I'd say the first half was fair "you split the goblin in two" and the later half was not "and without a word stare down at the corpse."
I might even go so far as to say, "Graywand slices through the goblin's flesh as if it we're paper, splitting the goblin into two...
This is very much more my style too. If I want a player to embellish, I frequently will just ask them to instead of doing it for them. Some players might react to that by getting more involved, but most of the shy ones would assume that it's the GM's job and decide they just have to roll the dice and let the GM describe their reactions.
In a situation like this I would probably say "With that mighty blow, Graywand's sword splits the goblin's head in two, with gore spattering everywhere! The shock of the blow is such that all heads turn for a moment to gape at the spectacle. What does Graywand do now?"
Stuff like that.
Back on topic, we used to have a really bad cheater at our table. It's a shame, because he's one of my closest friends, but I think it was that closeness why he felt he could do stuff and get away with it.
No matter how small the gaming group was, no matter how tiny the table/play area was, he insisted on rolling on his "lucky folder", which he kept beside him, off the table, where almost nobody could see. He never rolled under a 17 when he did this. He'd pick the dice up as soon as it landed as well.
He would've gotten away with it if he didn't do it so often and attract such attention to himself. Any time their was a critically important die roll, he rolled plenty high enough to succeed and save the day. Every single time.
We got tired of it, and called him on it. Forced to roll out in the open. Coincidentally, his luck mysteriously plummeted, because he started rolling low numbers like the rest of us.
Wasn't just at rolling dice. He'd cheat all over the place in the system, and when called on it he'd feign ignorance, like "I didn't know those bonuses didn't stack..." stuff like that. The last straw was when he and his fiance he was bringing to the game decided to make half-dragon rogues, and completely ignored the level adjustment for making a half-dragon. He's seen the rest of us make plenty of level-adjusted characters, he knew good and well what that term was. Heck, we used to live together, and had many a conversation about character creation and game rules in general. Once again, cornered, he feigned ignorance, as if it's perfectly normal to start the game with a breath weapon, +8 STR(amongst other bonuses), +3 Natural AC etc. Even gave their characters wings if I recall, despite being medium sized.
How did we handle it? Unfortunately, he's not welcome at the table anymore. When games start up, he doesn't get invited.
I'd say the first half was fair "you split the goblin in two" and the later half was not "and without a word stare down at the corpse."
I might even go so far as to say, "Graywand slices through the goblin's flesh as if it we're paper, splitting the goblin into two...
This is very much more my style too. If I want a player to embellish, I frequently will just ask them to instead of doing it for them. Some players might react to that by getting more involved, but most of the shy ones would assume that it's the GM's job and decide they just have to roll the dice and let the GM describe their reactions.
In a situation like this I would probably say "With that mighty blow, Graywand's sword splits the goblin's head in two, with gore spattering everywhere! The shock of the blow is such that all heads turn for a moment to gape at the spectacle. What does Graywand do now?"
Stuff like that.
Different strokes, different folks. It's all about knowing your group's dynamic, like Clark said. Sometimes, the players are looking to the DM to describe what happened. If a player is descriptive about what they do, I wouldn't think to put words into his mouth. If I get the vaguest description possible "I rolled a X.", then quite frankly I prefer adding a little description aside from "You hit/miss. Next?" Admittedly, the description comes more from what happened to the target and not as much from the actual actions of the player. I may emphasize maybe they grunt, strain, swing heavily, nearly stumble, etc.
A side effect of his technique is often you will find the players becoming more descriptive in their attack/actions.
Said it better than I could.
actually what I get from Clarks post is he would only do that if you both were comfortable about it.
A side effect of his technique is often you will find the players becoming more descriptive in their attack/actions.
This right here.
Most players in my experience (DM of multiple system of over 25 years here) dont add a descriptive text to their actions and for most part dont care if you as a DM do. What does start to happen as you do it (as GM) is that they see it's OKAY to START being descriptive. After a while either they'll start adding thier own descriptive or they wont.
Said it better than I could.
A side effect of his technique is often you will find the players becoming more descriptive in their attack/actions.
And I responded that certain players will take this same approach as an invitation to let the GM continue to describe their character's actions. I know in my group I have one player who would just roll the dice and let me describe everything if I took this approach.
So, no one size fits all I suppose. But I'm going to err on the side of the player describing their character's actions. If want to encourage them, I have all sorts of opportunities to demonstrate by example with the host of NPCs I have to run anyway.
I was given an oversized D20 that lights up when it lands on a natural 20. This thing is about half the size of my fist. We don't have an issue with cheating, but it occurs to me that if potential cheating is an issue than insisting that players use one of these dice would be an interesing solution.
Good luck Palming that thing.
I was given an oversized D20 that lights up when it lands on a natural 20. This thing is about half the size of my fist. We don't have an issue with cheating, but it occurs to me that if potential cheating is an issue than insisting that players use one of these dice would be an interesing solution.
Good luck Palming that thing.
Wow, it has an internal battery and LED? Geez, I'd love to see the quality control procedures for checking the balance on that die...
Wow, it has an internal battery and LED? Geez, I'd love to see the quality control procedures for checking the balance on that die...I was given an oversized D20 that lights up when it lands on a natural 20. This thing is about half the size of my fist. We don't have an issue with cheating, but it occurs to me that if potential cheating is an issue than insisting that players use one of these dice would be an interesing solution.
Good luck Palming that thing.
It appears to be an internal battery with an LED. It appears as though it can be opened and the battery repalced, but I've not done so for fear of breaking it. The box said it was balanced, but I've never tested the theory.
It's designed as a novelty, but assuming all the information is true there is no reason it wouldn't work for a game.
Wow, it has an internal battery and LED? Geez, I'd love to see the quality control procedures for checking the balance on that die...I was given an oversized D20 that lights up when it lands on a natural 20. This thing is about half the size of my fist. We don't have an issue with cheating, but it occurs to me that if potential cheating is an issue than insisting that players use one of these dice would be an interesing solution.
Good luck Palming that thing.
It appears to be an internal battery with an LED. It appears as though it can be opened and the battery repalced, but I've not done so for fear of breaking it. The box said it was balanced, but I've never tested the theory.
It's designed as a novelty, but assuming all the information is true there is no reason it wouldn't work for a game.
Heh, I'm sure it's fine, but I'm sort of a stickler for accurate dice. I would probably want to test it out if it was used in one of my games. I have my doubts that a dice designed to have batteries replaced is actually that well balanced. Could be... but I would definitely want to test it out.
Heh, I'm sure it's fine, but I'm sort of a stickler for accurate dice. I would probably want to test it out if it was used in one of my games. I have my doubts that a dice designed to have batteries replaced is actually that well balanced. Could be... but I would definitely want to test it out.
Like I said it's mostly novelty, but even if it's not 100% balanced it's preferable to having a cheating player.
Like I said it's mostly novelty, but even if it's not 100% balanced it's preferable to having a cheating player.
Heh, I'm sure it's fine, but I'm sort of a stickler for accurate dice. I would probably want to test it out if it was used in one of my games. I have my doubts that a dice designed to have batteries replaced is actually that well balanced. Could be... but I would definitely want to test it out.
Well, yes... that's true.
This happened in a Palladium Fantasy game.
I had a rare treat to be a PC instead of the GM in this one.
The GM was very permissive as to character creation and allowed (practically begged) me to roll up a full grown adult Great Horned Dragon (one of the most powerful dragons in the system).
The conceit of the character was he was a dragon who was hiding his nature. One of his restrictions was he had to morph back to his true form for 15 minutes out of every 24 hours. Well one of the other players (ranger) was getting curious as to why mine would wander off every night (especially since the camp would have "problems" whenever I was gone) and decided to track me (My skill rolls were horrible, and the Rangers were spot on that night). He found the dragon and witnessed the transformation into his true form. The GM requested a Horror check from the ranger. My buddy (The ranger player) was sitting next to me he rolled a nat 20, looked at the GM who was at the other end of the table from us and said I rolled a 1. Sometimes the players will "cheat" for what will make things more interesting.
I don't believe I'm "anal" about that. ..... So perhaps I am anal about it. ;-P
I wasn't saying YOU SPECIFICALLY were anal about that. I don't know you. I'll let you tell me if you are or aren't. .:)
I mean "people" are. I don't know if you are in that group or not that lets hard and fast preconceived rules prevent fun. Many of those hard and fast rules have a good basis for existing, but like every rule can be judiciously disregarded.
I read most of the thread, skimmed the last bit... Biggest thing I see is this. A lot of people are suggesting rolling out in the open or leaving on the table for the GM to verify. The problem with this, is if I roll a 1, as a player I just have to pick up my die, say I got a 10 (or some other lower but believable number) and hey, look at that, I don't get screwed by failing (especially if using the fumble deck)... Even if the GM has you re-roll it, you've avoided the penalty and might even succeed on the roll.
Really, it comes down to the people you choose to play with.
Your group, sir, needs my "death penalty" rules (and by that I mean a really severe sanction):
1. If you pick up a die to hide a result or cheat then it is automatically a miss or fumble, my discretion. Only used in extreme cases. Legitimate accidents are re-rolls.
2. The other is if a player not in the situation calls out a solution or an action, the player who is actually in that situation CANNOT take that action, no matter how reasonable or if they were just about to say it.
Example: PCs 1 and 2 are away from the party sneaking into the lair of the wizard while PCs 3-6 are in the marketplace distracting guards. We handle the distract group first. Then when we are done we handle the sneaking group. While PCs 1 and 2 are in their "encounter" the players for PCs 3-6 can't help or offer advice. They can watch and cheer, but can't call out actions or suggest spells or anything. Before we start the "encounter" for PCs 1 and 2, I remind players of 3-6 that they can't say anything or suggest solutions for 1&2. If they break that rule, and player for PC 4 shouts out "use your wand of XYZ!" Automatically, the PC cannot do that. By the way, the reverse is also outlawed, in other words you can't yell out stupid moves or errors to preclude them from making mistakes, on pain of me forcing them to do it.
I have only had to use the death penalty sanction maybe a handful of times in years and years of gaming, but every new group knows the rule. I remind them of the rule before a situation where some of the PCs are NOT in the encounter. Believe me, this rule "polices itself"--the PLAYERS get more mad about it than I do.
Who do this? Because players want to have the fun of solving the problem themselves. They HATE it when the knowitall player yells out the answer they are working on.
It works great. :)
I was given an oversized D20 that lights up when it lands on a natural 20. This thing is about half the size of my fist. We don't have an issue with cheating, but it occurs to me that if potential cheating is an issue than insisting that players use one of these dice would be an interesing solution.
Good luck Palming that thing.
One of my players brought one of those along for our Mutants and Masterminds/DC Adventures game. I don't remember him being especially good or bad at anything that night, but the dice didn't show up again next session.
2. The other is if a player not in the situation calls out a solution or an action, the player who is actually in that situation CANNOT take that action, no matter how reasonable or if they were just about to say it.
"Good luck guys, DON'T DIE!" *watches in horror as PCs 1-2 explode in horrible deathly explosions*
j/k Seems pretty good. Honestly, harsher than my group would ever need, but I've been in groups where it may have come into play. One other thing a few of our players do, is since most have a stack of books they bring with them, they roll the die on the book (which is in plain view, none of this sneaky special folder stuff). If the die falls off, you roll it back onto the book. We've re-rolled nat 20's that fell off, and nat 1's that fell off, as long as its consistently applied, its all good, and keeps the dice in an expected place.
In my earliest days in the hobby the group I played in had a similar issue. The DM simply made the announcement that all roles had to be made in plain view of everyone. (Center of the table) He never used the word cheating to prevent folks from getting defensive, just said he wanted to try out a method he read about somewhere. Sure, a couple of times during the first few games there were tiffs where he had to be firm, (Not allowing dice results to count) but after a time it just became expected.
Hope this helps....
"Hey guys, check out our awesome new dice tray!"
"I thought it would be more interactive if from now on, we rolled into the tray in the middle of the table, casino-style!"
I roll dice in front of my players. If you keep the action moving fast enough, they can't do much to reverse engineer the numbers, and it engenders them with a sense of fair-play really quickly. If they can see that you're not cheating, they are less likely to cheat.
Also, consider adding a hero or luck point system. I actually give my players 1d6s they can add after the roll. Why cheat when you can just pump bonuses into crucial rolls when it counts? And it gives me another reward vector to control, so I can condition them to avoid metagaming and all sort of other goodness. Behaviorism FTW!
"Hey guys, check out our awesome new dice tray!"
"I thought it would be more interactive if from now on, we rolled into the tray in the middle of the table, casino-style!"
That might be interesting, set up the middle of the table with a small box and roll craps style, where the dice have to hit the far wall of the box to count. I don't usually play face to face so for me cheating at dice is something I've only seen with board games and pretty much all the fun playing monopoly I had growing up was through all of our family trying to cheat just to make the game go faster!
@Dwarven Insight: I can only repeat some of the excellent suggestions already made, but I would like to ask why the player cheats.
And I have to admit that I sometimes do it too, of course when I am the GM it isn´t really considered cheating, but when I am a player it is.
The reasons for doing so vary greatly, but to list some:
-not wanting to be a burden: it happens often enough that the whole group will have to do a skill check, if everyone passes it´s fine the adventure will continue. But if one person fails, thins either go bad (sneaking into the enemy fortress) or it just costs time. Now I usually don´t cheat to be the best, or to show everybody how awesome my character is - I don´t have to roll (well) for that. It usually happens in situations where my character should stay behind while the group goes ahead - and while my presence is usually not critical for the success of the operation, if I am not present ... it´s boring.
I am not actually trying to defend my ocassional behaviour, but to give some insight into my player cheating. I am not proud of it and it actually happens quite rarely these days, but well it happens.
The other reason to sometimes cheat on a roll, or miscalcuate a result is boredom, unwilling to really calcuate the result I name a number thats about in the right area. It happens sometimes when I am really not interested in the adventure, but well, I play with my friends so.....
I avoid the issue by boosting some abilities as high as I can, sometimes high enough to almost eleminate any chance of failure. (To be fair all this happens in a system called DSA (german RPG Das Schwarze Auge) and I am quite bored with the system as a whole).
So if you want to prevent behaviour such as mine I would suggest the following:
-get a copy of the characters before the game starts: even if you never actually use them to check their numbers it will prevent cheating from calculation errors (you can also look for some GM sheets where your players can fill in all their relevant modifiers)
-Players should roll on the table and the die should lie until all the attacks are resolved - it´s easier if you, he GM, do the same, even if it takes away some of your freedom to cheat.
using differently coloured dice can help you too (red d20 and d6 for the first attack, blue ones for the second ...)
-as Mr. Peterson suggested try to shift the blame for bad die rolls from the player to an NPC, if the player doesn´t feel like he is the problem he is less likely to cheat out of false shame
-This is a difficult one: Don´t always call for a roll the game has rules for even if the characters have skills in these areas: sometimes it´s easier to let the PCs roleplay someting and just say the succeed or fail based on their performance (with the skill bonus in mind). If there is no real penalty for failing (climbing over a 4 ft. wall) let them succeed and describe it based on their abilities.
-CHEAT: When a player roll bad, maybe two or three turns in a row, its ok to cheat, maybe thats the perfect moment for the monster to impale his foot with his his spear, or to slip on the PCs spilled blood.
Unless your players have their pride based on beating each module, the harder the better, usually players won´t mind if they even undestand whats happening - after all you could roll all those nat. 1s behind your GM screen.
Ok I am ready to be flamed now.
But whether or not you agree with my particular approach, the end suggestion is the same--build a team/table dynamic that makes rolling a group event and failure acceptable and the desire to cheat is diminishedClark
Understood. I'm not trying to be critical, I was genuinely surprised that your post, which came across as such a solid, GM-savvy post, contained something that struck me like a splinter in my eye when it comes to what I've always considered the most sacrosanct GM/Player "contract."
I don't believe I'm "anal" about that. But in your mind, maybe I am. I have to honestly say that if you did that for MY character, even if the table was rocking and rolling and having a grand old time, I would very politely and quietly ask you to please not play my character for me. I take my role playing very seriously, and I'm not kidding, if I want my character to sneer down at a fallen foe, I'll do the sneering down at the fallen foe, thank you very much. So perhaps I am anal about it. ;-P
I would´t call you anal, but I have´t to say that I actually handle it quite often like Mr. Peterson.
Its just much more rewarding for the players to hear, "Your tridet puntuates the trolls neck, a split second later your trident discharges his lightling into the the beast, cocking him from the inside".
I use this "tactic" for two reasons:
It keeps the my players interested, they rarely feel the need to describe attack no. 17 in the fight in any detail and since they rarely know if the enemy is close to death or has a lot of hit points left, they really can´t describe the result themselves.
On the other hand if I do not describe the result of their rolls, combats end up like this: "I attack my troll, 17 did it hit, ok 12 damage. I attack my zombie, 15, 5 damage ......."
You can feel blessed if your players "still" have the urge to roleplay such details.
On the other hand, outside of combat (including traps sometimes) I usually ask the players what their charactes are doing, and let them describe what they "want" to do, of course sometimes I have to stop them if the action they are attemting is impossible.
One of the groups I played with a few years ago had a chronic cheater and we had a few different ways of dealing with him. The standard one was the GM would just add an extra monster for him. Whichever monster he charged and critted right out of the gate (His last name is still a verb for huge round one crits with us), the gm wouldn't really keep track of. The guy would tell the gm some big number, pretend to write it down and roll, then tell him a bigger number right back. Since this was a system with an active dodge roll, every few sessions when the gm really got annoyed he would throw out a damage source big enough to one-shot the guy and make eye contact with the person sitting beside the cheater who would then dramatically wince, say "ouch! do you dodge it?" and watch his roll. He died every time.
I think he finally got the idea and changed his tune when we started playing 3.5 and insisted he play with the baseball sized d20 we bought him. ;)
Banpai, my concern expressed about the GM style in question was not about the GM describing "the action." If you wanted to describe a hit my character applied to an NPC in the way you describe, I have no problem with that. Be as descriptive as you like. Describe it in the most gory detail possible.
But don't then tell me how my character reacts to it. My issue wasn't about describing the action it was about describing the action and THEN describing my character's reaction. So your example isn't the same since you didn't say anything like "with a sly grin you wipe the blood off your blade and wink at the BBEG."
That's all.
Banpai, my concern expressed about the GM style in question was not about the GM describing "the action." If you wanted to describe a hit my character applied to an NPC in the way you describe, I have no problem with that. Be as descriptive as you like. Describe it in the most gory detail possible.
But don't then tell me how my character reacts to it. My issue wasn't about describing the action it was about describing the action and THEN describing my character's reaction. So your example isn't the same since you didn't say anything like "with a sly grin you wipe the blood off your blade and wink at the BBEG."
That's all.
Wonderfull, so we agree thats it´s ok and possibly rewarding to be descripitive as long as I don´t cross the line to describing anything more detailed like "he drops to the ground " (falling prone) or maybe describing how the rogue manages to dodge/escape the deadly trap with that nat. 20 reflex save.
I really should make notes ^^
|
Sometimes the players will "cheat" for what will make things more interesting.
If I had been that player, I probably would have just said 'I fail the check' without rolling. :)
Actually, that's precisely what I DID once. My 1st level elven scout, all alone in the dungeon, opens a door to see a vargouille flying about.
When the DM asked 'what do you do?' my immediate response is 'scream like a little girl and slam the door'. :)
I had a player in a group I ran several years ago that would hone in on the creature's AC. 14 Misses? ok. 17. Hit? ok. 15? Hit? Monster's AC is 15, got it! From that moment forward, for the rest of the combat, he miraculously never missed again. And any round he hit, once I knew he knew the monster's AC, it also hit. He missed, it missed. Once he figured that out, he stopped calling out the numbers he wanted.
My typical approach with roll-fudgers is the same. If you never miss me, I never miss you. Players that I trust their rolls, my rolls are likewise legitimate.
Hmph....my players like when i describe action, as long as i don't roleplay their characters...desciribing their movements during combat is perfectly ok though.
Again, describing the "action" is fine. Describing my character's REaction is not. I don't know how to make that more clear. I suppose there are all sorts of GM styles out there, and I'm sure there are some great GMs who occasionally describe a character's reaction and the game is still all fun and happy.
But when you say "you split the orc in two, and then stare down at the corpse with a sneer" you've crossed a line I personally don't like. That's all. If I want my character to look down and sneer, I'll do the looking down and sneering. Not the GM. At least that is my personal preference. Perhaps my character concept is one where a fallen foe is immediately forgotten as my character instantly zeroes in on a new target. That's my call, at least the way I play it.
See Hama, in my opinion telling me my character is sneering down at a slain corpse IS ROLEPLAYING my character. I don't see how it is anything but that.
|
I never said i would add the sneering thing...that is ridiculous. I would describe the six seconds of combat that led to you dropping your opponent, and most probably, there would be no splitting in two. And then, you could add the sneer if you wanted to.
I'm just curious, where did i ever write that i roleplay my player's characters reactions? My post specifically says that i describe actions, not roleplay their characters.
"Your tridet puntuates the troll...discharges his lightling into the the beast, cocking him from the inside".
8-|
ROFLMAO!
A father and son approach a grisly scene: where a man once lay, now only a shredded gore remains. "Papa," says the child to his father, "what is this?" As the father hammers in a sign next to the remains, he replies simply, "that is the reason we are here son."
As they walk away, their grim task accomplished, the sun sets behind a nearby mountain, its dimming beams of light casting the newly placed sign into forgotten shadows.
When morning light comes, travelers of the mountain trails will be greeted by one of many warning signs, this one reading: "Don't cock the trolls."
I never said i would add the sneering thing...that is ridiculous. I would describe the six seconds of combat that led to you dropping your opponent, and most probably, there would be no splitting in two. And then, you could add the sneer if you wanted to.
I'm just curious, where did i ever write that i roleplay my player's characters reactions? My post specifically says that i describe actions, not roleplay their characters.
I didn't say you did. My comments were referring to Clark's comment quoted here: "Your flashing sword slashes the orc in two, and you step over his fallen body, looking down at his corpse without a sound".
When I objected to this, you responded that you describe the action, so I responded to YOU by explaining that the action is fine. Clark in his example above, CLEARLY is describing a Player Character's REaction.
|
2. The other is if a player not in the situation calls out a solution or an action, the player who is actually in that situation CANNOT take that action, no matter how reasonable or if they were just about to say it.
Player 1: "Hey, Frodo! Kill Gollum, drink your cure potions, and get Faramir's Rangers to lend you a Giant Eagle to get to Mount Doom!"
GM: "Hmmmm, no, I think you'll be walking into Mordor, with Gollum, on 1 hp."
Player 2: "God, Leroy, you're a f*$@ing tool!"
I had a player in a group I ran several years ago that would hone in on the creature's AC. 14 Misses? ok. 17. Hit? ok. 15? Hit? Monster's AC is 15, got it! From that moment forward, for the rest of the combat, he miraculously never missed again. And any round he hit, once I knew he knew the monster's AC, it also hit. He missed, it missed. Once he figured that out, he stopped calling out the numbers he wanted.
My typical approach with roll-fudgers is the same. If you never miss me, I never miss you. Players that I trust their rolls, my rolls are likewise legitimate.
The group I play in tends to call out enemy ACs during combat once we figure it out. But we do it more to speed things up... Get our actions done before it's our turn. You hear plenty of...
DM: PC1 you're up.
PC1: I move to here to flank, take your attack of opportunity, and I miss.
But then there's plenty of...
DM: PC2 you're up.
PC2: I 5 ft. Step and do 17 pts of dmg.
Now, it's possible that some fudging is being done but I don't know. We do try to keep each other honest by watching each others rolls from time to time but in general we just go with it. Usually the only time attention is called to rolls is if someone rolls a 20 and points and makes some kinda "oh yeah!" comment.
I had a player in a group I ran several years ago that would hone in on the creature's AC. 14 Misses? ok. 17. Hit? ok. 15? Hit? Monster's AC is 15, got it!
The cheating part is ok, but I fail to see how players honing in on monster's ACs are bad. As a fact, I find it's less of a burden on me. Maybe I'm blessed to play with an honorable group, but I find it nice when they're like "lessee, 14 on the die, +4 to hit, +1 from bless, -4 for <insert reason here>.. Darn, only a 15, it's 16 isn't it? I miss.
I had a player in a group I ran several years ago that would hone in on the creature's AC. 14 Misses? ok. 17. Hit? ok. 15? Hit? Monster's AC is 15, got it!The cheating part is ok, but I fail to see how players honing in on monster's ACs are bad. ...
Depends on the group. In general, I agree with you that there's nothing really wrong with it, certainly not in the same league as cheating. However, some groups that are heavy into the roleplaying would prefer to have the mechanics stay in the background as much as possible, and find it jarring to their sense of immersion when players are constantly referring to game terms like HPs, AC, class levels, etc., rather than talking in character and reacting to what their character sees as opposed to what the numbers show them. For example, they would prefer to hear them say something like: "I swing mightily and miss by a hair. Can one of our potent speallcasters grant me a magical boon to help me deal with this fiend?", rather than "I got a 14 and miss by one, I need to get a natural 10 or better to hit this thing. Can somebody get some buffs up so I don't need to roll so high?" Just a playstyle thing, but important to some people.
Inspect their dice. They may get creative and buy cheaters dice.
Chessex Pearlescent 7 piece Blue Cheater's Dice Set
Chessex Pearlescent 7 piece Red Cheater's Dice Set
Chessex Pearlescent 7 piece Purple Cheater's Dice Set
I had a player in a group I ran several years ago that would hone in on the creature's AC. 14 Misses? ok. 17. Hit? ok. 15? Hit? Monster's AC is 15, got it!The cheating part is ok, but I fail to see how players honing in on monster's ACs are bad. As a fact, I find it's less of a burden on me. Maybe I'm blessed to play with an honorable group, but I find it nice when they're like "lessee, 14 on the die, +4 to hit, +1 from bless, -4 for <insert reason here>.. Darn, only a 15, it's 16 isn't it? I miss.
Oh, I don't mind Honing in on AC. I think it's unavoidable, eventually the players will learn that 16's and over hit, and 15's and lower don't in a given fight.
It was the fact that once the player knew the AC, he never missed again. And I think he only allowed himself to miss before the honing so he knew what the acceptable result range would be. No point in rolling only 18-20 if a 13 might hit also, so he could have a more "realistic" spread of die rolls, and by missing a few early on, even point out "hey, I missed, how is that cheating?"
I had a player in a group I ran several years ago that would hone in on the creature's AC. 14 Misses? ok. 17. Hit? ok. 15? Hit? Monster's AC is 15, got it!The cheating part is ok, but I fail to see how players honing in on monster's ACs are bad. As a fact, I find it's less of a burden on me. Maybe I'm blessed to play with an honorable group, but I find it nice when they're like "lessee, 14 on the die, +4 to hit, +1 from bless, -4 for <insert reason here>.. Darn, only a 15, it's 16 isn't it? I miss.
I generally give my players the AC once they've honed it in to within 2-3 points. Especially if they're a mass of mooks. A boss they might have to figure it out exactly. Then when a player announces a roll, someone else can say "Yeah, the AC is X, so that hits it."
Am I the only GM who applies situational AC modifiers during a battle? My NPCs and/or monsters sometimes fight defensively, sometimes have feats or abilities that allow them to modify their AC, or sometimes have magic items that provide temporary boosts to AC.
So in one of my fights if a player decides a 16 is always going to hit, they are going to be frequently disappointed.
Especially if they cheat to get that 16.
Am I the only GM who applies situational AC modifiers during a battle? My NPCs and/or monsters sometimes fight defensively, sometimes have feats or abilities that allow them to modify their AC, or sometimes have magic items that provide temporary boosts to AC.
So in one of my fights if a player decides a 16 is always going to hit, they are going to be frequently disappointed.
Especially if they cheat to get that 16.
I almost never fight defensively, although If I were a buff-class caster that ended up in melee and knew I didn't have a snake's chance on a plane, I might. My monsters when I GM rarely--no, make that never---do. The to-hit penalty usually turns me off.
Situational modifiers like acrobatics checks, spells, etc, sometimes. To be brutally honest about my personal GM style, combat is my weakness, I'm a Narrator and a Story Teller.
Am I the only GM who applies situational AC modifiers during a battle? My NPCs and/or monsters sometimes fight defensively, sometimes have feats or abilities that allow them to modify their AC, or sometimes have magic items that provide temporary boosts to AC.
So in one of my fights if a player decides a 16 is always going to hit, they are going to be frequently disappointed.
Especially if they cheat to get that 16.
It depends on the enemy, but an intelligent enemy I run will definitely fight defensively if the situation calls for it. You won't see every enemy in my games doing so, but ones who are skilled/intelligent enough will fight to their best advantage.
Developer
|
Am I the only GM who applies situational AC modifiers during a battle? My NPCs and/or monsters sometimes fight defensively, sometimes have feats or abilities that allow them to modify their AC, or sometimes have magic items that provide temporary boosts to AC.
So in one of my fights if a player decides a 16 is always going to hit, they are going to be frequently disappointed.
Especially if they cheat to get that 16.
Everyone in my Legacy of Fire game