

Yes, I always roll in the open. The baddies are built strictly by the rules, and I don't fudge the numbers or the dice. In fact, I use hero points, which effectively give the players, rather than me, a limited ability to fudge a roll. For the few rolls that need to be secret -- this comes up for Perception a lot -- I use passive checks, as if the PCs are always "Taking 10." Again, no hidden rolls.

---

Not everyone likes that, mind you. It's a personal preference, and I've had players leave the game because they were specifically looking for a more passive experience, one in which they could coast on the rails. There's nothing wrong with that, but it pays to be clear up front about what kind of experience people are looking for.

My original post was not about players acting on their own initiative and aggressively ripping my rigidly defined story away from me with some unexpected action I couldn't handle. It was about players using knowledge from outside the game to influence their actions within it, with no thought for roleplay, whether hidden rolls are the solution, and how to deal with such players if hidden rolls are frowned upon. I'm glad you're so proud of your unique style, but please refrain from patronising behaviour.

To clarify, I have no objection to what happened in the above example. Killing the Paladin was neither unexpected, nor do I have any problem with them choosing to do so. Similarly with them taking his gear. The issue, which I chose to simply highlight with the above example, is the much broader one of metagaming and reverse engineering monster stats from open dice rolls, and how to best deal with said issue.

TheCR155 wrote:

As a result of this, I would much rather return to concealing my rolls, however I know this suggestion will be vehemently opposed by the players.

Remember that characters should have access to skills, knowledge, experience, and training that players do not.

A player who observes you roll a "2" on an attack roll and hit their PC has gained metaknowledge. But... in-character, what the PC has seen is an enemy who didn't have to try to succeed. The PC has observed that they are outclassed.

Same thing goes for observing that an enemy gets three attacks. Sure, that tells the player something about the enemy's BAB, but it also tells the character "wow, my foe is really fast, and really good".

Metaknowledge isn't always bad. Sometimes it's good.

The issue is not that the players observe that their foe has 3 attacks, that's fine. It was the observation that their foe was magically enhanced, as opposed to simply skilled, as a result of the exact numbers I rolled, when the characters who acted on this realisation were not even able to see the action which prompted the roll.

I roll in the open as a GM because I want players to know that if I tell them my bad guy fumbled I'm not just taking it easy on them, and when I tell them my bad guys got a critical hit, I'm not just screwing with them. They know that the dice land where the dice land. I'll usually tell them the DC of a saving throw they need to make before they roll so they know I'm playing it straight, and I'll even tell them the modifier of my NPC's saving throw before I roll. There's a small risk of meta-gaming, but I far prefer the trust that transparency brings.

Obviously that's a far favourable situation, but given that metagaming is quite clearly occurring would you be inclined to stop rolling in the open?

This question was raised in another of my threads, and I feel it deserves its own thread for discussion.

The example is, you have a level 6 martial character. Said character has a BaB of 6, and thus 2 attacks in a FAA. Under the effect of a Haste spell, said character has 3 attacks in a FAA, and his movement is increased by 30.

Let's then consider the same character, 9 levels later. His BaB is now 15, giving him 3 attacks in a FAA. He has also, since level 6, taken 4 instances of the Fleet feat and a level in Barbarian, increasing his movement speed by 30.

What is the visible difference in combat between these characters? What aspect of the motion of a character under Haste appears different to a character moving with the same speed achieved by mundane means?

Similarly, as a GM, would you attribute visible effects to basic attribute buffs? Like, does Bull's Strength actively increase the size of the recipient's muscles? Or is it an entirely invisible effect?

My preference is to roll in view. This because when you roll that crit and a player character dies you can go through with it knowing you were honest and they accept it because they know it wasn't fudged.

However there are instances when I don't...

1. When it's a roll they shouldn't know the outcome of. Crucial stealth checks for instance,

2. In a survival horror style game where I want the players to feel like they are missing information. For instance it's all behind the screen in the curse of strahd game I'm running.

3. When blaggy metagamers use the dice to weasel information out that their characters wouldn't have, then go on to abuse that information.

You are well within your rights to say you'll be rolling behind he screen but be ready for the backlash. You maybe faced with the decision of dropping DMing as if they won't play, you've got no game. Ideally decisions like this would be made at the start.

One suggestion would be to start rolling a few dice in secret on the grounds that they don't know the outcome. Just three or four rolls per session. Once they're used to this, slowly increase it.

Just be aware that this is a marmite topic on here. People will either flame you For destroying player enjoyment or defend to the death your right to bear concealed dice.

I have already begun concealing some rolls. The issue was present before this session, so I chose to conceal the NPC's Lay on Hands healing rolls, since there is no way for the PCs to know exactly how much he is healing. This did cause some objection, but I put my foot down on the grounds that if I were inclined to fudge his health, I could do so trivially by simply giving him more health. Thus the only reason to know what dice he is rolling to heal is to metagame further and pinpoint his level.

Haladir wrote:

Honestly, as a player, I'm more suspicious of GMs who open-roll. It's been my experience that such GMs often prioritize the mechanics of the game over making sure everyone is having a fun time.

Player metagaming is my biggest pet peeve as a GM. I do not think I would enjoy GMing for the OP's group.

Well, no-one would need to metagame at your table, because you fudge the dice. (Do PCs ever die in your campaign, and if so, when? When it's good drama? When it's on the basis of a failed save, since the players presumably roll those instead of you?)

I've played in games with more ruthless GMing, and that makes me metagame the numbers as best I can. My mental process goes something like, "This random encounter is beyond us at this level. The animal companion is going to die, but he's replaceable. If I withdraw now I can make it out... but if I debuff the enemy first we might be able to get the cleric out too. Now, the GM said the enemy was a fey, suggesting high Reflex and Will saves, but judging by the numbers so far he's reflavoring, using the stats for an ogre, and that means low Reflex save. So Grease to make him fall over has the best chance. But I might fail my concentration check. I'm at full HP, so if I intentionally provoke AoO with movement I'll survive on anything short of a crit, then I can cast it from 30 feet away with no failure chance, and that will mean the cleric can then move away without taking an AoO. Yes, that's my best chance of minimising casualties."

Whether that kind of thing is fun is a matter of taste.

The train of thought you've listed there does not seem like metagaming to me. Your character could easily go through a similar train of thought, ie:

This creature is beyond what we can manage. The animal will die, but we can get another one. If I withdraw now I can make it out... but if I debuff the enemy first we might be able to get the cleric out too. Now, this is a fey, so it should be agile, but judging by the creature's movements, it's far more clumsy than one would expect. So Grease to make him fall over has the best chance. However, I'm not convinced I can avoid his counterattack if I go for it. If I try to dodge around, I can probably take a hit, then I can cast it from far enough away that he can't stop my spell. Plus, distracting him will allow the cleric to get out without further risk. Yes, that's my best chance of minimising casualties.

I don't consider it metagaming if it's a conclusion your character could have reached. Issues arise when the decisions are made based on information the party is not privy to.

Also, I've just remembered a key point that I forgot to include in the OP. The combat was occurring at the bottom of a pit (from a Create Pit spell) that the other players could not see into.

Training bouts probably wouldn't use the combat rules IMO. That aside the problem is with the players acting like murderhobos with their characters - I wouldn't have a problem with observers realising that some NPC was under a haste effect (it should be visible in the way they move), I would have a problem with their deciding to murder a friendly NPC for a magic item. Try talking to them about that maybe?

It should be mentioned that this friendly NPC was part of a "Me vs You" style questline, where two friendly NPCs (including this one) had each asked the PCs to kill the other. Thus they had real motivation to kill him. However, before the information about the item they had been leaning towards killing the other NPC, since this one had seemed far more powerful and was a LG Paladin (thus inclined towards helping an entirely non-evil party). I have no objection to their choice, I wouldn't have written the quest if I wasn't fine with the Paladin dying, what I object to is the metagamey reasoning. If they had, for example, performed some kind of Spellcraft or Know(Arcana) check to see that he's under Haste, or used some other in game method for their characters to determine this information, I wouldn't mind as much.

As I say, this is just one example of a growing trend amongst this party of making decisions based on seeing me roll dice and using their knowledge of game mechanics to make in game decisions. This example is not isolated, I merely thought it would help to demonstrate the issue

TheCR155 wrote:

None of this information should have been freely available to these characters, and yet they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.

That seems like exactly the kind of information that should be available to characters. You fight someone and you get a feel for how skilled they are and whether they are moving unnaturally fast or not.

I prefer open-rolling by default. Players will usually assume you're fudging number if you roll in secret.

This is something I've never been clear on. Does Haste actually make a character appear *unnaturally* fast when an identical effect can occur by mundane means? The character was perfectly stationary for this combat, so the only indication of Haste was the increased attack speed, which can be easily replicated by simply being more skilled. Certainly if the character suddenly gets faster that's a tell, but the players have barely even seen this guy move. First time he got up off his chair was for the bout, and they've definitely never seen him fight. What in his motion would indicate that he's under Haste rather than, say, being a high level and having multiple instances of the Fleet feat?

I've been GMing Pathfinder games for a little while now, and got into the habit of concealing most of my rolls. I've never really done it for any particular reason, I've just found that hidden information tends to make the experience more immersive for players.

Recently I've started GMing for a group in which several of the players insisted that I roll out in the open. At first I agreed, I don't fudge rolls so it makes little difference from my perspective whether the players see me roll or not. However, those players have also begun using information from my rolls to find things out about enemies which their characters have no way of knowing, such as exact hit chances and (in the case of hostile NPCs) level, and are fully acting on this information.

This, I do object to, since from my perspective this is blatant metagaming. There have been some seriously egregious examples of this, such as deciding to kill a friendly NPC who was engaged in a training bout with one PC. On the first round he performed three attacks as part of a FAA, so they assumed he was too high a level for them to be able to deal with. However, on the next FAA I rolled a 7 on the first attack and missed, then a 10 on the second and hit (clearly indicating a Haste effect). Based on the character's class this told them that his level was 10 or under (thus they could likely win if they surprised him) and that he was wearing some kind of Haste giving item, which they wanted. None of this information should have been freely available to these characters, and yet they changed the course of an entire questline because of it.

As a result of this, I would much rather return to concealing my rolls, however I know this suggestion will be vehemently opposed by the players.

In short, my question is this. Is it unreasonable for me, as a GM to want to hide my rolls in order to avoid this kind of thing? If so, what other steps can I take in order to reduce the impact of metagaming?

EDIT: It should be noted that the combat occurred out of view of all characters except the one with which the NPC was fighting

Ok, this whole thing works waaaay differently to the way he's been playing it, he's been treating it like a whole separate PC which can act perfectly and independently just like another character. Can you guys point me towards the exact rulings which show that the GM controls the animals, they need tricks and the handle animal DC25 stuff, cos there's no way he's not going to argue with that if I just say it with no proof.

I've recently started GMing a Pathfinder game with a group of friends, one of whom knows the system far better than I do. He has made a druid character whose companion (a Stegosaurus) apparently has an AC of 24 at Lvl 1. While there seems to be nothing wrong with his working (+6 nat armor, +4 dex, +4 hide armor) this seems very overpowered compared to the rest of the party. Similarly, he claims that at Lvl 2 he can acquire a feat for his companion that gives it DR 4/-. This also seems somewhat OP (considering heavy adamantine armor gives DR 3/-), and I can't find any feat which could have this effect. Are there any rulings which contradict what he has said, and if not any advice on how to properly balance encounters for this power level vs the rest of the party, bearing in mind everyone else is a standard Lvl 1 character?