Is the armor class of a monster a secret during combat.
It's sounds like a faire question...
Do you keep the AC of a monster A secret for your players ?
In my group it is but now after all these years I start to ask my self why?
Is it good or bad for the game that players know the AC during combat?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I wouldn't explicitly tell the AC, but if the players note that a 24 hits and a 23 doesn't, I don't see a reason to somehow further obfuscate the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. There's no particular reason for a player to know the Armor Class of a monster until it is tested. They can draw their own conclusions from that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep it a secret on round 1. Part of the game is a resource management issue, that I want them to make those decisions from a POV with clues, but not concrete information. Since most buffs should be cast on round 1, sometimes round 2, I withhold the concrete information and give in-character queues about the difficulty. By round 3 though, unless a player is cheating, there is no value in withholding that information. Also, as a GM, in later rounds I conserve my mental energy for describing killing blows, and I don't want to spend time/energy describing basic observational clues about the monster (unless the situation is changing and I want to convey that).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player: "What's his armor like?"
GM: "You can see Half Plate and Heavy Shield."
Player: "So my 18 misses..."
GM: "Actually you hit, so what's the damage?"
Player: "6 HP damage. Wait... I hit with an 18? Something's weird here, the monster should have at least a 20 with Half Plate and a Heavy Shield - did he charge or something? No? I'm going to total defense for a round or two - somebody get some 'detect' spells going. I do a Perception check, and a Sense Motive... Is this guy enchanted or something?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my home games, I don't. But after a round or two, the players are able to figure it out (or at least a rough idea) based on their dice rolls anyway. Which is natural. After sparring with an opponent for some time, you'll get an idea of how skilled or how armored is it and adjust you tactics accordingly.
In my play-by-post games, I give the ACs because it speeds things up and the players can complete their posts without needing to wait for me to confirm if they hit or not.
I never give numbers to my players.
They need to figure out on their own things like, "should I power attack or go for accuracy?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on how much you care about the suspension-of-disbelief challenge. Any time you convert a situation into the numbers of game mechanics, you've just turned your game into an exercise of rolling dice and adding numbers. Obviously rolling dice and adding numbers are what we're doing, but the more you can distract players from that fact, the easier it is for them to be "in the story" and not "at the table".
Every opponent entry shows a breakdown of what its AC is. I try to use that and how much they missed a hit by to describe why their blow was ineffective:
"Your axe bounces off the lizard's tough hide"
"The creature deftly ducks under your swing"
"Your arrow seems to shy away from the robed figure just before it would have impacted."
Observant players can use clues like these tactically by trying power attack, bluff, or dispel magic respectively to improve their chances to hit.
Telling a player that all of these opponents have an AC of 20 is boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's generally a good habit to not give out the statistics of most monsters. When the players know the exact ac or hp of a creature it invites metagaming.
Not telling players also gives the gm more flexibility to "fudge" the numbers up or down to keep the combat enjoyable for everyone without being obvious that it's what you're doing.
If the players can figure it out based on combat then that's fine.
If you want players to be able to know, then knowledge checks make sense. Alternatively, I have seen a rule that allows a character to make a perception check to determine an observed opponent's base attack bonus. That also seems fine to me.
IMO you shouldn't just give the information away, but its not unreasonable to allow players to make checks to determine it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I primarily GM play-by-Post games, and I find that giving the player’s enemy stats keeps combats moving along rather than killing momentum.
So I’m going to say that it depends on the format you’re using to run the game.
I primarily GM play-by-Post games, and I find that giving the player’s enemy stats keeps combats moving along rather than killing momentum.
So I’m going to say that it depends on the format you’re using to run the game.
This one. Also: table variation (even PbP virtual tables).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
depends a lot on your players.
Some players will spend hours (over many games) trying to calculate what the OPTIMUM attack number is (and then often just roll a "2" anyway), and you really don't want to take that "fun" practice from them.
But then other players can't remember what the goblins AC was from their first arrow to their second when "rapid shooting"... and so even printing the AC on the monster pawn wouldn't matter to them - they'd still have to have you tell them "yes, you hit him with the 19, just like you did when you rolled the 6 so roll damage again. Yes, the D8.".
It's kind of like the player that maxis out his spellcraft and has to ask each time someone casts a spell -
GM; "The enemy evoker waves his hands and speaks an arcane phrase as a fan of fire springs from his has hands for 15' before him, doing - "
Player 1: "Can I Spellcraft that? I totally saw him cast it right?"
GM: " - ah, yeah. Roll a Spellcraft."
Player 1: "16. So I got it if it was a 1st level spell..."
Player 2: "but you're 20 feet away, so you would have to subtract 1."
Player 1: "That's only on Perception! not on Spellcraft!"
GM: Picking up 3d4 and rolling a 1, 2, and 3. "As the sheet of heat and flames engulfs you, you take 7 point damage" (said to Player 2), "3 if you can dodge away with a DC 14 Reflex save."
Player 2: "Third level Evoker, with a +3 on the casting stat... unless he has Spell Focus..."
Player 1: "Did I get the Spellcraft?"
GM: sigh...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't tell my players the AC of NPCs, unless someone hit it when it becomes obvious.
Telling players beforehand can give away vital information they don't have yet. It allows them to guess who is who (or what role), or if something is not real.
Once players are familiar with your monsters, unexpected AC numbers will tell them different things, too. It is fun for many players to figure out the details.
When the players encounter a monster, they receive a free Knowledge roll of the appropriate type, i.e., Knowledge(nature) for animals, Knowledge(religion) for undead, Knowledge(local) for humanoids, etc. If they roll high enough, DC 10+CR for most monsters, then they receive some information about that kind of monster. The monster's AC can be in that information. "You recognize the approaching man as a Talon Fist mercenary. You say you want to know his defenses? His plate armor appears unenchanted, he seems nimble, and you recognize the Ring of Protection on his hand. AC 22. And the cloak he wears ..."
If they roll low, or ask for other information, then I see no reason to tell them the AC. Let them deduce it from how well their attacks hit.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
When the players encounter a monster, they receive a free Knowledge roll of the appropriate type, i.e., Knowledge(nature) for animals, Knowledge(religion) for undead, Knowledge(local) for humanoids, etc. If they roll high enough, DC 10+CR for most monsters, then they receive some information about that kind of monster. The monster's AC can be in that information. "You recognize the approaching man as a Talon Fist mercenary. You say you want to know his defenses? His plate armor appears unenchanted, he seems nimble, and you recognize the Ring of Protection on his hand. AC 22. And the cloak he wears ..."
If they roll low, or ask for other information, then I see no reason to tell them the AC. Let them deduce it from how well their attacks hit.
I'd give my players AC info if they ever asked for it, but for me the run down is usually:
-What immunities/resistances does it have?-Does it have SR?
-Does it have DR and what penetrates it?
-Special attacks?
Probably influenced by the fact that the casters tend to also be the ones with Knowledge skills asking.
I let players pinpoint AC via experimentation. I do the same with SR, sometimes even saying things like "you feel a feeble resistance to your magic" if they can't fail the SR check. Sometimes it matters, say with a 13th level full caster in the same party as a 13th level paladin against an SR12 monster. The paladin has to roll(s 2+), the full caster really doesn't.
Rolls are better for tension if the player's don't know the result until you tell them. I just say "roll a Reflex save" and then tell them if they're successful.
When it comes to AC, they may eventually hone in on the exact number, which I find lame; so I have (in the past) had a D3 represent a -1, +0, +1 to attack rolls that were hidden, and I'd just pick them off in order to obfuscate the exact ACs of opponents when there were a lot of them. That said, it's too much work and I felt bad when I took away a successful attack.
Instead, you can obfuscate the ACs with Fighting Defensively, Total Defense, and using the Combat Facing rules if you want; as the various +2, +4, -2, -5 nature of it makes it much more "exciting" and hard to track whether their AC is 14 or 17.. if that makes sense.
I will give hints in some form on things like "This is below your skill level", "This is seems like it'll be challenging", "That Ork is wearing very heavy armor and carrying a shield."
___
Long story short, I hide as many numbers and rules from the players as I can really; and I instead try to guide them RP descriptions and whatnot. Honestly, if it didn't take the fun of the game away I'd rather roll for the players behind the screen too, so they find out if they were successful only when I tell them; but I think it would be less fun for the players then.