Being a good DM involves messing with players' heads on occasion.
>DM last game.
>Casually throwing monsters just above what players should be fighting.
>Encounter new monster
>Player rolls 19 total.
>"You miss." very casual.
>Players look at each other in extreme concern.
>Silence becomes uncomfortable
>"I'm joking. Of course that hits." again, very casually.
>Players not sure if true or DM fiat.
Agree or Disagree?
I agree that you should mess with them, but never in that way. You should make them question things in game, not out of game. What you did is just really immersion breaking.
>>44002204
Very true. I don't think that's a huge issue with this group though. They're all very much in it for the hack n' slash aspect.
>>44002149
The twist: an illusionist somewhere nearby is attempting to support the enemy by obfuscating the results of injury, hoping that your double-takes and second guesses will provide openings.
That exchange was your character barely passing a hidden perception check.
Well that sounds awful and awkward OP and I think maybe you're just looking for a way to interpret it so that it seems less awful and awkward in remembrance.
But in principle I agree. Playing on to-hit rolls an example might be an area of altered reality/probability where your dice are read in reverse (so low is good), or a creature that can read minds and anticipate attacks so a 'hit' never hits but a wild miss might.
>>44002149
>Agree or Disagree?
Agree, but >>44002945
>>44002204
these.
>>44002149
I do the same thing, but only when its very obvious that they hit or don't hit.
> Okay, I got a 31, does that hit you?
> Nah, misses
> ???
> Nah just messin' with you, of course it hits
>>44002891
I like that, nice way to introduce illusions without metagame bullshit.
>>44002891
>your swing goes wide
>you notice the enemy is sporting a new injury, before it suddenly disappears.
Is this thread a joke?
Is this fucking serious?
>>44003892
Ur mum
