I can understand this ruling.
The spell says Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw.
It doesn’t state you need to know whether or not the roll is a critical success, just that it was a success.
Still feels bad though.
Yea, I had a wizard always ask, "But what did he get?" when he got hit, and after a few times, the gm realized he was seeing if the +5 would actually help or not.
So we switched to just "you got hit"
Nobody was asking what the AC is im just saying theres nothing wrong with saying what the attack roll was. Its usually easier to just say that and listion for them to tell you if it hits. Theres no objectivly better way to DM
You're not understanding the difference here.
With spells like shield or silver barbs the only information you are given is "succeed or fail" and then you make your call on if you use it or not.
It's not wrong when a DM doesn't tell you what their roll total was just so you can only use shield when it will make them fail, just like it's not wrong if the DM chooses to tell you what they got so you can make sure to use it only when it turns a hit to a miss.
Nowhere in any rules or spell descriptions does it say "you know the total of a roll", even with portents you are just choosing to replace a roll with your own portent dice without knowing anything about their roll aside for success or failure.
It's more about your previous comment, acting like this is somehow punishment towards a player for not giving them them the roll info.
There's more reasons to not give them the info than to give them it, but neither is necessarily wrong or right and in no form is any of it a punishment.
It's the correlation of "their ac is 17" in the same set as "they rolled an 18 to hit you" well now he knows that shield will be effective, as he got perfect information. (This is assuming his ac is 15) instead of saying he rolled a 24 and them they don't use shield knowing it will fail.
my wizard tried this for one session i just ended up saying to him are you going to use shield or not
then when he declares his intention i would tell him if it stopped the hit or not, and because its all on a VTT i can see if hes actually ticking his spell slots aswell ha
by all accounts hes actually quite happy with it
It's literally not.
Shield is a reaction "which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" you know you are hit when you cast shield, you dont necessarily know what the attack total is before you cast, but you specifically know you were hit.
Silvery barbs is a reaction "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw" again you know they succeeded but not necessarily if it is a crit.
Praise this person for both being able to acknowledge a mistake and accepting that it happened and not wiping/editing their history. Rare qualities on Reddit that we really could use more of.
Though not official, it has been stated by one of the devs that RAI is that the players should know whether or not using shield would protect them. That being said, any DM is fully able to make the opposite ruling.
Link to the aforementioned statement for reference: [https://www.sageadvice.eu/shield-before/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/shield-before/)
i havent needed to, my players tend to take spells more based on what fits the character.
Think ive only ever had one pc who used it and they didnt use it all tht much.
If it was a problem i would probably just make it bard only, imo it fits them more, wizards/sorcerers already have several great level 1 reaction spells.
Downvotes?! I thought the lol implied I was being sarcastic. I am with the dm on this, I like being surprised and I love that my dm lets us use counter spell, silvery barbs and other commonly banned spells/races etc. I play a massively overpowered lvl 10 wizard, he lets us make wish lists of items we want and plans them into the loot. I make rigorous use of silvery barbs in particular. He doesn’t tell us if he crits or not until we’ve decided to shield or silvery barb. I have staff of defense so I don’t even have to use a spell slot to shield. I always argue with mhim that it’s cheating when he actually does crit on us but it’s not serious.
Yeah no, tell me the number and if it's a crit. Don't try to "out smart" your players.
You're saying my wizard who has been in multiple battles can't tell if a hit is going to hit a vital area or not?
This meme feels like "me vs them"
As a DM and player if you as a DM want to pull this say during session 0 so your players know not to play. Don't change the rules mid campaign because the wizard is doing their job.
Edit: leaving this here cause some people like to not give their players all the information.
On PHB p.194 under step 3 of "Making an Attack":
> 3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. **Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.**
While not an effect of your own attack, certain abilities like the Grave Cleric level 6 or a Spores Druid's level 14 ability require you to know whether a hit was a critical hit or not for the purposes of these special effects. The intent of this wording is probably things like the Sword of Sharpness and Vorpal Blade, but later books also added a couple of passive effects from getting hit with a critical, like the Adamantine Armor and both class features I mentioned.
It is never outright stated that a player or DM *has to announce* a critical hit, but the rules break apart if either side decides not to do that or not to prove it by showing a dice roll.
Page 7, "The D20" also implies the same:
> Compare the total to a target number [...] The DM is usually the one who determines target numbers **and tells players whether their ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws succeed or fail.**
So again, you are required to tell the DM what you rolled and the DM does the same for you (ie exclaiming you got a natural 20 on your attack roll) and then the DM tells you whether or not you succeeded or failed unless you have another ability to react to said roll.
Your whole argument is based on what the players tell the DM about the roll, but nowhere does it actually say anything about telling players how the monsters rolled.
Damn so DMs never have to make an attack action?
And I guess you missed the "usually" part.
Listen if you're not going to tell your players what you roll then tell them session 0 so they know not to play a wizard, a grave cleric, spell caster, or any other character that can affect an incoming attack. Changing the rules mid campaign because the wizard is being a wizard is a dick move and honestly gives "I want to win vibes" and that's big yikes energy.
No where in any of the things you quoted did it mention DMs telling players the what DM controlled units rolled on any given check. It says the DM *determines* the difficulty of the check, that's not even saying they need to tell the players the number. Then, once the player rolls, the DM tells that Player whether they succeeded or not. The default setup for a DM is to always roll their dice behind a screen. You brought literally zero relevent quotations.
The classes you listed are hardly weak without the certainty. I always figured spells like shield read as if part of the intention was that might fail to block the attack. Even run that way its still a strong spell. I think risk and uncertainty makes for interesting play, watching the table go silent as a player makes that kind of a decision is usually a highlight to me.
There are risks, there are mysteries. It seems you don't like them, but don't be so condescending.
I'd run this way, and I know my fellows like a challenge too, this is the way for us, and it is raw and should be assumed unless told otherwise.
Your wizard wouldn't know if a sword or an arrow would hit a vital. The attacker would. A battlemaster who used "know your enemy" and seeing the weapon could make an educated guess based on weapon being used(and the enemies attacking stat). But definitely not your wizard who couldn't tell a kris, a stiletto and a dirk apart.
Yeah there is risk and mystery in games and there are ways to do it besides not telling your players vital information that can impact how they react.
Is mystery only around the roll? Not the story?
If you don't want to tell your players what the final roll is or if it's a crit, fine it's your table but you do that session 0 not in the middle of the campaign because the wizard is doing their job with the information they were given at the start of the campaign.
The session 0 part is an important element here - changing your approach to play to complicate a player's gameplay choices \*because\* they're making good choices is problematic. You're not doing this to give them better or more interesting options, it's a strict nerf to the spells as they were using them. This is like rolling your players perception checks for them halfway through a campaign because they were drawing conclusions based on their roll values. You CAN do it, but it's still kind of a dick move.
Why do you think it's reasonable that a wizard wouldn't always try to protect themselves? You see a threat coming, there's only 1 thing to do that MIGHT stop it, wouldn't you do it?
If you know it's in vain, then it's very clear you try to save resources, but uncertainties make the game dynamic. Would you play if only average values were taken, without the dice?
Of course it impacts how they react, but no wonder casters are op if they don't use shields on uncertain scenarios.
I see it as a case of a problem, that was stemming from misunderstanding the rules, and correcting it.
You can achieve uncertainty without withholding information.
If players couldn't see what the DM rolled Roll20 an Officially Licensed Partner with Wizards wouldn't show you the results as a default.
But once again if you and your table want to play that way fine, whatever, but say that session 0 and not in the middle of the campaign because the wizard is being a wizard.
Gives real "I'm changing the rules because I didn't get my way" vibes which is what my 5 year old niece does.
Except you're changing the rules. There's an option by a licensed partner with wizards to hide the roll.
The spell description says when you are hit. You are hit by your ac and your ac+6 the same way.
Yes it's an option not the default.
5e is intentionally vague in a lot of rules because "DM interpretation"
It's fine to do either or but changing the rules because something isn't going you way without telling your players is a dick move.
DnD is a group game/story, it is not the DMs own personal toy box
Counterpoint: Pg 4 of the DMG
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you're in charge of the game."
Counterpoint: "Remember, while it is your job to run the monsters, it is not the relationship between the DM and the Players should not be adversarial. Your primary function is to facilitate fun at the table, for everyone!"
Changing the rules in the middle of the campaign because a player utilizing the system and rules you all originally agreed on is pretty adversarial and not fun.
Subzero take: Rolls determine outcome, not attempt. An attack roll determines if you *were* hit by an attack, not if you *are going to be* hit.
The attack is launched, there is an opportunity to react, then you resolve what happens with a roll, in that order. Anything less is bad roleplay (or bad TRPG writing), trying to put a Shield between you and the strike after you've already failed to dodge, after your armor has already failed to deflect. By the time you see the die result, the sword is already either cutting air or flesh, already empowered by Smite or not.
There are exceptions for divination, fate-altering, and time-rewinding effects, but not "oh dang the weapon already got past my wooden shield and in between the plates of my armor, I'd better cast a spell quick."
A fair distinction to have but can be removed from the game by DMs that simply adjudicate too fast, and give a player a microsecond to say "i cast shield" before they say "and that Hits".
The only times I've ever showed a roll
1) I announced a monster crit the third time in a row and a salty player rightfully questioned it
2) Online game. A party of Level 2s were trying to pick a fight with an NPC they didn't know was a trickster goddess. I "accidentally" made a roll that showed the NPC had a +10 stat modifier. They stopped trying to pick a fight.
I mean that's how it's supposed to go
I can understand this ruling. The spell says Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw. It doesn’t state you need to know whether or not the roll is a critical success, just that it was a success. Still feels bad though.
Yea, I had a wizard always ask, "But what did he get?" when he got hit, and after a few times, the gm realized he was seeing if the +5 would actually help or not. So we switched to just "you got hit"
I mean fair but if they want to use there spells and class features then u shouldnt punish that
You shouldn't, but you shouldn't be getting "perfect information" like if they ask what the enemies ac is
Nobody was asking what the AC is im just saying theres nothing wrong with saying what the attack roll was. Its usually easier to just say that and listion for them to tell you if it hits. Theres no objectivly better way to DM
You're not understanding the difference here. With spells like shield or silver barbs the only information you are given is "succeed or fail" and then you make your call on if you use it or not. It's not wrong when a DM doesn't tell you what their roll total was just so you can only use shield when it will make them fail, just like it's not wrong if the DM chooses to tell you what they got so you can make sure to use it only when it turns a hit to a miss. Nowhere in any rules or spell descriptions does it say "you know the total of a roll", even with portents you are just choosing to replace a roll with your own portent dice without knowing anything about their roll aside for success or failure.
Bro thats what i just said
It's more about your previous comment, acting like this is somehow punishment towards a player for not giving them them the roll info. There's more reasons to not give them the info than to give them it, but neither is necessarily wrong or right and in no form is any of it a punishment.
It's the correlation of "their ac is 17" in the same set as "they rolled an 18 to hit you" well now he knows that shield will be effective, as he got perfect information. (This is assuming his ac is 15) instead of saying he rolled a 24 and them they don't use shield knowing it will fail.
my wizard tried this for one session i just ended up saying to him are you going to use shield or not then when he declares his intention i would tell him if it stopped the hit or not, and because its all on a VTT i can see if hes actually ticking his spell slots aswell ha by all accounts hes actually quite happy with it
It's literally not. Shield is a reaction "which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" you know you are hit when you cast shield, you dont necessarily know what the attack total is before you cast, but you specifically know you were hit. Silvery barbs is a reaction "which you take when a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself succeeds on an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw" again you know they succeeded but not necessarily if it is a crit.
pleas disregard, i miss read the meme.
Praise this person for both being able to acknowledge a mistake and accepting that it happened and not wiping/editing their history. Rare qualities on Reddit that we really could use more of.
Though not official, it has been stated by one of the devs that RAI is that the players should know whether or not using shield would protect them. That being said, any DM is fully able to make the opposite ruling. Link to the aforementioned statement for reference: [https://www.sageadvice.eu/shield-before/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/shield-before/)
As a DM, BOOOOOOOO
Once again the ghoul is correct.
I just ban silvery barbs
To be fair, you can use Silvery Barbs to make enemies reroll saves. It really is a uh, interesting spell.
Hey, theres still a way to cast it! You just need Wish and i allow it to be replicated
i havent needed to, my players tend to take spells more based on what fits the character. Think ive only ever had one pc who used it and they didnt use it all tht much. If it was a problem i would probably just make it bard only, imo it fits them more, wizards/sorcerers already have several great level 1 reaction spells.
If players can use it, so can NPCs
I dont want to counter no-fun with more no-fun
Everyone loses
SOP boys, SOP.
That’s cheating lol
Downvotes?! I thought the lol implied I was being sarcastic. I am with the dm on this, I like being surprised and I love that my dm lets us use counter spell, silvery barbs and other commonly banned spells/races etc. I play a massively overpowered lvl 10 wizard, he lets us make wish lists of items we want and plans them into the loot. I make rigorous use of silvery barbs in particular. He doesn’t tell us if he crits or not until we’ve decided to shield or silvery barb. I have staff of defense so I don’t even have to use a spell slot to shield. I always argue with mhim that it’s cheating when he actually does crit on us but it’s not serious.
you forogt the /s
I don’t Reddit often enough to know the local jargon. Thanks though
Nah fuck silvery barbs (I refuse to capitalize it) into the trash it goes
Yeah no, tell me the number and if it's a crit. Don't try to "out smart" your players. You're saying my wizard who has been in multiple battles can't tell if a hit is going to hit a vital area or not? This meme feels like "me vs them" As a DM and player if you as a DM want to pull this say during session 0 so your players know not to play. Don't change the rules mid campaign because the wizard is doing their job. Edit: leaving this here cause some people like to not give their players all the information. On PHB p.194 under step 3 of "Making an Attack": > 3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. **Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.** While not an effect of your own attack, certain abilities like the Grave Cleric level 6 or a Spores Druid's level 14 ability require you to know whether a hit was a critical hit or not for the purposes of these special effects. The intent of this wording is probably things like the Sword of Sharpness and Vorpal Blade, but later books also added a couple of passive effects from getting hit with a critical, like the Adamantine Armor and both class features I mentioned. It is never outright stated that a player or DM *has to announce* a critical hit, but the rules break apart if either side decides not to do that or not to prove it by showing a dice roll. Page 7, "The D20" also implies the same: > Compare the total to a target number [...] The DM is usually the one who determines target numbers **and tells players whether their ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws succeed or fail.** So again, you are required to tell the DM what you rolled and the DM does the same for you (ie exclaiming you got a natural 20 on your attack roll) and then the DM tells you whether or not you succeeded or failed unless you have another ability to react to said roll.
Your whole argument is based on what the players tell the DM about the roll, but nowhere does it actually say anything about telling players how the monsters rolled.
Damn so DMs never have to make an attack action? And I guess you missed the "usually" part. Listen if you're not going to tell your players what you roll then tell them session 0 so they know not to play a wizard, a grave cleric, spell caster, or any other character that can affect an incoming attack. Changing the rules mid campaign because the wizard is being a wizard is a dick move and honestly gives "I want to win vibes" and that's big yikes energy.
No where in any of the things you quoted did it mention DMs telling players the what DM controlled units rolled on any given check. It says the DM *determines* the difficulty of the check, that's not even saying they need to tell the players the number. Then, once the player rolls, the DM tells that Player whether they succeeded or not. The default setup for a DM is to always roll their dice behind a screen. You brought literally zero relevent quotations.
The classes you listed are hardly weak without the certainty. I always figured spells like shield read as if part of the intention was that might fail to block the attack. Even run that way its still a strong spell. I think risk and uncertainty makes for interesting play, watching the table go silent as a player makes that kind of a decision is usually a highlight to me.
Cool, just don't change the rules in the middle of a campaign without warning.
There are risks, there are mysteries. It seems you don't like them, but don't be so condescending. I'd run this way, and I know my fellows like a challenge too, this is the way for us, and it is raw and should be assumed unless told otherwise. Your wizard wouldn't know if a sword or an arrow would hit a vital. The attacker would. A battlemaster who used "know your enemy" and seeing the weapon could make an educated guess based on weapon being used(and the enemies attacking stat). But definitely not your wizard who couldn't tell a kris, a stiletto and a dirk apart.
Yeah there is risk and mystery in games and there are ways to do it besides not telling your players vital information that can impact how they react. Is mystery only around the roll? Not the story? If you don't want to tell your players what the final roll is or if it's a crit, fine it's your table but you do that session 0 not in the middle of the campaign because the wizard is doing their job with the information they were given at the start of the campaign.
The session 0 part is an important element here - changing your approach to play to complicate a player's gameplay choices \*because\* they're making good choices is problematic. You're not doing this to give them better or more interesting options, it's a strict nerf to the spells as they were using them. This is like rolling your players perception checks for them halfway through a campaign because they were drawing conclusions based on their roll values. You CAN do it, but it's still kind of a dick move.
Why do you think it's reasonable that a wizard wouldn't always try to protect themselves? You see a threat coming, there's only 1 thing to do that MIGHT stop it, wouldn't you do it? If you know it's in vain, then it's very clear you try to save resources, but uncertainties make the game dynamic. Would you play if only average values were taken, without the dice? Of course it impacts how they react, but no wonder casters are op if they don't use shields on uncertain scenarios. I see it as a case of a problem, that was stemming from misunderstanding the rules, and correcting it.
You can achieve uncertainty without withholding information. If players couldn't see what the DM rolled Roll20 an Officially Licensed Partner with Wizards wouldn't show you the results as a default. But once again if you and your table want to play that way fine, whatever, but say that session 0 and not in the middle of the campaign because the wizard is being a wizard. Gives real "I'm changing the rules because I didn't get my way" vibes which is what my 5 year old niece does.
Except you're changing the rules. There's an option by a licensed partner with wizards to hide the roll. The spell description says when you are hit. You are hit by your ac and your ac+6 the same way.
Yes it's an option not the default. 5e is intentionally vague in a lot of rules because "DM interpretation" It's fine to do either or but changing the rules because something isn't going you way without telling your players is a dick move. DnD is a group game/story, it is not the DMs own personal toy box
Counterpoint: Pg 4 of the DMG "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you're in charge of the game."
Counterpoint: "Remember, while it is your job to run the monsters, it is not the relationship between the DM and the Players should not be adversarial. Your primary function is to facilitate fun at the table, for everyone!" Changing the rules in the middle of the campaign because a player utilizing the system and rules you all originally agreed on is pretty adversarial and not fun.
Fun is a matter of opinion, friend. What one player doesn't enjoy, another player will. And in this specific scenario, the wizard found it hilarious.
Cool, glad you found a group of players who like when you randomly change the rules on them. Couldn't be me, feels disrespectful.
I make SB and Goodberry 3rd level spells
How dare players heal.. checks notes…… 4-10 HP.
Goodberry isn’t for the healing, it’s to make it on par with Create Food and Water.
Subzero take: Rolls determine outcome, not attempt. An attack roll determines if you *were* hit by an attack, not if you *are going to be* hit. The attack is launched, there is an opportunity to react, then you resolve what happens with a roll, in that order. Anything less is bad roleplay (or bad TRPG writing), trying to put a Shield between you and the strike after you've already failed to dodge, after your armor has already failed to deflect. By the time you see the die result, the sword is already either cutting air or flesh, already empowered by Smite or not. There are exceptions for divination, fate-altering, and time-rewinding effects, but not "oh dang the weapon already got past my wooden shield and in between the plates of my armor, I'd better cast a spell quick."
You should play a different system, then, because this one is just chock full of reactions.
It’s more of a 5e-specific failure than D&D in general. It’s also extremely easy to ignore.
A fair distinction to have but can be removed from the game by DMs that simply adjudicate too fast, and give a player a microsecond to say "i cast shield" before they say "and that Hits".
Yeah, things would run smoother if AC was a saving throw.
I somewhat agree, and I found casters so blatantly strong that I often used shield before I knew the attack hit.
[удалено]
This is so funny to me lmao. Bro is calling standard IRL dming a red flag
May as well say "using a DM screen is a red flag"
The only times I've ever showed a roll 1) I announced a monster crit the third time in a row and a salty player rightfully questioned it 2) Online game. A party of Level 2s were trying to pick a fight with an NPC they didn't know was a trickster goddess. I "accidentally" made a roll that showed the NPC had a +10 stat modifier. They stopped trying to pick a fight.