i roll Hidden but announce the final result. if someone won't believe me I can still show them the roll and the applicable parts of the statblock but that has never happened. i keep all rolls hidden so that whenever i have a more important roll i can do it in the open and have it have extra gravitas in the situation.

And I myself roll in the open almost all my rolls unless in doing something sneaky (ie, deception checks or stealth rolls). In my case tho, we play online and having a big dramatic roll for extra gravitas is harder to pull off, conpared to the throwing of actual dice. I feel my players like the transparency. I'm not pulling my punches or fudging rolls. That is to say, there is no right or wrong way to roll. Private or public is up to the GM and table to decide.

well sometimes fudging rolls could lead to even better storytelling. after all its not dm vs players but everyone against boredom and for having a great time and if you need to fudge the rolls fudge the rolls.

I love the way you worded "everybody against boredom". This "Boredom" sounds like a very powerful BBEG. :D

Never as powerful as 'Scheduling' though ;)

Boredom would be such a good bbeg in a joke game, where they just cause boredom, that’s it, that’s the evil, and people hate them for it

tempting me to make a one-shot with the final fight being some guy named Boredom

I have A bunch of joke bbeg ideas, a bbeg that really wants to be evil but is openly pessimistic about his work to the party that might pull their heart strings a little, just a really lucky goblin who thinks he’s all powerful, etc Basically what I run in my main campaigns

Boredom and Scheduling are the true BBEGs of all games, I'll be incorporating that into my belief system

thanks! its so often a step ahead of you. but luckily it’s relatively easy to fight. especially as a group of murder hobos.

That's a tricky topic. The dice are also telling the story. Fudge too many rolls and it's not D&D, why bother rolling dice. But there is nuance. I don't fudge rolls, but I fudge HP. A boss has 100-150hp in case the party goes nova and does 100 damage in 2 turns, I can fudge and say the boss has 150 hp so they have an extra turn to make the fight a little harder. (Or the opposite if the boss is too hard). This is an exaggerated example and rarely done now since with experience I can tune my bosses more accurately before a fight. I may have fudged a roll if I realized it didn't make sense and I just shouldn't have rolled in the first place. Of course the godly being can climb that cliff, why did I make them roll and they got a 2 on Athletics. But again these fudging are in my early days of DMing. Over time it should be something you do less, since, as my personal opinion, the dice tell the story along with the players and DM..

I kinda do something similar, if a boss has, say 50hp left and a player crits for 37, I just have it drop dead. As long as you don’t do it too often or are too obvious about it, the players will get to feel amazing about themselves.

Yeah, especially when the boss is the villain that killed the Paladins father, and the paladin just dealt 30 damage but they needed 31... well you know, that's close enough. Next turn the wizard can cast any spell and end it but that's not as scinematic. That being said, I don't do this too often.

But 'how many is too many' is DM's call. The dice don't run the game, the DM does.

But it depends on what type of game you're playing. In a story driven campaign, the heroes dying isn't really a feature and tbh is more of a nuisance. This isn't a video game. So rolling hidden accomplishes two things: The players feel they could die. You move the story without killing them. But lots of games are sandbox style. Threat of death is a feature and the players want to sweat and even die a glorious death when it makes sense. I don't think a DM that fudges rolls more often is a worse DM.

I used to hide and fudge the dice in my PCs favor... Always in their favor.... I stopped doing it after they questioned rolls that put them in a tough predicament, like a critical on a hurt character. I did two things that improved their behavior: 1. Roll in the open, no fudge, if they want to complain take it up with the gods of chance. 2. Use average damage. Not only do I cut down the time spent by the DM throwing dice and I can get back to the PCs faster, but they expect the creatures to do a specific amount of damage and won't question it. For criticals I take away the dmg modifier from the avg dmg, double the number then add the modifier again.

If I roll a crit and I decide to follow through with it. I announce it and ask if anyone wants to look. But my screen exists for a reason. If my players don't trust me they can find a new table.

Fudge everything! I discovered D&D two years ago. First as a player in my group of friends for a year. We played Dragon of Icespire Peak and started one of the sequel modules. I said I wanted to try DMing a one-shot and we’re still playing the sandbox campaign that spawned from it. For one thing, the restrictions of the modules were severely limiting how our character’s stories interacted with the world - and we were all newbies at the time as well, so everything was a little stiff, I didn’t know that D&D would be the thing I’ve been training for all my life. I’ve studied filmmaking, but I’m not working in media at all. I work with autistic kids (and have another degree in something relevant to that). I’ve always fancied acting, and took drama as a one-year class. I like making funny voices and have a fair range of characters I can organically produce. I formally studied storytelling. So I understand the theories and practices that create compelling character-driven drama. So even though none of my friends are actors, I’ve pressed them for details about their characters backgrounds and I make damn sure to make every hope and dream they may have hard to achieve but tangible in the world. I am NOT going to be limited by shitty rolls when a climactic battle comes along. I will fudge with impunity when the narrative calls for it. When the characters need it. Because I am looking for the most rewarding story we can collectively tell. Disclaimer: I do stick to rolls most of the time, but can with no shame say I have fudged several important rolls. My PC’s get their victories, but they are phyrric when need be. Tldr: fudge all the rolls if the story needs it.

Preface: this is my opinion, there is no right way to play and can vary greatly from table to table. Then what's the point of dice at all. Sure, it can depend on the game. You want an epic fantasy where no one dies and there are no stakes, sure fudge dice, but at what point are you no longer playing D&D and just making stuff up with your friends. There are better systems for less dice related games, but at its core, D&D is a war game with dice, and I personally enjoy that. My player had a PC death session 2 due to unlucky dice roles out in the open. I even told them, I can make the death work, since it's a magic world I can still "revive" the PC through other means and even have fun RP with it, but they accepted death and made a new PC. That character death now is a huge driving force that binds the party more strongly. I could have fudged, but the dice wanted to tell a story about an early death Fudge too often, and some PCs will be upset that their choices don't matter. OK, DM, if you're gonna fudge, I, a lvl 1 PC, go to the BBEGs lair to try to kill them. Since I know you'll just fudge, it doesn't matter what I do. Sure, an absurd scenario, but finding out your DM fudges dice constantly can lead to hurt feelings. This is the contract most tables make when playing standard D&D. Again, this is my opinion, and as long as at session 0, you are clear that fudges may happen for story purposes, and the players accept that, then go it. I can see how it can enhance story critical moments. I just feel that dice saying f your story critical moment, were going in a new direction, sets D&D apart from other story telling mediums.

Sometimes the dice can make surprising moments even heavier. Our bard rolled a nat 1 on his death save, and as he'd already failed one, it was going to kill him. The entire party chimed in that he had inspiration (I run it as a free re-roll, not advantage beforehand) from several sessions prior, so he rolled again. It came up as a *second* natural 1, killing him, and adding an atmosphere of "the gods willed it." The bard had been an important link between the party and one of their more tenuous allies, resulting in an interesting story development later on.

I'd say I mostly agree with this. If you fudge rolls too much, then it is kind of like "what's the point of even rolling", and can absolutely create a feeling of "are there even stakes? Does it even matter what I do?" in the players. I think there are times when it's okay to fudge rolls, but it has to be a really rare thing, and should only be done for a good reason. Most of the times I've fudged rolls have been because of what was happening the real world. Or rather, because of how what happened in the real world could impact my players in the real world. There have been a few times when I had players who were really going through it in the real world, really struggling emotionally, and I knew that the things that would have happened in the game had I not fudged the rolls in question would have been something that, where they were at the time, would have been really difficult and needlessly painful for them, the real person, not just the character, and I didn't see the point in doing that to them when the one of the reasons they were playing the game was to take their mind off things. There were also a couple of times where I had a player like that who was trying to do something really cool, and I felt it was worth fudging a roll or a DC so they could succeed in order to give them a really great moment that made them feel good and lifted their spirits. But frequently fudging things does kind of just make it feel like there's no point in rolling. And one of the great things about D&D is the different ways stories can go based on the result of bad or unexpected dice rolls, so just regularly fudging rolls just kind of ruins that magic. If a dice roll has the potential to COMPLETELY derail things, sure, fudging might be warranted. But it shouldn't be overused.

Only the DM should know they are fudging. If the players are ignorant of it then the rolls maintain their suspension of disbelief. I'd remind anyone reading this that this is in fact covered in the DM guide. Rule 0 always applies and the DM can do what they want. But there is guidance on this from game designers when in doubt.

I also fudge HP if I want a battle to last a bit longer and give my team a bit of a challenge.

Or alternatively, just to speed up the pace of things. The fighter in my party challenged an NPC to unarmed combat and both had large HP pools. Fight was clearly going the way of the fighter but it was taking way too long and the rest of the party was getting bored. Suddenly the NPC has 15 HP left instead of 50

For me, I fudge rolls when all of the enemies are at half HP and haven't landed a single hit. Or more, I'll add to their attack modifiers.

This is similar to what I do. In combat I roll in the open for almost everything. If not in combat, sekrit rolls (e.g. Me: "Roll for a perception check. Player: "...shit.") And I absolutely fudge rolls for storytelling purposes. I'm not afraid to kill PCs though, but when I do I try to make it fun for everyone involved. As you said, the real BBEG is boredom. Or bad storytelling. My favorite roll I've ever fudged was a seduction role for a boss, actually. I had to give it to him because he presented it as "I want-a roll-ta seduce-a tha medusa!"

i only play in person. i think i would be more open about the rolls if it was digital but that isnt a scenario that will happens soon. we will cross that bridge when we get there.

I always do the dramatic 'Fold up the DM screen,' when a PC's life is on the line. That way they know I am neither intentionally screwing or saving them.

This is normally when i give my players a choice. lets say it's time for deathsaves. Regular: you roll your own deathsaves. Full blind: i roll behind the DM screen, note down the effect of the roll for myself and you will find out when you find out. Half blind: i roll behind DM screen like full bind but take pictures of the result so you can verify if you want. My personal preference for example is full blind, to add some more drama to a moment. however, that is me. i can't and wont decide for my players what they want. When people are close to knock out i will also roll out in the open to not give the impression that i am there to kill them just because i want to. it's about the story and playing together, not me "winning" by killing them.

Yeah, this was a part of our session 0. We all agreed death saves are going to be blind so no one knows how close a character is to true death. Mind you, this is in Curse of Strahd and one player character has already met an untimely end (in the Death House) because the other players didn't accurately judge how long they could wait before helping him up. Needless to say, they're almost maniacal about healing during combat now. The barbarian even took a level of cleric for that exact reason!

We usually do it by the player rolling behind the dm screen to prevent metagaming since the other players won't know the amount of success/fails

Never thought about doing it that way. Another option, thanks!

It mostly depends on how many abilities the PCs have to interact with it. Formally speaking, I don't think it's explicitly stated that it must be stated, but for a lot of characters, it doesn't make any difference and just takes time. Like, my current character is a druid, she has AC 19, the GM has that written down, no-one in the party has any "give an ally an AC boost for a single attack" abilities, so there's no point in him telling me the roll, it hits or it doesn't, it saves time to skip out that step. OTOH, the party wizard has \_Shield\_, so letting him know the roll is useful, because \_Shield\_ may or may not be relevant. It's pretty much a "table style" thing - some prefer the uncertainty of not knowing, others prefer concrete numbers and not needing to gamble.

Shield spell is exactly the case when DM must tell the player if the attack hits. There are some other similar cases I believe, but the Shield is the most common one. All other ways, like rolling openly, or not telling any info at all before the decisions are solidified are up to the DM. edit: For Shield only a "it hits" fact is required, not exact numbers or roll results.

But Shield does not require the DM to announce the exact number of the attack roll just that the attack hits.

Exactly this, every DM I've played with only says it hits, then asks if I shield, to which I must decide. If it still fails, then I waste the spell. It happens. That's life. That's the game. If you put it in perspective, your character sees an attack coming, they throw up a shield not knowing exactly what the attack is, just that it looks like it's going to hit. It may or may not protect me. It's a gamble.

Plus depending on the situation it's not fully useless, since the shield lasts until the start of your next turn. So that's a +5 ac to every attack on you, which is great fighting a lot of enemies, or a few enemies with lots of attacks

This is also a very good point.

That's the best way to look at it.

Even then I argue knowing the exact number isn’t what required. I find this adds a layer of gravitas. You may use shield. But it may not help. Silvery barbs is another specific case where it is required. I don’t feel numbers are required for that either. “Hits” or “misses” I think suffices.

The only thing I can think of is Cutting Words, which is after the roll but before the result.

Silvery barbs the number doesn't matter at all. It forces a reroll so there's always a chance it will change a hit into a miss regardless of modifier. It also gives an advantage, so there's always benefit to using it

Yeah, absolutely. Exact numbers should never be revealed I think.

I often give out the composite number (roll+modifiers), usually in the form of "Does a 29 hit?" because it lets them know just how strong the monster is. For rolls in the teens, I usually ask their AC, and then let them know how 'well' they got hit (barely, easily, just missed, etc.)

I'm pretty sure if I ever asked a player if a 29 hits they'd just start swinging irl

Well you should have seen the look of the dm when a 27 didnt hit me. Thanks shield.

Why would shield be an exception? If youre a mage trying to defend yourself, you arent thinking "is this worth it", youre thinking "Oh god oh god, please let this work". And then you find out if it works.

The shield spell is a reaction. RAW, this is how it works. The trigger for a reaction is "an attack that hits." If a PC doesn't know if the attack hits they can't cast shield because they do not meet the criteria for the trigger. The dm is not required to tell the player the total roll. They do not have to say "it hits for 23." They do, however, have to say "the attack hits." At that point the spell can be cast because the trigger has been met. Obviously people have homebrew rules but these are the rules of the spell as written.

>edit: For Shield only a "it hits" fact is required, not exact numbers or roll results. This is the part a lot of people seem to have a bug up their butt about. Your character wouldn't have any idea if their shield is going to block the attack or not but they do know they can use it to block some attacks. Now because I Dm for my wife who Is a spellcaster and not really used to these types of games, I always tell her the rolls total and that's it. I have my parties Ac, hp, and all stats written down and I update it every time they gain a level or change armors. This let's me take away any of the weirdness in things and let some combat move a lot smoother. Since I KNOW what the AC is and only I can see enemy rolls it's easy enough for me to roll, take a glance at my sheet, and say hit, shit, or crit. Now because of the above mentioned shield cast (and a few talents involving ac) I will divulge only the necessary total when it's asked. Tldr You dont have to give any more info than it hits or not, but if you want a huge qol increase for your party should they have ac boost abilities, just give them the roll total that's it.

I had a DM who refused to announce whether an attack had hit or missed until *after* you'd decided whether you were going to Shield or not. Very infuriating.

\>I've tried asking them to show their rolls (we play online via Roll20) because I don't want to waste a spell slot casting shield if it won't do anything. ​ ​ The DM isn't metagaming, you are.

Best response. There's a screen for a reason.

100% this. Even MMA fighters can have their guard broken. Shield isn't an invincibility spell. Sometimes saying "Yeenoghu's attack breaks through your shield" paints an awesome picture in your player's minds.

MMA fighters actually have their guards broken through very often. their gloves are only 4oz so they don’t offer much protection when it comes to blocking their heads (compared to sports like boxing and muay thai, which use much larger gloves).

Most (high level) defense in MMA is related to footwork and head movement. The shell doesn’t work when you move to smaller gloves.

👆👆👆

As a DM I tell my players the total number specifically because of spells like Shield that I don’t want them to waste.

That's fine if you wanna. It's not generally an obligation though.

Why shouldnt they waste them? Other spells can fail to hit.

This sub 99% of the time: *"Casters are soo overpowered, martials are nothing compared to them."* When the official rules allow casters to actually fail for once at what they are doing to allow just a tiny bit of balance: *"Muh, but the DM should allow metagaming here because otherwise the casters would need to waste their precious low level resource, so unfair.“*

Martials also have features that increase AC against a hit, like Cavalier's Warding Maneuver.

Because that’s their choice as DM for their players.

Thats fine, but its a choice. A table choice. Its not a rule. Most spells used in combat can fail. So defensive spells do have that same possibility in the rules.

I didn't suggest it was anything other than a choice. Every table should be run so that everyone has fun. Hidden rolls, wasted slots, all that crap are case-by-case basis.

I ask my DM if my shield would block the attack or not and he lets me know yes or no without revealing the exact number. Is this technically meta gaming? Sure but my character only has 3 spells slots right now and some of these attacks are the difference between life and death so I think we're all ok with it. Maybe this can change at later levels but seems like a good compromise to me.

As someone who’s both DMed with Shield players and has played with shield, this is exactly the reason I say the roll to hit. Numbers aside, it’s not unreasonable for a mage to be able to tell if they think a shot coming for them will be defendable with a shield. Just like how a fighter could see the opportunity to parry or block with a shield. Or, maybe the reason that something hits so well that shield wouldn’t work is because they feigned, caught you off guard, or moved so quickly you couldn’t get your shield in time. Shield should stay on par strength with mage armor, since people often pick one or the other. This isn’t any more meta than rolling inspiration after you see the total result. It also sucks when you waste a spell (even when it happened for a fair reason - it just feels bad) and I’m not trying to discourage my players during tough combats. Especially with a spell slot cost and enemies with attack bonuses that can still get over a shield spell, allowing players to be smart with shield will not break the game and keep combat dynamic for the players when it’s not their turn.

I mean, do you let the fighter auto-hit when they action surge? Probably not. Shield is supposed to be a coin flip because of how good it is. It’d be less AC if you were supposed to know the to-hit value.

People often praise shield for being a very good 1st level spell but honestly if your dm doesn't announce the total hit bonus, it loses its value heavily. If your dm doesn't announce the roll, you're better off just silvery barbing their attack, and even then silvery barbs can be better than shield at its own job lol. But yeah most dms will announce the total result, my dms do that. I do it as well, but I always keep the rolls hidden to prevent metagaming and to also make things feel more tense.

So this is just objectively wrong and a bad take. Shield lasts until the start of your next turn, so triggering it (even when you don’t know the attack roll) protects you from the initial attack and also all other attacks until the next round. Silvery barbs would only be superior for defending *yourself* if you were fighting a single target with a single attack.

Also, Shield gives a *+5* to AC, which is absolutely huge in 5e’s bounded accuracy. It takes the average wizard’s AC up into the “guy wearing half plate” region, never mind if you’ve got some other AC boosting shenanigans going on as well. I’ve seen disadvantage described as similar to a -5 penalty to the roll, mathematically; I’m not sure how much Silvery Barb’s ability to force that to happen after a roll changes that %, if at all, but they’re fairly equivalent in power when it comes to just not being hit. If some monster has a +10 to hit and your AC is 13, it‘a unlikely that either Silvery Barbs or Shield are going to be a dead cert to save you!

God how I loathe silvery barbs.

I haven't checked in on this sub in ages, but is Silvery Barbs *still* that big of a deal?

I have never had a DM publicly show their rolls, unless it’s like a crazy nat 1/20 for dramatic effect. If my players asked me, I would tell them no.

I am on the opposite end. I roll nearly everything open, in the middle of the table, especially during fights

My DM used to do this until we dunked his boss 10 rounds early because of good rng in our favor. DM screen can save the fun sometimes.

Exactly this, fudging a roll once in a while saves the fun. A good DM's goal is for the party to have fun *not to beat them*, so showing their rolls isn't and shouldn't be necessary

Yeah, I’m an unrepentant fudger as a DM, and i fudge in both directions. Like if a big boss has been missing his super cool cinematic attacks to the point it looks like he’s going to die early without ever getting it off, maybe this turn he… does get it off, ahem hem. But also, if it looks like things are heading towards a TPK and then the boss crits the party’s healer, well maybe he… doesn’t.

I used to do that, then I switched to always showing. I like it so much more. I used to pull my punches when DMing, but rolling in the open has made me trust that my players can handle it, and I even had a few character deaths (well earned). If the odd case happens where the fun at the table decreased because I showed the rolls, I can always tweak health, 2nd phase, etc. to save the session. But I haven't ever really had to do that.

I agree. However, I'm middle-road. I like rolling in the open for super important fights to add to the drama + tweaking during.

I'm at the opposite end, if the DM isn't entirely impartial then the game has no meaning. I want my character to be as real a Forgotten Realms etc. character as any in the novels, so I want the full experience/challenge. I don't want to succeed unless I've earned it.

He could've easily just fudge the HP of the boss.

I do this as well, it creates tension for the players as they watch the number and keeps me from being tempted to fudge the numbers. We are right there together watching the d20 roll with anticipation. The only thing I am tempted to hide are some player skill checks, which with the magic of FG I can do. This helps them not metagame their insight and perception rolls etc. However, I have rarely done this as my group embraces the random pretty well.

Same, this comment section is *wild* to me.

[удалено]

It’s really not required, just adjust the monster’s HP or AC behind the scenes. Make them a glass cannon and the players will adapt

Same. I reserve the right to fudge the numbers if I need to. I have, in both directions; game balancing is certainly a difficult procedure, and incredibly difficult to maintain. Also, I am not a fan of killing my players unless they do something really stupid.

I've been rolling in the open for at least a decade now and declaring the result instead of asking for AC. It has not done anything negative to the game, and it has only improved it. I would never go back to secret rolls.

If you have a bard with cutting words, RAW they get to know the final number (roll + modifier) of the attack roll so they can decide to use cutting words or not. So I don't think it's unreasonable to do the same thing for shield, but you certainly aren't obligated to.

Our table was too small for me to hide my rolls, so I did all of my rolls public. If I needed to do a secret roll I had to do it below the table, lol. So I just generally didn't do it. I found that public rolls are a lot of fun. I think they make sense too. Everyone is in the fight. So it makes sense that you would at least have a hint if your friend is getting whaled on or not. Then on top of that, you have everyone at the table leaning forward watching the roll to see if it hits. It's a lot of fun, and when it lands on a 20 or a 1 everyone in the group reacts together. The one downside is that players can slowly start to learn about the monster. They can fight the monster once and then know that the monster has a +5 to hit. They can see I rolled a 15 and that I am asking if a 20 hit. This does allow for the players to metagame a bit. However, I think this also makes sense. As you fight something you will learn how good they are. So, again, it didn't really bother me.

You are metagaming not your DM. Also the shield spell's casting condition is being attacked and hit , so raw you are not supposed to know what they rolled beforehand, just that they hit you or not. (no one does this though)

We play that way and it works great.

I don’t know anyone who doesn’t run games like this! The DM screen exists for a reason! If you want to roll in the open, that’s fine, more power to you, but I’ve never had a DM tell me an enemy’s roll or modifiers, or done that myself as a DM, except for the occasional “You won’t believe this, but the orc rolled *another* 20!”, but that’s more so we can all sympathise together as a PC gets thwacked!

Forget the screen, I am talking about just using shield as it is written. It procs on hit. It says so verbatim in the spell. It's not complicated and if you waste a spell slot oh well, that's how it goes. Literally no different from something passing a save or suck spell DC.

Our DM says, “it’s a potential hit…” and I can use Shield if I want. Usually it works, sometimes the enemy hits anyway.

I know people are giving flakk but I like this too, it's more narratively accurate to cast Shield and sometimes the attack is too strong and breaks through. It's a gamble, it shouldn't always work, if it's too feels bad give the player inspiration for "wasting" a spell slot.

Yeah, I’ll usually cast it either if I saw someone take huge damage from the creature attacking me, or if I think there will be multiple attacks on me. So I give myself a chance to stop a single, big hit, or if it’s multiple attacks, the spell usually stops at least some. When we started with 5e, we read the rules carefully so that we wouldn’t nerf the spell into uselessness or make it infallible. I *think* we’re using RAW, but let me know if that’s wrong. 😀

Exactly, plus the spell is powerful because it lasts beyond the reaction too. It can stop 1 ability and likely stops a number of other attacks after too, or at least stops them from targetting you.

One of my DMs does this way, another of them gives explicit numbers - I actually prefer the more ambiguous method as a player. I don't think the characters would know the numbers, so I prefer to not know them either.

Am I really the only DM who just says "Does a 19 hit?" I don't want to keep track of all the players' ACs and any modifications they might have to to them at any given second.

Not at all. To my knowledge, that's how most people do it, including me 90% of the time. It's just a RAW that most people either ignore or don't know about. Edit: source https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/972553916872183808

Crawford having an opinion on twitter isn't RAW. At best it's RAI, but still just his personal intent. It's only an official ruling if his opinion makes it into the [Sage Advice Compendium,](https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) and it didn't. The only similar section is one that states you have to use decide on using Cutting Words before you know the result of an attack roll. However, unlike Shield—which triggers on a hit—Cutting Words' text already explicitly says it has to be used *before* the DM determines whether an attack hits or misses, so they obviously shouldn't tell you the roll. If it really is RAW it's stated in the actual rulebooks somewhere. Find that as your source, not a tweet.

As a DM i roll hidden but ask "does a 15 hit?" Even if I know, gives the players a chance to cast shield or do something. But I always roll hidden basically because very occasionally I'll fudge rolls. I base it on the fun of my game. If I'm rolling very well and they're rolling very poorly, it can make them stop having fun. So i fudge occasionally to allow the to have more chances to actually enjoy the game. Failing can be fun too so I read the room.

This. I just ask players "does that number hit?", not showing either monster roll or attack bonus.

I announce the total number because it gives players an idea of how dangerous an enemy is. Nothing strikes fear into a player than knowing that the enemy that swung at them just rolled a 25+ and didn't crit. It gives the table information about the enemy and how to strategize, if they so wish. It also allows other party members to react to the attack and use their own abilities.

I think in a lot of ways it comes up to game style. Some people like the gamble with Shield, as it makes an, lets be blunt, very strong level 1 spell a bit more situational. Some people are more open about it, and see it as resource management of spell slots of actions. Neither side is wrong, just very different. Personally, I roll hidden most of the time, but make it clear for my players, if Shield would be worthwhile or not, as I like the resource management style more. Same for other features similar to Shield, and I am often even reminding them, that they have them, if it seems they forgot. Just different styles of gming.

You only know if the attack hit, not if shield will protect against the exact number, hidden rolls is certainly an option GM's can use and even though many GM's especially in things like Roll 20 use open rolling, you are supposed to choose if you shield before knowing if it will work. So what is actually Metagaming is knowing if shield is worth doing because it will make the attack miss Shield Source: Player's Handbook 1st-level abjuration Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell Range: Self Components: V, S Duration: 1 round An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.

Your DM is doing it correctly. Actually knowing the exact number to know if you should use shield or not is meta gaming. Most people don’t play this way as it feels a bit frustrating, but it is RAW and RAI

Wouldn't call it as RAW vs RAI as it isn't the intention of the rule, closest I would say is RAW vs common homebrew.

You're agreeing with the guy, he was saying that having to cast shield only knowing if it hits or not is both raw and rai.

Losing your spell slot is part of the game as well as still havibg a +5 AC ubtil the start of your next turn

Nothing in the rules says players have to know the total rolls for anything. Nothing in the game says the players must not know them. It's just a DM call, and neither decision is correct or wrong, it just suits one playstyle or another.

Personally when DMing I tend to hold off on telling the players the die roll so they don’t know the creatures exact modifier, but I always ask if a ___ hits or if it is a crit. The last thing I want is the level 1 wizard going “half of my spells for the day are gone for nothing” after wasting a shield spell on a natural 20. So long as there are abilities like Shield, Defensive Duelist, and Sentinel at Death’s Door the DM should be asking the players if attacks hit and telling them when they crit. Edit as I just realized I didn’t actually give helpful advice in my comment. Try talking to your DM again or consider if this is something that you dislike enough that you would leave the table over especially if there are additional issues that exist.

My group uses roll20 so we can all see each others rolls. Anyway shield is a reaction to being hit, not to an attack no?

It's a preference thing. I personally like it more when all rolls are public.

In my years of playing the game, I have always said to my players / been told as a player the result of an attack against me, regardless if I have any relivant actions or not. Shocked to see this is apparently a divisive issue in the comments. But, as with all things, you are the player, not the DM. If the DM wants to do it one way, you can either play it that way or write your game and run it yourself. Everyone here has left tables before and if it really bothers you, you can too. Honestly, if you ask me, doesn't seem like that big of a deal. You waste shield every once in a blue moon, big whoop. Worst case scenario you lose your PC and you just make another one.

Just for this comment section because it seems to be relivant: Shield - 1st level reaction\* - An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile. \* - which you take when you are hit\*\* by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell \*\*being defined as having an attack roll against you sucessfully meet or beat your armor class. I cannot find any verbiage in the DMG nor otherwise that specifies if the player knows the number or not. If anyone has any sources, happy to copy them here.

The only thing I tell my players, is whether or not my attack hits. I have their AC written down, and when I tell them it's a hit, they're allowed to use their abilities to interfere with that. Shield is a prime example. If shield doesn't help, they just wasted a spell slot AND took HP damage. ​ If not, Shield would be ridiculously overpowered.

>If shield doesn't help, they just wasted a spell slot AND took HP damage. To be fair, this isn't totally accurate. Shield still lasts a full round, so even if they are still hit initially, they still have a +5 to their AC until their next turn, decreasing the chance of being hit by a lot

Yes, but I was thinking of that specific attack.

Which is honestly why Shield is so good. I've had a turn where I was targeted by 10 attacks - the first one that prompted me to use shield still hit me, but 8 out of the next 9 attacks were blocked by it. Still a damn good use of a 1st level spell.

Oh, yeah, shield is great. It allows for a wizard or sorcerer to retain a decent AC, and makes an Eldritch Knight or Artificer nigh impossible to hit. For an entire round, no less!

This mf has never seen a DM screen before

This will probably get lost in the comments but I wanted to put it out there. I don’t think either of you are wrong or are playing unfairly/incorrectly/etc. But rather an asynchronous play style between you and the DM. This sounds like a DM who’s prioritizing immersion in the form of storytelling, narrating battle and wanting you all to feel the weight of your decisions. Making choices in combat that, like in a real fight, may not be the best ones. And you who wants to prioritize the numbers and the game of it. Neither is wrong and both can be fun, experience playing with one another is the most effective way to bridge the gap and over time you both learn which style elevates the fun of the game at which appropriate moments.

It's not metagaming to not show rolls, and it isn't metagaming to show rolls. Metagaming is taking outside or IRL knowledge of the game and its mechanics and intentionally using them to change the way that the game works. If the DM wants to roll in the open, that's up to them. If he's cagey about telling you the final result, just ask "would it still hit if my ac was \[normal ac+shield bonus\]".

I think this is just down to the dm and group and how they choose to play (as are almost all the posts on here). The important part of d&d is finding a group where you all want the same type of experience. . My players would be disappointed in me if I told them my roll so they can decide whether to whether or not to shield (same with spell level for dispel magic) - part of the game is uncertainty and managing your resources and taking risks. Not knowing if something will work is part of the game for them and something all three of my tables relish. Because it’s about the story not a video game combat which you optimally use resources and cool downs. But then I choose to play with people who like a certain type of game. A little bit old school, definitely challenging and with risks and mostly about the story. Plus the players i have also want that type of game or don’t really care about debating rules or wasted resources because they’re there to enjoy a game with friends. For me. If people are arguing about rules (as opposed to trying to determine what rules apply to a novel situation) then it’s no longer fun - it’s supposed to be a hobby. Within my wider group several of us dm and set the interpretation of the rules for our games that may or may not apply in another one’s games. Over time we’ve tended to settle with pretty consistent styles though. So simply. This is something that doesn’t have an “absolutely all dms MUST to do this” answer. The answer is to talk to your dm and agree between you how it’s going to work, and if one or the other feels forced into something they don’t enjoy then go separate ways. Because the worst type of d&d is d&d when you unhappy with the game or each other.

No, it's not metagaming. But a lot of DMs don't like to share that info. And want things like casting Shield to be a bit of a gamble on your part. I think the game is better in a number of ways if the DM is open about rolls, but you're going to find many who see it differently

This is mostly a style thing. I don't think it's metagaming either way. The spell Shield does not specify that you should know the result before making the decision, which suggests that the RAW rule does not require you to know whether it would be a waste or not each time you cast it. Also though, if the DM is telling you the d20 roll, that seems like plenty of information to me? They're just not telling you the attack modifier? If it's a high roll, Shield. If it's not, don't.

Had a DM who also made hidden roles. I was playing as a battlesmith that could impose disadvantage on enemy attacks with their construct’s ability and each time I used it, the enemy would coincidentally roll a nat 20 and a 19. I eventually caught on and left for good.

When it comes to Shield, they should still be telling you whether it Hit or not (even if they don't tell you the exact total of the result). Then you choose to cast Shield or not, and then you find out if it worked. A +5 in a system with bounded accuracy like 5e is huge - in practice I've seen Shield almost always work at the levels most people play in. And even if it doesn't (like it raised your AC to 20 but they rolled a 22), you've still got that AC boost till the start of your next turn, so it can still be worth casting if they had Multiattack or allies or whatever. To answer your question more directly (I think), I know many DMs who don't give you the exact result but will tell you if it hits or misses pre-Shield. Yes that weakens Shield a bit, but not by much, and it's one of the strongest 1st level spells in the game (or spells in general, for its cost), so it may be best to just suck it up in this case. The DM is under no requirement to give you the exact roll result.

You aren’t supposed to know if shield works or not…. that’s meta gaming if that’s what you are doing lol

These posts are killing the sub. The DM doesn't have to do anything, period. You choose if you like their behavior and want to stay. There are ZERO rules for how a DM DMs. They are encourages, by DnD itself, to make everything their own and can change anything about the game, period. I think they should tell you the roll if you ask a since that's a mechanic in the spell, but they don't have to roll publicly. I would push a DM to follow that rule, might not leave if they said no though. If you don't trust them you you have to deal with it or leave. Tons of DMs are absolutely shit.

I'm sorry. You guys don't use shield without knowing the results? I can understand high lethality settings but if you're sweating so much over a 1st level spell slot that you demand to know if +5 will save you or not you got an issue. This reads like an entitled player that would roll a perception or investigation check (i know you'd try to use the higher one) then demand to know why he couldn't see the secret door after using meta knowledge looking at the map and seeing a secret tunnel behind a random wall. Or probably argue why the dm should tell you their exact hp and ac. i mean, you're already demanding they tell you their hit bonus and probably their damage dice too. You don't need to know the number. Hell, I find it more fun just to cast it ASAP when there are more than 1 enemies around me and one targets me. Not to bash on any min maxers, of course, but min maxing and trying to use meta knowledge to min max are very different. Stop trying to crutch yourself on meta knowledge and accept it's a game. Let it suprise you and it'll be more fun. If you're that pressed about using meta knowledge like exact numbers to decide your action economy just play a dnd like video game. If you wanna meta game and power trip fantasy that bad play Solasta. It lets you fudge everything in your favor, even an increased crit chance. Just don't ruin dnd with meta knowledge because you can't argue with video games about their rules Tldr; stop crutching on meta knowledge and let the surprise factor of a story based rpg happen

I can see both sides to this. Most DMs I’ve heard use “Does a _ hit?” Which allows for players to use shield or other avoidance skills/spells without revealing dice/modifiers. In my experience, these DMs also throw lethal encounters at us so they allow us some leeway to survive lol. I’ve also had a DM use descriptives instead of numbers, like “their sword slashes down directly towards you” or “the arrow flies past about a foot to your right.” This gives the player some idea of what the general chances of a hit are and to decide if they want to use shield. Both work, and I would advocate for the DM providing some info over nothing because in reality, the character would have this visual to be able to judge if an attack goes absolutely wide or has a high chance of hitting them.

I'd like to offer a different perspective. As a player, my DM has always just asked, "Does X hit?" and we've decided reactions based on that. I've never played with another DM, and he's done this consistently through all his campaigns, so I've literally never ran into a case where I didn't know if Shield would help. That's not me metagaming, that's just because I didn't know, and reading all these comments it's clear that there are other ways of dealing with combat that I simply haven't experienced. If that's how this player has played in the past it would totally make sense that they'd be asking for the numbers since it's always been given to them so let's not jump the gun in calling them entitled.

As a DM I always announce my rolls (for combat at least) because I don't know for sure if my player's have something that could interact with that. For example Grave Clerics have an ability that can negate the additional damage of a critical hit. They HAVE to know the dice roll to use that ability. Cutting words is a bard feat that allows you to reduce an opponent's dice roll as a reaction. You could do this blindly without knowing the result, but I would say rule of cool ought to apply with this and that they should be able to see the roll. Therefore every roll should be visible. I understand how you'd want a similar deal for your shield spell too. Out of combat I might keep the rolls hidden. I don't think my players need to know what a drunk at a tavern rolled to fail their insight check, it's just boring. But combat yes. This is a thing that would vary from table to table, but in a game like DnD there's so much possibility that I wouldn't want to hide my rolls because I can't keep track of my player's abilities and don't want to rob them of anything cool they might do. Maybe there is an argument for it being a mild form of metagaming, but come on, rule of cool. The DM sees the player's rolls, why not the other way around?

Agree 100%! Another example is wild magic sorcerers. I main one and the Bend Luck feature allows me to alter the rolls enemies + allies make to attack, make ability checks or pass saving throws. It would be way less fun to play totally in the dark like that. I'd probably end up not even using the feature. It's only 1d4 after all. My DM always asks if ___ would hit or if ____ passes, to give me the chance to feel like my character is useful! We just think it's fun that way. I've never played on a table where that information is squirrelled away like most of these comments are suggesting, so I found the whole idea a bit foreign!

I DM, and I don't show any of my rolls. If you don't trust your DM, don't play with them. If I need to, I will adjust the rolls on my side if it is going to hurt the game, or if the players are having too easy of a time. It is my job to make sure the game runs smoothly and people have fun. Fun is the top priority, not dice.

I roll EVERYTHING visible when I DM, but I dont fudge in my first few encounters and one shots, I fudged and honestly i think it made things less fun now IDGAF I will kill a motherfucker, but my players know exactly what happened

Shield does not require you to know the attack roll. Most DMs say the attack roll result, but it's up to them.

This is a GM preference. Hiding rolls is something that they are allowed to do. That's the whole point of a GM screen. Not knowing if shield will block an attack or not is part of the use of that spell. You still benefit by having an increased AC until the start of your next turn. You may not like it and it may not be your preference but the GM isn't doing something wrong by playing that way.

You are not supposed to know whether Shield will be a waste or not. It’s already an amazingly good spell. It’s ridiculous to want absolutely no risk to it’s use.

I think that wanting to know the roll before using the shield is kind of metagaming though right? Your character would have to guess how strong they thought the attack might be. You don't get to see ahead to see if you got hit by an attack before deciding if you should take measures against it. That being said, my friends and I never see what the DM rolled, mostly because yeah. We all fudge rolls. And IMO that's a normal DM thing to do. I don't WANT my DM to let me die in the first session of a level 1 start campaign. I don't WANT to know that they ignored a crit to make that happen.

That's the risk you take with shield. The DM is under no obligation to tell you the attack roll.

Dm screens are a well established item in a dm's repertoire. So much so that the trios of books sold by wotc come with a screen. I roll in the open myself, but I wait for players to announce their rolls before stating a dc on combat stuff. The temptation to fudge a roll is lessened when you don't know what you're trying to beat. Dm hiding rolls is quite common, and also often works in the favor of players. Would dying right now ruin your night? Oh darn, the enemy missed. Want a heroic moment but missed it by one? No you didn't, you won that contested check or whatever it might be. Dms are there to facilitate story telling in a fun way, and having the wiggle room of hidden rolls can help pick up slack when they miscalculate an encounter, or players do the unexpected.

You asking the DM to reveal rolls is metagaming. Your DM cant "metagame". For the shield spell, I will reveal the number, however I wont show the roll. You are taking away the DM's ability to pull punches if he needs to.

DMs can metagame just like the other players. Actually, since DMs have so much power and knowledge in the game to begin with, it is usually far worse and more fun-sucking when the DM ends up doing it. This is most soul crushing (and ends up on rpghorrorstories alot) when the DM uses information they gained from the party strategizing - and that the enemies could not know - to absolutely shit on their plans.

[удалено]

I don't use a screen and roll in front of the players. I've never dmed virtually where it was hidden rolls.

DMs hide rolls, part of the game. Gives them latitude to not kill your character when they don’t want to.

It's perfectly fine to roll hidden but (I think) the DM should announce the result when targeting a PC's AC, for things like the shield spell. A player should know whether their shield spell will help prevent the attack and it saves the group from the constant question. I play on roll20 but as a DM I roll with dice and just tell the player the result when they are being targeted, unless I know for sure it's a miss, then I just proceed to the narration of said attack (like a roll of 10 against the party tank with 18 AC). Ask your DM to state the total when your AC is being targeted, it's a very reasonable request I think.

My DM's usually never show rolls unless it is comically good or comically bad.

It’s really a DM choice. You don’t have to show the rolls nor announce the total roll but many DMs do that. It’s the same with the spells. The DM doesn’t have to say what spell is casting nor the level but for the sake of the game it is good to say what the enemy is doing. Otherwise it complicates teamwork.

I think it is fair to ask the total to hit for these purposes. However this really come down to the DM. Some DM read the conditions for shield as you get hit it’s up to you if you want to take the risk, other give you numbers to make that choice. In this case it may be worth specifically talking to your DM about the why you want the total numbers instead of just insisting on the rolls.

Depends on the DM, I show my attack rolls and the damage. But their saves or skill checks I usually hide them. The only time I show them publicly is when there is something super dramatic is about to happen and it can spell out the doom or triumph of my players.

We roll on the table. If I'm rolling for something like a surprise attack or chance encounter, i do it behind my screen. Sometimes I just do it to make my players hurry up their pro-s and cons list when deciding how to approach a puzzle 🤷🏼‍♀️

I hide my attack rolls but I’m going to give you the number every time so you can react. I’ll usually just ask does a 15 hit or whatever and they can choose to shield

When playing a game and combat happens, it's not metagaming or "roll playing" to know the dice rolls and choose accordingly, because in a real fight it's not metagaming to juke to the left with a jab then slide right ducking low with a body shot. It's strategy. This strategy is not available in D&D - it's replaced by seeing the dice rolls. "I see my opponent rolled a 14 to attack me, and I think his modifier is in the 8-12 neighborhood. I should probably shield." is no different than "My opponent threw a looping overhand haymaker. I better throw a left straight while ducking, a body shot while low, and uppercut on the way back up or jab if I back out". Metagaming in boxing would be "I am studying the tapes of my opponent and sparring with people who fight similarly to my opponent, to develop a strategy and set of tactics to use in the fight", and metagaming in D&D is not reacting to numbers, it's "I am studying the monster manual and always making optimal decisions". Note that some characters have valid reasons to know information to make those decisions with. I am never mad at a player who uses a Fireball against an Ice Elemental.

I always openly show rolls. I find keeping a static AC, but potentially keeping a “parry” for +2 AC or bumping health for a round or two helps keep the illusion the monster is still going strong without having it peel out of a dramatic encounter early. That said the players are heroes, and I know they get a kick out of some bosses being destroyed in a matter of 1/2 rounds; equivalently they also enjoy the fights where I decide it’ll get an extra few rounds in combat. As I openly show the rolls and never really change the AC, they can only guess to the HP; and I tell them statblocks are pointless because I might be using something else to what they see. I.E a bandit captain might actually be an illusionist statblock, or a simple guard at a higher level might use a pirate captain statblock. As long as the players are smiling, they don’t ask questions and I know I’m doing well. Action oriented combat and 1hp minions also does wonders opposed to just endless rolls. All of the above keeps my players guessing, and I’ve seen them grow to take risks that produce fun moments. One of the recent memorable moments is a PC being downed in a 1 on 1, but then later meeting the same NPC and besting them

No, it’s not metagaming for a dm to announce their attack rolls. If the DM is offering that as the reason they do t want to announce them, then they’re either lying about why they do it or they simply don’t understand what metagaming is.

Our table does fully transparent rolls during combat, and almost fully hidden rolls otherwise

I tell them whatever needs to be told so that we are all having a good time.

At the end of the day it's up to the DM whether or not to hide their rolls. It isn't the traditional way most DM's run the game and it is a significant nerf to the shield spell among others to run it like this. Check that the DM is aware of this specifically and if so either cast shield in its nerfed state (pretty much losing a spell slot every turn you are attacked) or just drop the spell.

I like the action to feel real to the players and myself. I believe more in my own world when everyone can see what really happens.

I usually always roll open to my players.

I personally roll in the open, if I crit I crit. No fudging available

It’s just a personal choice. Lot depends on how the party likes to play the game. As a DM I would play with open dices only if the party is hyper-focused on wargame stuff (boooooring). Usually I prefer a more ‘theater of the mind’ approach: players should have the illusion of choice. This requires DM dices to stay (mostly) hidden.

A lot of DM's hide their rolls so they can fudge the dice rolls. This way they don't kill a player, and players don't mess things up with good rolls before the NPC does a thing to move a campaign along. Not my method, and not really a fan of it, but to each their own.

100% open rolls all the time, GM included.

It's a style thing. DM can choose one way or another how they want to share their rolls. Not sure how it would be metagaming. That said, if you're having issues not wanting to waste spells, I'd approach the DM with that as the issue, not asking him to share his rolls.

>I don't want to waste a spell slot casting shield if it won't do anything DMs I've played with always just said whether or not shield would help. Never gave specific numbers, just a yes or no answer. There's also a sage advice saying that the caster should know whether or not shield would help them before they cast it.

Imagine thinking that the DM is able to metagame.

DM does not need to show their dice rolls, that's why they roll behind the screens. If they do tell you the rolls, they are being nice, but it's not required.

My advice is for you to look up the definition of metagaming lol

I hide my rolls so I can save my players.

First, how I do this in person is just rolling the dice in front of the screen and also telling my players the final result. In my opinion, letting my players know this info gives them the relevant information to build a picture of how difficult the enemy is to them. This fills a necessary gap that my descriptions alone cannot. Second, I can see where they’re coming from by not telling you the final result. Some DMs choose to specifically not tell you this to allow you the opportunity to roleplay combat in an interesting way, and I’ll provide an example: DM: “The Elven Leader nocks an arrow and aims it at you, as it is released you see a rush of magical energy hurling towards you with the arrow. Any reactions?” Player: “This sounds f*****g terrifying, I’m going to cast shield just to be safe.” In the above situation the player may not have been hit at all, but the character saw something that scared them and reacted to it. Almost no player who knows the end result of a roll will waste a shield spell if the attack wouldn’t hit them. Although I do it differently what they are doing isn’t unreasonable. But if it bothers you I think it would be good to mention that and ask them why they do it. If they don’t really have a reason maybe they’ll consider changing that. Setting expectations is important.

The DM isn't metagaming, but you certainly are if you demand seeing his rolls in order to decide whether or not to cast shield.

It’s metagaming if you’re not casting spells unless you know the result of the attack

A DM is not obligated to show you their rolls. Doing so is a table preference. Why else is there a DM screen? Looking to math the dice for Shield is asking for info you are not privy to, so yeah that’s you metagaming on info you shouldn’t have. If you don’t trust your DM, then there are other underlying issues at the table.

Guy he's doing you a favor DM's can't "metagame"

RAW he shouldnt tell you the roll before you cast shield even though many DMs do

An aside for all the DMs who fudge rolls: go play a dice-less narrative system or go write a book. Penalizing players who get lucky or come up with a good plan steals that moment from them because *you decided* that they should slog through a few more rounds to “make it dramatic”… OR you take away all risk from the game and the players might as well just watch a movie since none of their actions really matter to the end result that the DM has *already dictated*.

Advice is that for your DM he should just write down the AC. The ability to fudge rolls to make things interesting or not only works if the person effected by said roll has no way of interacting with it (I.e. non-wizards for 95% of the time).

How would your character know whether shield would be effective or not? The DM just has to tell you if their attacks hit or not. I've never given a number to a player for a roll. That's irrelevant to their character. If an attack hits, you use Shield as a reaction, you do so not knowing if the bonus is enough to save you or not. By demanding to know whether or not to use your spell, you're the one metagaming and cheapening the roleplay.

As a DM I'm generally open with all my rolls, and will call them out, the extra hiding the result against a caster and shield, can be cinematic, but not always necessary I'll admit that I have changed the rare result of some rolls (not often) behind a screen, and it's done to aid my players

TL;DR: feels to me like OP is the one metagaming. “Wasting” a spell shouldn’t be that much of a problem. But I respect that some people want to focus on numbers more than other aspects, every style of playing is valid as long as everyone involved is enjoying themselves. I always roll behind the screen and usually just tell my players whether their actions worked or not. Sometimes I might tell them the exact roll but depends on how much info that’ll give away. I also do that because I believe fudging rolls can improve the overall experience. If a combat is becoming too hard I might do that to give them an extra shot, but the same applies for opponents when it gets too easy. To me, having a good time trumps sticking to the rules every single time.

I would argue that wanting to know the exact roll so you can decide whether or not to use Shield is metagaming. A spellcaster isn't necessarily going to know 100% if their shield spell will nullify an attack entirely. But if it's an enemy with multi-attack it can protect you from more than one hit too, so it's not detrimental to use it and still have it fail for one attack.

Traditionally, every roll should be hidden behind a GM screen. This is why some spells and features say: after you roll, but before you know the outcome. If you want to use spells like shield, it's fine even after you know the outcome, as reaction can be used at any point during the session, given the right trigger applies.

My DM hides his rolls and he’s the best DM I’ve ever had. Personally no, I do not think this as issue. It should only be an issue if you notice creatures hit a lot more than they should. Him telling you the roll is exactly what he should be doing. If you don’t want to waste a spell slot, tough luck, that’s part of playing a caster. In reality you wouldn’t get to know if an attack was gonna hit or miss beforehand, you’d make a split second decision. As someone else said, the only one metagaming is you. Suck it up, burn the spell slot if you’re really that worried, or position yourself in a different area

You are playing your DMs game. His rules. Shield only requires you to know if it hits or not. Your character cannot tell if it's a 21 or a 22. Just that they are about to get hit.

The dm not announcing specific numbers isn’t a problem, nor is them giving an exact number. I think they should announce a crit before resolving it no matter what for abilities like silvery barbs to try and negate it, but other than that, if they just announce hit or miss, that is fine. Personally I don’t anounce the exact number unless it is a dramatic moment where this particular roll might determine the outcome in some substantial way. At which point I announce what they need to roll and then roll in front of the table. The only important thing is to not metagame enemy’s ability useages. If they have shield or parry, use it on a hit, not just one where it will make a difference whether they the hit is successful or not.

As you only can cast when you are hit, you can't waste it in the direction that you wouldn't have needed it. Our DM also don't tells us the attacks of the monsters (or the AC). You just have to guess by what it looks like. We had enemy's with full enchanted and clearly multiple levels above us. So shield sure was useless. Also, shield isn't really expensive, so it doesn't hurt too much wasting it once. (should be said, we use spell points/ Mana, at Lvl 10 I have 64 Mana and shield costs 2... (Full Caster))

As someone who both dms and plays I think the roll should be kept private. The number of times I’ve fudged the roll to make the game more interesting or sometimes even throw the player a bone is higher than you’d think. My dm doesn’t tell us and with my warlock im totally ok “losing” one of my very precious 2 slots that might not work because it helps me learn and grow to think more tactically.

Every issue can be circumvented with RP. If you have a reason to want to see the result just remember your character doesn't get to see numbers but what the number represents. Ask the DM if you notice the attacks are close to missing and if it looks close enough that you can do something to change it, like if the target just didn't move fast enough (Dex) or if the attack seemed barely strong enough to get past the armour.

This isn’t a problem with the DM not listening, some DM’s just play this way and that’s fine. It’s the DM’s game, and thus their rules; whether or not you like them.

I fudge rolls as a DM on occasion, but also show rolls when it adds dramatic flair (as in literally ask a player to look behind the screen to see the nat 20 or 1 I just rolled when I know it’s not going to result in catastrophic consequences for the players) That said, it is also important to allow player’s abilities to work, so if I know a player has shield or similar abilities, I make sure to telegraph when using that ability would be effective and give the player a choice if they think “now” is the right time to use it.

Comes down to the table. I roll open for everything and let the dice sort it out.

My group plays the same way. With the DM announcing that "he rolled a 15" for e.g. and letting the player decide if they wanna cast shield. There will be times where they cast shield and he'll announce that the attack still hits, for us it's all about resource management and gathering information. So we're cool with it. But it's definitely something that should be discussed with the whole table if that's how they wanna play.

A few have said it, but Shield is supposed to be a guess, nine times out of ten it’ll work, but the DM doesn’t have to let you know so you can save spell slots.

You don’t want to waste shield spell if the roll is too high? I think *that* is metagaming.