View Full Version : V2.8 3.5E Ruleset - Show PC/GM Actions

July 17th, 2011, 05:21
Moved from "Test Release 2.8" thread.

[3.5E] Players can't see the result (hit/miss) of their targeted attack without the Game option "Chat: Show GM/NPC actions" set to on. This then shows all of the GM rolls too!

The 4E ruleset has the "Target: Enable PC Actions" Combat option that controls this - would it be possible to have a similar option in the 3.5E ruleset?


The Enable PC Actions just controls whether the players can target and drop rolls onto tokens and CT entries. It doesn't control the visibility of rolls.

It seems like you are trying to use a different model then the ones I built. Are you saying that you want to hide GM rolls, but still allow PCs to automatically know whether they hit/miss? (i.e. you want to be able to fudge NPC attacks, but not NPC defenses?)

Can you give me more information on what you would like to see, and some thoughts behind it? I want to understand, so I build the right options.

* Should GM rolls be visible (for characters)?
* Should GM roll results be visible (for characters)?
* Should GM rolls be visible (for NPCs)?
* Should GM roll results be visible (for NPCs)?
* Should PC rolls be visible?
* Should PC roll results be visible (vs. PCs)?
* Should PC roll results be visible (vs. NPCs)?

Right now, there are 3 options in 3.5E for showing GM/NPC actions:
* On = Show all rolls and results
* Rolls = Hide results of any rolls that originate or target an NPC.
* Off = Same as Rolls, but hide all GM rolls. Hidden rolls only display results to GM.

In F2F games that I played, I have typically seen these 3 scenarios, which is why they are the ones I modeled for the ruleset option.
* All rolls visible, and everyone knows the result hit/miss
* All rolls visible, but GM states results (allows more fudging)
* GM hides all rolls, and states results (allows a lot of fudging)

In 4E, there are 2 options:
* On = Show all rolls and results.
* Off = Hide all GM rolls and their results. Still shows results for PCs.


Thanks for the detailed reply Moon Wizard. Good point re fudging rolls, I hadn't thought about that - I'll give my thoughts on this later in the post...

Background: I've been playing for a few sessions now with your excellent d20_JPG ruleset which has the option "Player attack drops", when set to on this allows attack drops and gives the result (HIT/MISS) in both the player and GM chat window.

Attack drops results for NPC attacks will not be seen by the players unless the "Show GM dice rolls" option is on.

What I'm looking for is similar functionality to what is in the d20_JPG ruleset - which effectively gives me the ability to control most of the options myself, so I can make the decision on a game-by-game (or even combat by combat) basis. Some games my players and I might want to go completely "old school" and manually report hits/misses ourselves, other games I might like the players attack results automatically displayed (especially for combats with a lot of NPCs, so I'm not scrolling through the combat tracker trying to find "Skeleton, Human Warrior 12" (as I can't see the number due to the name being too long) etc.) and some games I might like GM attacks reported (including mods etc) so that everyone knows how the game works (perhaps in a training combat for players new to the system).

I completely understand what you say about fudging rolls - I've had to do that in a recent combat that could well have been a TPK. But, fudging tends to come in towards the end of combat at which point fudging the NPC's AC can become obvious to the PC's ("Hey, I missed with a 15 earlier in the combat!"), I usually end up fudging the NPC attack rolls in order to give the PC's a better chance of survival.

In the d20_JPG ruleset, I usually go with "Player attack drops" on and "Show GM dice rolls" off - something which can be done in the new (looking absolutely fantastic by-the-way) 3.5E ruleset, but which doesn't report the attack result immediately to the player unless "Chat: Show GM/NPC actions" is set to on - which then shows all the GM rolls (and mods) too.

"What's the actual difference between the result only being shown to the GM then they report the resulting Hit or Miss, or the players immediately seeing the result?" I hear you say! In theory, very little. But, in our most recent game (d20_JPG), when the TPK was imminent the combat was on the edge and whenever an attack was made there were collective groans or cheers based on the attack result being displayed immediately to the players (yes, we use voice). Something that I don't think we would have got with me reporting back "hit" or "miss" - strange, but that's the way the combat went.

OK, so I think I've gone on long enough, hope you're still with me and I've put my views across well enough. My request would be to have all (most) of the options available so that the decision can be made by the GM/Players for their session/combat.



Moon Wizard
July 18th, 2011, 20:14
So, here is what I am thinking:

Make 2 options. One for whether GM rolls are visible, and another for whether to display results to the client.

If the GM roll visibility option is off, then all GM rolls are hidden. Any hidden rolls will automatically hide the results from the clients, regardless of the client result display option.

If the client result display option is set to on, the players will always see roll results for NPCs or PCs (unless the roll is hidden).

If the client result display option is set to PC, the players only see roll results that do not include an NPC.

If the client result display option is off, the players never see any roll results (hit, miss, apply damage, etc.), though the GM always sees them.

The default settings should actually match up to how it was configured in d20_JPG. The GM roll visibility will be off, and the results display set to on.


July 19th, 2011, 03:55

That sounds ideal - thanks for taking the time to look at this and understanding what I was going on about! :)



July 23rd, 2011, 02:20
Hey JPG,

The changes made in the recent V2.8 are great! :)

Thank you so much for looking at this and making a change so quickly...



Moon Wizard
July 23rd, 2011, 02:36
No worries. I try to keep the number of options low, to keep complexity low, but sometimes you need the options to make it work for everyone.