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?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess nothing in the rules requires the GM to tell you what the total result is, but it seems pretty weird to me. Is she rolling behind a screen? If so the monster's bonus shouldn't be revealed anyway. That seems like a much better solution.
That said, if you Raise with Reactive, all you're sacrificing is a possible attack of opportunity that might not have been triggered anyway, and you retain the AC bonus against any other attacks, so it doesn't seem like the end of the world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
There is no reason you have to know that the ability makes a difference, it is a powerful ability that outright increases the difficulty of you being hit until your turn comes around again. Also you couldn't have done a shield block without a raised shield anyway, and if your shield was raised there is no point to reactive shield (remembering that you would regain your reaction at the start of your next turn so shield block is just plain off the table until past then when you would have to raise the shield again anyway).
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.
She is correct. I have no idea why "fair" comes into it, it is a conflict resolution tool. The GM isn't playing against the players, it isn't a competition. It stops people from metagaming "nah, I won't raise my shield against that dragon claw attack. It only rolled a 1 no need"
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.
Correct, because it isn't necessary to the player.
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?
Not technically right, just outright right. Reactive shield is great, the GM isn't secretive they are playing the default way. It is as much about roleplay as it is about it being a game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule book doesn't say "hey GM, don't say the total of monster's attack rolls." so it's not "playing the default way" for the GM to elect to keep track of their players' characters' AC values and just say if an attack missed/hit/critically hit.
In fact, in the example of play included in the book when it covers the GM rolling an attack against a PC it says this:
"Erik: Does a 20 hit you?"
True that is the example, however when going to the check section.
"You call out your result to the GM and they will let you know if it is a success, failure, or otherwise. While you might learn the exact DC through trial and error, DCs sometimes change, so asking the GM whether a check is successful is the best way to determine whether or not you have met or exceeded the DC."
This doesn't read as "you know the DC" this reads as "the GM will let you know if it is a success, failure or otherwise" and says you "might learn the DC through trial and error" and says that "asking a GM whether a check is successful is the best way" meaning that asking for the exact number isn't the base assumption.
Remembering that ACs are a type of DC.
These are all things that the rulebook does not, and should not imho, codify. It is the responsibility of each gaming group to decide how much "information sharing" there is between the GM and the Players.
Think of it as the TTRPG Social Contract: The party agrees to abide by the ruling of the GM and the GM agrees to do their best to interpret and implement the rules in a way that is fun for everyone involved.
This is what makes those massive "Meta Gaming" threads from a few weeks ago so silly. By and large it is up to each group to decide how much information is really shared during a game. Some groups ignore secret rolls in their entirety. My group certainly did until trying them out in PF2 and discovering that we prefer Secret rolls to be Secret.
When I GM I largely call out exactly what a Monster rolled to hit as in the example of play. "Hey man, does a 20 hit you?"
Given enough rolls it won't be hard for a party to glean what the monsters to hit is, the same as figuring out a monsters AC by process of elimination. These are things that I am fine with and so are my group.
If you have a problem with how a GM runs their game as the OP has then you have to take that up with them. Explain that you do not enjoy the game being run that way. Then work out a compromise or if they don't want to budge, and you just can't tolerate the way they run the game, don't play. The agreement has to be there for everyone to have fun.
|
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?
The book doesn't say that the GM must or should say the dice result they got, correct. It also doesn't say the opposite, that the GM must or should keep it secret.
In practice a good GM plays a bit with that ambiguity. Sometimes the GM doesn't want to give away yet how dangerous a monster is, so just asks "hey what's your AC? Okay, the monster didn't hit that". Other times the GM specifically does want to signal that. If you hear "does a 35 hit you?" at level 1, that's the GM giving you a clue it's time to RUN.
In your particular case, you have a stake in knowing whether it's worth using your Reactive Shield reaction or keeping your reaction in case an attack of opportunity comes up.
At that point, as a GM you should consider whether you're playing adversarial or not. Playing adversarial is not recommended, this is a game with friends after all.
You don't necessarily have to give out numbers in this case as GM; if you say something like "the monster barely hits you", that's a clue to you that raising your shield might be enough to turn it into a miss. While "he brutally rakes you" probably means that raising the shield isn't cover the difference.
Another principle of GMing is that in general you don't want to GM in a negative way where you're constantly preventing the characters from using the things they're good at. So while your GM is technically correct that they don't have to give you the number, it can drift into an adversarial and un-fun playstyle. If it gets to the point where you basically don't want to take this ability anymore because the GM makes it useless, you know that a line has been crossed.
Well, an attack roll isn't a action with the Secret trait, so in theory it should be known, but even the secret trait states:
"The GM can choose to make any check secret, even if it’s not usually rolled secretly. Conversely, the GM can let you roll any check yourself, even if that check would usually be secret. Some groups find it simpler to have players roll all secret checks and just try to avoid acting on any out-of-character knowledge, while others enjoy the mystery."
So I guess it is up to your GM in the long run.
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.
The rule book doesn't say "hey GM, don't say the total of monster's attack rolls." so it's not "playing the default way" for the GM to elect to keep track of their players' characters' AC values and just say if an attack missed/hit/critically hit.
In fact, in the example of play included in the book when it covers the GM rolling an attack against a PC it says this:
"Erik: Does a 20 hit you?"
True that is the example, however when going to the check section.
"You call out your result to the GM and they will let you know if it is a success, failure, or otherwise. While you might learn the exact DC through trial and error, DCs sometimes change, so asking the GM whether a check is successful is the best way to determine whether or not you have met or exceeded the DC."
This doesn't read as "you know the DC" this reads as "the GM will let you know if it is a success, failure or otherwise" and says you "might learn the DC through trial and error" and says that "asking a GM whether a check is successful is the best way" meaning that asking for the exact number isn't the base assumption.
Remembering that ACs are a type of DC.
You are actually covering the opposite case from the example in the book. In your example, the player is actively attacking or checking a skill and gives his adjusted roll value to the GM, who tells him whether it is a fumble/miss/hit/critical.
The quoted example from the book exactly parallels the case that is the subject of the thread, in which an NPC under the GM's control is attacking a PC, so the GM should be telling the player the adjusted roll value and the player then reveals the fumble/miss/hit/critical result (and may, before doing that, take a reaction that alters the result). And since the PC is the target, the player already knows the relevant AC or DC.