Languages are so funny, because characters can easily have like three, but they also rarely come up in my games, so I've had moments where I've been running for a character for years and:
"There is some writing in a language you don't know. Roll int to see if you can identify the language."
**player rolls a success**
"The language is Draconic."
"Oh, I speak Draconic."
"...you what?"
My favorite little joke to play on players is something like
"You enter the mystery dungeon in the middle of a dragon infested territory. You know these tend to be filled with traps and puzzles to keep non draconic outsiders away from valuable artifacts. As you walk down the stairs you see a strange, draconic rune on the door."
'Oh I can read draconic!'
"It says 'PUSH'"
This is great. I love doing things like this, not only because it's funny, but it brings a sense of relatability to dungeons, and can help give the dungeon character. I like my dungeons to be a character not just a random group of rooms that supply loot and combat. I'll drop in a lot of clues and lore in there that can be used to figure out maybe what's going on or why certain things are the way they are that can be skipped or ignored but if they explore they gain information that will make it more immersive and usually give them the upper hand. But I like to also add a lot of stuff like that that isn't necessarily useful so that they don't metagame knowing that every unknown inscription is something totally useful.
DM: “Does anyone’s characters understand ?”
Two players: Me!
DM: “Really? Two of you?”
—
DM: “Some dwarvish runes here say something…”
Me: “I understand dwarvish.”
DM: “Oh yeah!”
Me: “This character is a dwarf.”
DM: “Oh, oops was thinking of your other character (different game).”
Me: “Hahaha, he also understand dwarvish.”
DM: just started laughing
Psh, my current character is a half-elf who doesn't even speak Elven. He was adopted by a lovely halfling couple, so I just gave him that language instead
I mean yeah, but I think what they were trying to say was that they had the player roll because in years of playing it never came up that the player could speak Draconic, so the dm just forgot they could.
Spell DCs. These mfers will never ever remember them, and take a minute to find it on their character sheets every single time they cast a spell. Even if they use DND beyond. Or is it just my group?
Omg it's not just your group. I was mulling this over recently. I say, "8 + spellcasting ability mod + proficiency bonus" so often it's starting to sound funny to me.
My favorite is when they start reading the spell description out loud trying to find the spell save DC.
I mean, I get it, they're new players and they aren't familiar with the rules. But I can only say "8 plus your spellcasting modifier plus proficiency" so many times in an hour before I go crazy.
Double bonus points if the players say "What's the spellcasting modifier?"
It's been two years and I still have to remind to the rogue player that having an ally near the target does not give them advantage, it's just a condition for Sneak Attack to happen.
I can forgive this *if* flanking rules are in place. Because if the player remembers what flanking is, for better or for worse, they will always remember how sneak attack works.
Most of the time at least.
Seems like more than is needed, but I suppose the DM can never be too informed. I just periodically review character sheets between sessions (easy because we play in Roll 20), but before we migrated online I kept a sticky note on my DM screen with just hp, ac, and passive perception.
AC for balancing and just having a good idea of generally how tanky they were; I still asked them each time if a whatever hit.
Having their AC written down doesn't mean you have to cut through that whole part of the process. It just means that you already know that it does hit and can reflect that in your word choice. It turns two sentences: "does a 17 hit?" And "that's 10 damage" into "that's a 17 to hit for 10 damage." It still gives the critical information to the PC, so if they happen to have Defensive Duellist or *shield* or whatever, they can still know they will help against the attack and declare them.
Regardless, big one is their save DC: really helpful to speed things up when mass rolling to just look at the sheet and confirm.
I'd go with:
* HP
* Languages [EDIT]
* Passive Perception
* Passive Investigation
* Passive Insight
* Has proficiency in Arcana, History and/or Religion
Passive Stealth doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if the players want to go stealthy they will inform you.
HP is just to avoid a TPK, by doing some quick math if the combat is really hard.
And I don't think you need all Skill Proficiencies, I'm going with those 3 because I rule them (in most cases) as requiring proficiency to make the check.
Replace HP with AC and this is exactly what I keep track of as well. I think that the skill proficiencies are especially useful for prompting players with info that their characters would be likely to pick out regardless of checks or anything.
It's actually **characters** who don't know what is being cast. Regardless of they are PCs, NPCs, allies, enemies or bystanders, However, virtually all of the time it's very obvious that spells are being cast.
Their hp in fights. Not strictly, but generally knowing that the 3rd level wizard in the back has gotten hit twice and the warlock hasnt at all is nice to know.
In my first campaign, my players would occasionally forget their character sheet at home, and they'd have no idea how much HP they had. So I started tracking their HP between sessions to maintain game state.
Nowadays, I have a nice Excel spreadsheet that I display on a big TV for everyone to see, as well as an initiative tracker.
I don't. That's their job imho and I have enough else to worry about.
Fwiw I don't really use passive scores outside of stealth checks tho. So if you use them more than that it might be worth it.
I do keep an eye on HP though. (mostly as a benefit of the DnDbeyond encounter builder.) And that's been useful on occasion.
Tbc. I use passive perception for the DC for stealth checks.
It's the only time the rules specifically calling out NEEDING to use passive scores, so it's the only time I use them cuz in general I find the rule pretty clunky and leads to lots of, imho, power crap where passive scores are treated like a pseudo-reliable talent.
Passive perception(if using, ive played in games were it wasnt used)
The only 2 i track whem dming is
Ac & Hp which is mainly used to balance encounters.
In all my times dming ive only had to ask to have access to their sheet once as the player kept changing ability scores or proficiencies, other than session 0 or when players were seeking clarity.
My advice is only track what you need to and will actively use
Passive stealth is not in the rules, is that a homebrew thing you use? What is it for?
Personally, I don't see the need to track ability scores and proficiencies. When you call for a skill or ability check, the player just rolls and gives you the total result, so when would you need to consult this?
My cheat sheet has AC, Passive Perception, Passive Insight.
I would highly recommend AC. You roll to hit, and say: "The monster rolls a 17, which hits for 9 damage" instead of saying "The monster rolls a 17, does that hit?" and it saves you a ton of time over many attack rolls, especially if you have any newer players who don't have their AC memorized.
Passive everything is in the rules. Passive is just a type of check used by DMs to either hide that a check is being made, or to alleviate the need for repetitive checks. Perception is the only skill with a more specific use in the rules for its Passive check, but Passive checks as a whole are part of the rules, and it can be used for any and every skill.
and, despite the name, are neither zero-effort, nor a "floor" of how good a character is. As you say, they're for either repeated effort, or for when the GM doesn't want it to be known there is a roll - so "passive stealth" might be if the PCs have, like, 4 hours to endure hiding, to see if they can manage keep finding hiding places for that long. "passive arcana" might be looking through a whole damn mystic library to find the needed information, or used by the GM to determine if the PC glances at the mystical symbol and realises that it's something without a roll.
Related to ability scores, but: saving throw bonuses. Particularly I'm thinking Wisdom, if they're ever being scried.
Something that might also be useful to add over time would be notes about specific traits/skills/abilities that the PCs like to use a lot. I've had more than one planned encounter easily bypassed because I forgot half the party had like darkvision or a climb speed, for example.
it's not bad to have em all!
i keep track of their AC, passive perception and spell save DC, if applicable. anything else i can ask for during session, or look at their sheets if it's between sessions. or they can bring it up!
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t use passive scores for anything really with the exception of Passive perception. And I only use that for things that happen in the periphery. If you are actively trying to perceive something, then I don’t ask for the passive number. I know for a lot of DMs, they treat the passive score as the lowest the characters score could be, as it “I roll a 9, but my passive is 15”. But I don’t like that. Passive being a minimum then means that they perceive every single thing around them all of time at that level, and that’s just not realistic. They can’t perceive 18 things at once, even if they are very perceptive.
Passive stealth isn’t a thing, they have to roll stealth checks if they wanna be stealthy.
Passive Perception, Insight, and Investigation are the skills I keep track of.
I also note AC, DCs, and languages.
Keeping track of languages means you wont be letting the players metagame the languages. For example: they wouldn’t say “does anyone know draconic” you’d just say, “since x knows draconic—“ but if no one knew draconic, they’d either roll a check and recognize it, or have no idea.
I'm the opposite I track AC as for me and my friends as we try to be a little more descriptive during combat (its been fun for us) and less asking during combat makes it go quicker. Even with my player who is a wizard / blade singer and changes AC a lot Roll 20 can track it on the fly! Only time combat slows is when the player asks would shield spell help me in this instant. I usually say instinct says yes or no.
I do track AC honestly but I don't just say "Oh the ogre hit you for 10 bludgeoning damage" I say "And the Ogre swings at you, the first hit skims the top of your head but the second blow hits you in the chest. You take 8 bludgeoning damage." I'm rolling as I narrate, I only clarify AC if I know someone has Shield up or Armor of Agathys or something like that.
Or I will clarify if I'm close to their AC "And the ogre pulls back his arm and - does an 18 hit?" and they shoult "HA! No my AC is 19!"
I have 5 - 8 players per table and it just makes it faster. They also seem to like the narration. But to be clear i'm also very transparent on monster AC. After round 1 they usually know the AC. I use Round 1 as them 'feeling out the bad guys' and so if I have 6 people roll and we have a 14, 16, 17, 13 and 20 to hit... and the 16 misses but the 17 hits it makes it obvious.
But I also note down languages - I have a kobold that knows 12 languages in one game. I also note down what in my opinion is 'the spell/ability I need to know about. Ie: Had a Warlock with Devil's Sight.
I track that not to defend against it but to give them cool character moments.
"My mage casts Darkness and you can't see anything."
Warlock had a fun moment with Eldritch Blast.
I also track their max and current HP as there are some abilities in my monsters that change based on where their health is at.
The big three: AC, HP, PP (passive Perception)
(You should keep track of AC because it can change, and you should have it in mind when designing encounters, regardless of whether you allow your players to metagame or not.)
Secondary: tools and languages, background features, bonds/flaws/ideals, and alignment.
Things you don't need: rare passive scores, abiity scores, skill proficiencies. These are either things you will rarely reference (and can easily retrieve by asking) or things that only the players need to worry about (and you can easily retrieve by asking).
I'd leave a field on each player's index card with a niche feature they haven't used yet. This way you can try to think of ways to bring it into the spotlight. Write in new ones as they acquire more features you think they've yet to enjoy or haven't gotten to touch on in a long while.
This can also apply to cool magic items that might have been awarded early on and forgotten because they just weren't needed for so long.
Jump height and distance.
It doesn't come up often? Yeah, because you don't remember that it should. But when you've got it written there that angerproblemicus the barbarian can longjump 20 feet, you know your 20foot chasm needs expenditure of resources from the others.
Is it the most common thing? No, not yet. Once its on your page it will be, and it helps Str be more meaningful.
I agree with the average 'standard resource-less damage' and also a way to reach that with say, d6s. When they go for an improvised turn you should be able to say 'ok so if the warlock just EB'd or the fighter just swung, that would be 30 damage on average, so the standard go to should be 8d6+ some more minor condition'. This is how you have a standard for creative and good use of the environment, and aren't caught unprepared or imposing an unrewarding 1d4 improvised damage. Innovative creative use of environment to cause damage should be rewarding.
>Big thing I want to clarify: I’m not including AC. It just feels wrong to me to say “the ogre hits you for 10 bludgeoning damage” without at the very least letting my players say “I have a 16 AC, does it miss?”
Honestly, I think you'll regret this.
Just curious: Why do you think he will regret it? I played in campaigns with both styles and didn't notice much of a difference.
And isn't it intended for the player to know the attack roll against them, e.g. to decide if they cast shield?
For characters without ways to modify their AC as a reaction, it's a pointless interaction and slows down combat.
If you want to make it transparent, you can say 'the orc has a 19, which hits', rather than asking a question you already know the answer to every single time.
> For characters without ways to modify their AC as a reaction, it's a pointless interaction and slows down combat.
Not at all. It's valuable information for players. "He barely hit me both times, I should try to get partial cover"
"Ok he struggles to hit me, I should keep him under pressure so he doesn't get in range of the squishier targets"
"Looks like he only hits in above average rolls, maybe giving him disadvantage can be worth it" vs "He hits us pretty reliably, maybe we need to keep our distance for now"
These are things the characters would notice and the players should be able to include in their strategies. Taking that away is unfair towards them imo. You can either just state the Attack Roll result, or narrate it in great detail, but doing *that* for every fight will take a lot of time.
You can just "19, it hits" but that's just changing it from the more natural "19?" "That hits" for no good reason
Fair enough, I think this is a good compromise and how I typically handle it myself.
Usually I still ask if the attack roll is close to the usual AC of a character, e.g. to make sure I don't forget about a temporary spell or similar. If the attack roll is a 13 no question asked, it misses. If it is a 28 it hits - same thing no question necessary (for most PC types).
Asking each time is indeed repetitive and slow.
Of course a little knowledge of my PCs is relevant beforehand, but without looking it up I know my rogue has AC17, cleric ~20, paladin ~20, druid 11-14 depending on wildshape. These values will change from time to time though, depending on spells and other effects.
There are often way too many variables at play during combat, that it's easy to miss something. Buffs, defuffs, spells, features, conditions.... At our table, we call out our numbers so everyone has a chance to double check. Even with that, there are times during session recap when we've realized we overlooked something. "OH shoot! I could've XYZ!!" is an excellent way to remember and learn for next time.
Why though? I never keep track of AC for players. I always ask if "x" hits. I've spoken to the group about it, and they all agree that it feels best to be asked, rather than just told they're hit.
I played in one campaign where the DM knew our AC and just told us when we got hit, and it just felt...bad.
Yeah, I always ask to confirm, just in case they have an ability I've forgotten.
"Does a 21 hit?" ... "SHIELD!"
Or even if it would obviously hit: "Does a 32 hit?" them: "..."
It's just a part of combat.
No, because we explain the character sheet before we play.
Even if that was the case, what does that add? 5 seconds?
You seem to really want to convince me it takes 20 minutes to think about your AC. So let's just say you're right and move on, since this is taking way longer than looking at a character sheet... :p
I love the RP aspects of a session, I've just found that combat - especially playing online I guess - can _really_ drag when there are all those extra interactions.
Passive Perception is probably the important one, you can ask for most anything else but when you ask for PP you’re kind of giving the game away that there’s something there they’re not seeing.
And it’s better to ask than to bury yourself in information you mostly won’t use. I’d include languages (besides Common, obviously) and I might note down any physical features that an NPC might notice when they first met them - “wow, that’s some scar you’ve got, stranger! And your friend there has hair the color of autumn fire, I’ve not seen your like around these parts before.”
Passive Perception and Insight.
Investigation isn't really 'Passive' same for stealth. You call for a roll or they aren't investigating.
You don't need to know their ability scores or skill proficiencies behind the screen, you can ask them that if it's relevant.
"Passive" can be used for instances where the PC is taking a long time to do something - i.e. rather than rolling again and again and again, the PC spends a while doing it, and is guaranteed a certain "floor" of success, rather than the randomness of the dice roll. Despite the name, it's not "passive" - it requires effort and exertion - but if a PC is, I dunno, spending a few hours poking through a mystical library, rather than making multiple Arcana rolls, it's entirely valid to just use "passive Arcana", so they don't either have to make a load of rolls, or flub making one roll, despite being good at the skill. Passive Investigation would be similar - despite the name, it doesn't mean there's no effort involved, but if the PC is spending enough time on the task to "earn" a certain guaranteed result, then that's entirely valid (it's kinda-sorta a replacement for the "take 10" rule from 3.x, where PCs could take extra time to get +10 to their roll)
I almost fully abdicate knowledge of my characters to my characters. After a while I start to remember AC passive perception and languages etc, but especially with new players I do a lot of “what is your x” and “can you read me this ability” and “any actions, bonus actions, or other things you’d like to try to do here” to make them figure things out.
Ability scores and skills proficiency is probably not necessary. Rather I just try to ask myself how I'm using each ability in a game and make sure it's spread out.
AC is handy to know (i know you said youre not tracking it). But if you have someone who uses Shield spell, I like to include some inherent risk. For instance I'll let the player know it hits, but without the specifics, there is a (very small) chance Shield fails.
I'd add Height, Weight, Age, Carrying capacity & Jump distance. You won't need them often but when you do, you're glad you've written them down somewhere
Just remember your player’s class. The rest is derivative.
Base stats are dependent on what class your player plans on playing, as is AC. Knowing the neighborhood of base stats will tell you what skills that player likely took and where you should set DCs accordingly. If a player took an odd skill choice that you aren’t really utilizing, they will likely let you know by offering “can I make an *x* check?” when it comes up.
AC is nice to know only insofar as you not having to ask AC every time you roll to hit, but you could just as easily just give them a number and ask hit or miss until you have it sussed out.
HP is irrelevant as players have two states. >1 hp and down. If a player goes down it’s the party’s job to pick them back up, not yours. I don’t mean this adversarily of course, but it’s part of the party’s teamwork and part of the of the danger inherent in the combat portion of the game. The only hard rule is don’t target the healer as much if the party only has one, but a down per encounter is healthy to keep the party on their toes, and it’s very difficult to kill PCs unless you’re *really* trying.
Abilities are also good to know, but mostly because of your role as adjucator. It’s good to know what abilities do so you’re not caught off guard and can tailor encounters around them to breed a sense of usefulness. This kind of just goes back to “know your party’s class” though.
I subscribe to Matt Colville's philosophy "Encounter development doesn't end when you roll initiative." With that, I like to have an general sense of the character's remaining resources at any given moment. So, I maintain a one-page synopsis of all characters. It has:
- Character name
- Player name
- Class(es)
- Level(es)
- Attributes (including encumbrance and passive perception)
- AC
- HP
- Current HP
- Magic Items
On a separate page I track expendables such as spell's prepared / memorized, spell slots, Ki, Rages, and Superiority Dice.
In between session, I nail it down. The information helps me better plan the next session's encounters.
My technique might be perceived as overkill by some - if not most. However, after 40+ of DM-ing, I've found it works for me.
I only worry about the passive checks for experienced players. Even then occasionally I will ask them what their passive ability is roll a dice and continue on.
With newer players I try and keep more tabs on their sheet just to make sure that they aren't cheating themselves.
I keep track of passive Perception, Insight, and Investigation. Instead of keeping track of all of everyone's skills, I keep track of which skill/language/tool proficiencies the party doesn't have or only one member has.
I make a note of AC, HP, and everybody's worst save to keep in mind when planning encounters.
I also like to make note of how much XP the players have until they level if I'm using experience instead of story-based progression, just so I can plan ahead a bit as far as monsters go.
I'm currently running a duet and I keep track of way more on my player's character sheet than I do for a traditional party of 3-5, but that's because in a duet, the whole thing is built for one player, so I need to be more familiar with what his character can do.
My DM just has a cheat sheet with everyone's AC, Spell DC, and HP to help with planning and then passive perception to see if we notice stuff. If a player has a character where they want to really emphasize a certain skill I could see how keeping track of that would be useful but no need to know all of them. And then just a list of languages known by the party.
I personally also keep track AC and HP. I still say the "does a 23 hit", but I try and have the PCs normal AC and various bonuses. I also keep an idea of racial features, so I can try and make situations where they get used. Also, current carried weight, and max carry capacity.
The only player stat I track is AC. Most of the time my players have to be asked what their AC is, after saying "the ogre takes a swing at *playername*" they, as new players, don't think to tell me their AC and ask if it hits. So I'm not robbing them of the chance to ask, as they wouldn't in the first place, and unless I track their AC I'm going to repeatedly ask them.
Passive stats are easy enough to ask about, and they should know their own ability scores and proficiencies and add them to rolls on their own when making a check/save.
Just Perception and AC from a mechanics standpoint.
I know the Wizard is smart, the Rogue is sneaky and can pick locks and the Centaur Barbarian is big and clumsy other than that you should probably let the others be interactions the characters drive.
Maybe think why you are hesitant about AC but not everything else like ability scores and Profs (also that is an insane number of things to try and track).
Narrating that an attack is going to land or hit its mark is mechanically and thematically a solid approach and that lets the player decide if they want to use reactionary skills.
I like Insight, perception, and languages.
I've never used Passive Investigation nor have I really seen a point to it except for stumbling on Glyphs of Warding. Passive Stealth is similarly a pain since I assume that the party is never traveling stealthily implicitly and must say that they are (which leads to active stealth checks).
Ability Scores are similarly a pain. Not really worth keeping track of specific numbers, more like simple ball parks. Skill proficiencies probably will have the list of tracking be a little too long, turning from a simple index card with all the info on it, to an index card for each character depending on skills and the like.
That being said, I would also shorthand some sort of class/race abilities on there just to remind yourself of Char-gen choices, such as Favored Enemy/Terrain, abnormal resistances, or major passives (like Gloomstalker's invisibility-like ability in the darkness).
passives are for use anytime there's repeated use of a skill, remember, as well as the "when the GM doesn't want to openly have a roll and make it overt that something is going on". So passive investigation would be someone spending a longer period looking over an area, and so rather than making repeated investigation rolls, they can use their passive score (it's kinda-sorta similar to the "take 10" rule from 3.x), and so get some guarantee of competency level, especially if they're any good at the skill, rather than having to rely on just a roll. Passive stealth would be if characters have to hide for a long period, rather than against specific things looking for them (so, something like hiding in woods being searched by enemies; if the GM didn't want to specifically game out the precise interactions between searches and PCs, they could just use the passive score to figure out how well the PCs do)
The top things I like to have in front of me are passive perception, AC, and Spell DC. As others have pointed out, languages and skill proficiencies are good to have, but they aren’t as essential to have on a moments notice.
It's good to have their high and long distance jump distance as well as their max carry weight already calculated.
Not because carry weight necessarily comes into play, but it is a handy reminder to judge whether they can or cannot _feasibly_ attempt whatever strength based task they want. Especially if they have racial traits like powerful build.
HP and AC are the only ones I track, because you can bet your bottom dollar they'll tell you whatever else when it's relevant. Player monke neuron activation comes from "big number do thing", so let them have that.
Here's what i use;
* Name
* Description [The description they gave me for their character incase i want to have NPC's comment on something]
* Race [There might be some racial bias from some of the world or some situational relevance abilities i would otherwise forget about]
* Class + Subclass [So i can remind them how some of these abilities work, casually remind them they have a situational bonus incase of rangers or make a correct ruling incase something seems off. Mostly useful for things such as barbarian's reckless providing advantage on my attacks when used, that the bard will get back full inspiration on a short rest post 5th, etc]
* Background [Both written background cliffnotes and notes on their background ability, as they require effort on my part to make relevant a lot of the time]
* Passive perception and investigation [Perception is what you see. Investigation is what you deduce from what you see. The players not having to ask to check for traps at every door and hallway is the biggest reason for me using them, but the ocassional stealthy individual will be picked up too alongside just noticing some extra details when they aren't specificly looking for something.]
* Passive Insight [My players don't always notice my subtle hints, that doesn't mean their characters won't pick up if something seem odd. Can also use it as something feels off in terms of situations or objects as a gut feeling type of situation]
* Languages [Incase they'd overhear someone talking in another language then common; i can just point out what was said]
* AC [With and without a shield equipped incase they mix up their weapons and/or lack warcaster, if they wish to use reactions then i'll let them do so ofcource but it is easier to mention "Monster rolled X with his ability for Y damage".]
* Spell DC's [Having to ask what their spell DC is with each spellcast gets annoying quickly, similar to the AC above.]
* Prepared spells for the day incase it can fluctuate. [Allows me to subtly setup some ocassional usefullness with perhaps some less commonly used spells to make it feel like it was a better preparation even if it isn't "the top tier spell". My players tend to mix between 2 or 3 lists when playing clerics, wizards and the like for adventuring days, town days and then potentially have adjustments to try out new things.]
* Magic items they have / are attuned to and what they do.
I used to track skill proficiencies but it doesn't really matter seeing as the roll is what'll determine the result anyhow and being proficient in something doesn't mean someone auto passes or succeeds. Same logic with ability scores/saves.
Honestly: zero.
I used to do this for my first few campaigns, but got zero value out of it. After 2 or 3 sessions, you'll just intuitively know the Fighter and Paladin have good AC. The Cleric, Druid, and Monk have good Perception. And the Rogue, Ranger, Bard, and Wizard have gold Knowledge skills.
I use dndbeyond and keep each player sheet open in a tab on my computer for virtual and in-person sessions. It's not perfect but I don't have to worry about maintaining a list
I'd have a sheet of all their static abilities, such as resistances, yes languages as mentioned by someone else, any background & class features that give them a static effect, along with AC and alignment, and the main passives. I wouldn't keep track of ability scores, skill proficiencies are up to you.
I am a DM for a mostly new group. I find that I have to have their entire character sheet because they simply don't know where to find stuff on their sheet and they don't know what their abilities really can do. I have come to realize it is a burden for me to have to have all this stuff but it is the only way for me to maintain my sanity.
Before these last two sessions we had Saturday and Sunday, I sat down and went over some of their spells and abilities with them again. I talked with the cleric about Spiritual Weapon. I talked to the bard about Cutting Words. I talked to the Ranger about Hunter's Mark. I talked to the paladin about Smite and that it requires a melee attack. The fighter played AD&D and has read and understands their abilities. He's also into programming computers. The Druid is an avid 5e player and knows the rules maybe even better than I do.
So my answer is it depends on you, and it depends on them.
I run encounters off a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet lists each attribute score for the players, the NPCs and the monsters involved. It lists the HP. It lists the AC. It lists the weapons and the to-hit modifiers and damage rolls. The spell list and the other skills are not on the spreadsheet. But for the monsters I might have a note about "Charge" or "Pact Tactics".
I always keep a copy of the player's current character sheet in my notes. When they level up I make a new sheet, so their older sheets are also stored in my directory. I figure at the end of the campaign they can print them all out and recollect their character progression. If there ever is a new campaign it will be interesting to hear hoe they can't wait to get to this or that ability.
Passive perception is good, but to be honest if you trust your players, you really don’t have to track any of their stats. I haven’t for the past six years. Too lazy!
Include AC. Only use it for surprise attacks though.
Announcing "you suddenly take XX damage" is a lot more impactful than "um, does a 21 hit your AC?"
Languages could be good to have.
Languages are so funny, because characters can easily have like three, but they also rarely come up in my games, so I've had moments where I've been running for a character for years and: "There is some writing in a language you don't know. Roll int to see if you can identify the language." **player rolls a success** "The language is Draconic." "Oh, I speak Draconic." "...you what?"
My favorite little joke to play on players is something like "You enter the mystery dungeon in the middle of a dragon infested territory. You know these tend to be filled with traps and puzzles to keep non draconic outsiders away from valuable artifacts. As you walk down the stairs you see a strange, draconic rune on the door." 'Oh I can read draconic!' "It says 'PUSH'"
This is great. I love doing things like this, not only because it's funny, but it brings a sense of relatability to dungeons, and can help give the dungeon character. I like my dungeons to be a character not just a random group of rooms that supply loot and combat. I'll drop in a lot of clues and lore in there that can be used to figure out maybe what's going on or why certain things are the way they are that can be skipped or ignored but if they explore they gain information that will make it more immersive and usually give them the upper hand. But I like to also add a lot of stuff like that that isn't necessarily useful so that they don't metagame knowing that every unknown inscription is something totally useful.
DM: “Does anyone’s characters understand?”
Two players: Me!
DM: “Really? Two of you?”
—
DM: “Some dwarvish runes here say something…”
Me: “I understand dwarvish.”
DM: “Oh yeah!”
Me: “This character is a dwarf.”
DM: “Oh, oops was thinking of your other character (different game).”
Me: “Hahaha, he also understand dwarvish.”
DM: just started laughing
[удалено]
Yeah, everytime I create a character it just feels wrong to not make them learn elvish.
Psh, my current character is a half-elf who doesn't even speak Elven. He was adopted by a lovely halfling couple, so I just gave him that language instead
Yeah if there are narrative reasons to learn other languages it's ok, but if my character does have a language to spare, I always default to elven
Oh yeah? My character doesn't even speak common!
[удалено]
I mean yeah, but I think what they were trying to say was that they had the player roll because in years of playing it never came up that the player could speak Draconic, so the dm just forgot they could.
100% agree. I only made them check because I forgot they knew the language.
Spell DCs. These mfers will never ever remember them, and take a minute to find it on their character sheets every single time they cast a spell. Even if they use DND beyond. Or is it just my group?
Omg it's not just your group. I was mulling this over recently. I say, "8 + spellcasting ability mod + proficiency bonus" so often it's starting to sound funny to me.
My favorite is when they start reading the spell description out loud trying to find the spell save DC. I mean, I get it, they're new players and they aren't familiar with the rules. But I can only say "8 plus your spellcasting modifier plus proficiency" so many times in an hour before I go crazy. Double bonus points if the players say "What's the spellcasting modifier?"
It sounds like you're describing new players but you're actually describing people I've played D&d with since before 5e came out.
HAHA luckily we use roll 20 my group so they cast the spell and it shows up in text. but for tables oh heck yeah write that down they never know =P
Yes! I love how much legwork VTT's help with.
[удалено]
It's been two years and I still have to remind to the rogue player that having an ally near the target does not give them advantage, it's just a condition for Sneak Attack to happen.
We have to keep reminding our rogue that the dodge action is not one of the options for cunning action.
[удалено]
It used to only be three, lol
I can forgive this *if* flanking rules are in place. Because if the player remembers what flanking is, for better or for worse, they will always remember how sneak attack works. Most of the time at least.
I love my players, but sometimes they do this. It's frustrating because they know their spell attack rolls, all they have to do is add 8.
Passive perception, languages somewhere and names.
Seems like more than is needed, but I suppose the DM can never be too informed. I just periodically review character sheets between sessions (easy because we play in Roll 20), but before we migrated online I kept a sticky note on my DM screen with just hp, ac, and passive perception. AC for balancing and just having a good idea of generally how tanky they were; I still asked them each time if a whatever hit.
Having their AC written down doesn't mean you have to cut through that whole part of the process. It just means that you already know that it does hit and can reflect that in your word choice. It turns two sentences: "does a 17 hit?" And "that's 10 damage" into "that's a 17 to hit for 10 damage." It still gives the critical information to the PC, so if they happen to have Defensive Duellist or *shield* or whatever, they can still know they will help against the attack and declare them. Regardless, big one is their save DC: really helpful to speed things up when mass rolling to just look at the sheet and confirm.
I'd go with: * HP * Languages [EDIT] * Passive Perception * Passive Investigation * Passive Insight * Has proficiency in Arcana, History and/or Religion Passive Stealth doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if the players want to go stealthy they will inform you. HP is just to avoid a TPK, by doing some quick math if the combat is really hard. And I don't think you need all Skill Proficiencies, I'm going with those 3 because I rule them (in most cases) as requiring proficiency to make the check.
Replace HP with AC and this is exactly what I keep track of as well. I think that the skill proficiencies are especially useful for prompting players with info that their characters would be likely to pick out regardless of checks or anything.
Fair, it makes sense
[удалено]
It's actually **characters** who don't know what is being cast. Regardless of they are PCs, NPCs, allies, enemies or bystanders, However, virtually all of the time it's very obvious that spells are being cast.
Their hp in fights. Not strictly, but generally knowing that the 3rd level wizard in the back has gotten hit twice and the warlock hasnt at all is nice to know.
In my first campaign, my players would occasionally forget their character sheet at home, and they'd have no idea how much HP they had. So I started tracking their HP between sessions to maintain game state. Nowadays, I have a nice Excel spreadsheet that I display on a big TV for everyone to see, as well as an initiative tracker.
I don't. That's their job imho and I have enough else to worry about. Fwiw I don't really use passive scores outside of stealth checks tho. So if you use them more than that it might be worth it. I do keep an eye on HP though. (mostly as a benefit of the DnDbeyond encounter builder.) And that's been useful on occasion.
>I don't really use passive scores outside of stealth checks I'm curious. Why choose to use them for stealth but not perception?
Tbc. I use passive perception for the DC for stealth checks. It's the only time the rules specifically calling out NEEDING to use passive scores, so it's the only time I use them cuz in general I find the rule pretty clunky and leads to lots of, imho, power crap where passive scores are treated like a pseudo-reliable talent.
Got it! I thought you meant that you were using passive stealth instead of having the players make stealth checks. What you're saying makes sense.
Passive perception(if using, ive played in games were it wasnt used) The only 2 i track whem dming is Ac & Hp which is mainly used to balance encounters. In all my times dming ive only had to ask to have access to their sheet once as the player kept changing ability scores or proficiencies, other than session 0 or when players were seeking clarity. My advice is only track what you need to and will actively use
Passive stealth is not in the rules, is that a homebrew thing you use? What is it for? Personally, I don't see the need to track ability scores and proficiencies. When you call for a skill or ability check, the player just rolls and gives you the total result, so when would you need to consult this? My cheat sheet has AC, Passive Perception, Passive Insight. I would highly recommend AC. You roll to hit, and say: "The monster rolls a 17, which hits for 9 damage" instead of saying "The monster rolls a 17, does that hit?" and it saves you a ton of time over many attack rolls, especially if you have any newer players who don't have their AC memorized.
Passive everything is in the rules. Passive is just a type of check used by DMs to either hide that a check is being made, or to alleviate the need for repetitive checks. Perception is the only skill with a more specific use in the rules for its Passive check, but Passive checks as a whole are part of the rules, and it can be used for any and every skill.
and, despite the name, are neither zero-effort, nor a "floor" of how good a character is. As you say, they're for either repeated effort, or for when the GM doesn't want it to be known there is a roll - so "passive stealth" might be if the PCs have, like, 4 hours to endure hiding, to see if they can manage keep finding hiding places for that long. "passive arcana" might be looking through a whole damn mystic library to find the needed information, or used by the GM to determine if the PC glances at the mystical symbol and realises that it's something without a roll.
RAW every skill has a passive. It's in DMG if I'm not mistaken
RAW every skill has a passive. It's in DMG if I'm not mistaken
Related to ability scores, but: saving throw bonuses. Particularly I'm thinking Wisdom, if they're ever being scried. Something that might also be useful to add over time would be notes about specific traits/skills/abilities that the PCs like to use a lot. I've had more than one planned encounter easily bypassed because I forgot half the party had like darkvision or a climb speed, for example.
it's not bad to have em all! i keep track of their AC, passive perception and spell save DC, if applicable. anything else i can ask for during session, or look at their sheets if it's between sessions. or they can bring it up!
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t use passive scores for anything really with the exception of Passive perception. And I only use that for things that happen in the periphery. If you are actively trying to perceive something, then I don’t ask for the passive number. I know for a lot of DMs, they treat the passive score as the lowest the characters score could be, as it “I roll a 9, but my passive is 15”. But I don’t like that. Passive being a minimum then means that they perceive every single thing around them all of time at that level, and that’s just not realistic. They can’t perceive 18 things at once, even if they are very perceptive.
Passive stealth isn’t a thing, they have to roll stealth checks if they wanna be stealthy. Passive Perception, Insight, and Investigation are the skills I keep track of. I also note AC, DCs, and languages. Keeping track of languages means you wont be letting the players metagame the languages. For example: they wouldn’t say “does anyone know draconic” you’d just say, “since x knows draconic—“ but if no one knew draconic, they’d either roll a check and recognize it, or have no idea.
I usually just track HP, initiative, AC, passive perception and sometimes i check how many spell slots people have left
I'm the opposite I track AC as for me and my friends as we try to be a little more descriptive during combat (its been fun for us) and less asking during combat makes it go quicker. Even with my player who is a wizard / blade singer and changes AC a lot Roll 20 can track it on the fly! Only time combat slows is when the player asks would shield spell help me in this instant. I usually say instinct says yes or no.
I do track AC honestly but I don't just say "Oh the ogre hit you for 10 bludgeoning damage" I say "And the Ogre swings at you, the first hit skims the top of your head but the second blow hits you in the chest. You take 8 bludgeoning damage." I'm rolling as I narrate, I only clarify AC if I know someone has Shield up or Armor of Agathys or something like that. Or I will clarify if I'm close to their AC "And the ogre pulls back his arm and - does an 18 hit?" and they shoult "HA! No my AC is 19!" I have 5 - 8 players per table and it just makes it faster. They also seem to like the narration. But to be clear i'm also very transparent on monster AC. After round 1 they usually know the AC. I use Round 1 as them 'feeling out the bad guys' and so if I have 6 people roll and we have a 14, 16, 17, 13 and 20 to hit... and the 16 misses but the 17 hits it makes it obvious. But I also note down languages - I have a kobold that knows 12 languages in one game. I also note down what in my opinion is 'the spell/ability I need to know about. Ie: Had a Warlock with Devil's Sight. I track that not to defend against it but to give them cool character moments. "My mage casts Darkness and you can't see anything." Warlock had a fun moment with Eldritch Blast. I also track their max and current HP as there are some abilities in my monsters that change based on where their health is at.
Wringing down the languages they know is useful. So you don’t need to ask “who knows draconic?” And give away what language is involved.
I usually have no idea about my players stats I usually just ask if anyone has a passiver perception or knows a language
The big three: AC, HP, PP (passive Perception) (You should keep track of AC because it can change, and you should have it in mind when designing encounters, regardless of whether you allow your players to metagame or not.) Secondary: tools and languages, background features, bonds/flaws/ideals, and alignment. Things you don't need: rare passive scores, abiity scores, skill proficiencies. These are either things you will rarely reference (and can easily retrieve by asking) or things that only the players need to worry about (and you can easily retrieve by asking).
Max HP is nice to have. That way I have a rough idea of how damage compares to their hp.
I'd leave a field on each player's index card with a niche feature they haven't used yet. This way you can try to think of ways to bring it into the spotlight. Write in new ones as they acquire more features you think they've yet to enjoy or haven't gotten to touch on in a long while. This can also apply to cool magic items that might have been awarded early on and forgotten because they just weren't needed for so long.
Jump height and distance. It doesn't come up often? Yeah, because you don't remember that it should. But when you've got it written there that angerproblemicus the barbarian can longjump 20 feet, you know your 20foot chasm needs expenditure of resources from the others. Is it the most common thing? No, not yet. Once its on your page it will be, and it helps Str be more meaningful. I agree with the average 'standard resource-less damage' and also a way to reach that with say, d6s. When they go for an improvised turn you should be able to say 'ok so if the warlock just EB'd or the fighter just swung, that would be 30 damage on average, so the standard go to should be 8d6+ some more minor condition'. This is how you have a standard for creative and good use of the environment, and aren't caught unprepared or imposing an unrewarding 1d4 improvised damage. Innovative creative use of environment to cause damage should be rewarding.
>Big thing I want to clarify: I’m not including AC. It just feels wrong to me to say “the ogre hits you for 10 bludgeoning damage” without at the very least letting my players say “I have a 16 AC, does it miss?” Honestly, I think you'll regret this.
Just curious: Why do you think he will regret it? I played in campaigns with both styles and didn't notice much of a difference. And isn't it intended for the player to know the attack roll against them, e.g. to decide if they cast shield?
For characters without ways to modify their AC as a reaction, it's a pointless interaction and slows down combat. If you want to make it transparent, you can say 'the orc has a 19, which hits', rather than asking a question you already know the answer to every single time.
> For characters without ways to modify their AC as a reaction, it's a pointless interaction and slows down combat. Not at all. It's valuable information for players. "He barely hit me both times, I should try to get partial cover" "Ok he struggles to hit me, I should keep him under pressure so he doesn't get in range of the squishier targets" "Looks like he only hits in above average rolls, maybe giving him disadvantage can be worth it" vs "He hits us pretty reliably, maybe we need to keep our distance for now" These are things the characters would notice and the players should be able to include in their strategies. Taking that away is unfair towards them imo. You can either just state the Attack Roll result, or narrate it in great detail, but doing *that* for every fight will take a lot of time. You can just "19, it hits" but that's just changing it from the more natural "19?" "That hits" for no good reason
Fair enough, I think this is a good compromise and how I typically handle it myself. Usually I still ask if the attack roll is close to the usual AC of a character, e.g. to make sure I don't forget about a temporary spell or similar. If the attack roll is a 13 no question asked, it misses. If it is a 28 it hits - same thing no question necessary (for most PC types). Asking each time is indeed repetitive and slow.
*glances at 13 AC in studded leather* Yup, it misses, thanks.
Of course a little knowledge of my PCs is relevant beforehand, but without looking it up I know my rogue has AC17, cleric ~20, paladin ~20, druid 11-14 depending on wildshape. These values will change from time to time though, depending on spells and other effects.
There are often way too many variables at play during combat, that it's easy to miss something. Buffs, defuffs, spells, features, conditions.... At our table, we call out our numbers so everyone has a chance to double check. Even with that, there are times during session recap when we've realized we overlooked something. "OH shoot! I could've XYZ!!" is an excellent way to remember and learn for next time.
Why though? I never keep track of AC for players. I always ask if "x" hits. I've spoken to the group about it, and they all agree that it feels best to be asked, rather than just told they're hit. I played in one campaign where the DM knew our AC and just told us when we got hit, and it just felt...bad.
Yeah, I always ask to confirm, just in case they have an ability I've forgotten. "Does a 21 hit?" ... "SHIELD!" Or even if it would obviously hit: "Does a 32 hit?" them: "..." It's just a part of combat.
It's also fun seeing everyone's reaction when you ask about a 28+ hitting hahaha
Because it'll slow combat down massively.
It's... a few seconds?? Are we suddenly speed running life or something?
Massively? "Does an 18 hit"? "Yes". How will we ever make it through this step?
Never played with players who have to check the default AC on their sheet every single time, eh?
It's at the very top of the page, my dude. Takes 2 seconds.
Yes, I know that. Have you genuinely never played with someone who does the 'oh, um, hang on, what's my AC, where is it, uh uh uh, 15!' over and over?
No, because we explain the character sheet before we play. Even if that was the case, what does that add? 5 seconds? You seem to really want to convince me it takes 20 minutes to think about your AC. So let's just say you're right and move on, since this is taking way longer than looking at a character sheet... :p
Dude, you're just being a prick. Fuck off.
Out of curiosity; do you enjoy the RP aspects of a session, or do you live and breathe for the combat?
I love the RP aspects of a session, I've just found that combat - especially playing online I guess - can _really_ drag when there are all those extra interactions.
Passive Perception is probably the important one, you can ask for most anything else but when you ask for PP you’re kind of giving the game away that there’s something there they’re not seeing. And it’s better to ask than to bury yourself in information you mostly won’t use. I’d include languages (besides Common, obviously) and I might note down any physical features that an NPC might notice when they first met them - “wow, that’s some scar you’ve got, stranger! And your friend there has hair the color of autumn fire, I’ve not seen your like around these parts before.”
Passive Perception and Insight. Investigation isn't really 'Passive' same for stealth. You call for a roll or they aren't investigating. You don't need to know their ability scores or skill proficiencies behind the screen, you can ask them that if it's relevant.
Perception is what you see. Investigation is what you deduce from what you see. There is a reason it is a part of the observant feat after all.
"Passive" can be used for instances where the PC is taking a long time to do something - i.e. rather than rolling again and again and again, the PC spends a while doing it, and is guaranteed a certain "floor" of success, rather than the randomness of the dice roll. Despite the name, it's not "passive" - it requires effort and exertion - but if a PC is, I dunno, spending a few hours poking through a mystical library, rather than making multiple Arcana rolls, it's entirely valid to just use "passive Arcana", so they don't either have to make a load of rolls, or flub making one roll, despite being good at the skill. Passive Investigation would be similar - despite the name, it doesn't mean there's no effort involved, but if the PC is spending enough time on the task to "earn" a certain guaranteed result, then that's entirely valid (it's kinda-sorta a replacement for the "take 10" rule from 3.x, where PCs could take extra time to get +10 to their roll)
I don't track any of it tbh. I just ask folks for the data in the moment and we see what happens.
I almost fully abdicate knowledge of my characters to my characters. After a while I start to remember AC passive perception and languages etc, but especially with new players I do a lot of “what is your x” and “can you read me this ability” and “any actions, bonus actions, or other things you’d like to try to do here” to make them figure things out.
I remember them
Ability scores and skills proficiency is probably not necessary. Rather I just try to ask myself how I'm using each ability in a game and make sure it's spread out. AC is handy to know (i know you said youre not tracking it). But if you have someone who uses Shield spell, I like to include some inherent risk. For instance I'll let the player know it hits, but without the specifics, there is a (very small) chance Shield fails.
Not a stat, but I like to mark special abilities and class fantasies. Shoot arrows at the monk, yeah? It sounds like you’re gonna have a blast!
I'd add Height, Weight, Age, Carrying capacity & Jump distance. You won't need them often but when you do, you're glad you've written them down somewhere
Just remember your player’s class. The rest is derivative. Base stats are dependent on what class your player plans on playing, as is AC. Knowing the neighborhood of base stats will tell you what skills that player likely took and where you should set DCs accordingly. If a player took an odd skill choice that you aren’t really utilizing, they will likely let you know by offering “can I make an *x* check?” when it comes up. AC is nice to know only insofar as you not having to ask AC every time you roll to hit, but you could just as easily just give them a number and ask hit or miss until you have it sussed out. HP is irrelevant as players have two states. >1 hp and down. If a player goes down it’s the party’s job to pick them back up, not yours. I don’t mean this adversarily of course, but it’s part of the party’s teamwork and part of the of the danger inherent in the combat portion of the game. The only hard rule is don’t target the healer as much if the party only has one, but a down per encounter is healthy to keep the party on their toes, and it’s very difficult to kill PCs unless you’re *really* trying. Abilities are also good to know, but mostly because of your role as adjucator. It’s good to know what abilities do so you’re not caught off guard and can tailor encounters around them to breed a sense of usefulness. This kind of just goes back to “know your party’s class” though.
I subscribe to Matt Colville's philosophy "Encounter development doesn't end when you roll initiative." With that, I like to have an general sense of the character's remaining resources at any given moment. So, I maintain a one-page synopsis of all characters. It has: - Character name - Player name - Class(es) - Level(es) - Attributes (including encumbrance and passive perception) - AC - HP - Current HP - Magic Items On a separate page I track expendables such as spell's prepared / memorized, spell slots, Ki, Rages, and Superiority Dice. In between session, I nail it down. The information helps me better plan the next session's encounters. My technique might be perceived as overkill by some - if not most. However, after 40+ of DM-ing, I've found it works for me.
My cheat sheet has: -max hp -AC -passive perception/investigation/insight -languages -tool proficiency -background feature
I only worry about the passive checks for experienced players. Even then occasionally I will ask them what their passive ability is roll a dice and continue on. With newer players I try and keep more tabs on their sheet just to make sure that they aren't cheating themselves.
I keep track of passive Perception, Insight, and Investigation. Instead of keeping track of all of everyone's skills, I keep track of which skill/language/tool proficiencies the party doesn't have or only one member has. I make a note of AC, HP, and everybody's worst save to keep in mind when planning encounters. I also like to make note of how much XP the players have until they level if I'm using experience instead of story-based progression, just so I can plan ahead a bit as far as monsters go. I'm currently running a duet and I keep track of way more on my player's character sheet than I do for a traditional party of 3-5, but that's because in a duet, the whole thing is built for one player, so I need to be more familiar with what his character can do.
All Int and Wis based passive scores, AC and maybe max HP in case of a massive critical hit.
My DM just has a cheat sheet with everyone's AC, Spell DC, and HP to help with planning and then passive perception to see if we notice stuff. If a player has a character where they want to really emphasize a certain skill I could see how keeping track of that would be useful but no need to know all of them. And then just a list of languages known by the party.
I personally also keep track AC and HP. I still say the "does a 23 hit", but I try and have the PCs normal AC and various bonuses. I also keep an idea of racial features, so I can try and make situations where they get used. Also, current carried weight, and max carry capacity.
The only player stat I track is AC. Most of the time my players have to be asked what their AC is, after saying "the ogre takes a swing at *playername*" they, as new players, don't think to tell me their AC and ask if it hits. So I'm not robbing them of the chance to ask, as they wouldn't in the first place, and unless I track their AC I'm going to repeatedly ask them. Passive stats are easy enough to ask about, and they should know their own ability scores and proficiencies and add them to rolls on their own when making a check/save.
Just Perception and AC from a mechanics standpoint. I know the Wizard is smart, the Rogue is sneaky and can pick locks and the Centaur Barbarian is big and clumsy other than that you should probably let the others be interactions the characters drive. Maybe think why you are hesitant about AC but not everything else like ability scores and Profs (also that is an insane number of things to try and track). Narrating that an attack is going to land or hit its mark is mechanically and thematically a solid approach and that lets the player decide if they want to use reactionary skills.
Passive perception, AC, Max HP, Race, Level, and Class.
I like Insight, perception, and languages. I've never used Passive Investigation nor have I really seen a point to it except for stumbling on Glyphs of Warding. Passive Stealth is similarly a pain since I assume that the party is never traveling stealthily implicitly and must say that they are (which leads to active stealth checks). Ability Scores are similarly a pain. Not really worth keeping track of specific numbers, more like simple ball parks. Skill proficiencies probably will have the list of tracking be a little too long, turning from a simple index card with all the info on it, to an index card for each character depending on skills and the like. That being said, I would also shorthand some sort of class/race abilities on there just to remind yourself of Char-gen choices, such as Favored Enemy/Terrain, abnormal resistances, or major passives (like Gloomstalker's invisibility-like ability in the darkness).
passives are for use anytime there's repeated use of a skill, remember, as well as the "when the GM doesn't want to openly have a roll and make it overt that something is going on". So passive investigation would be someone spending a longer period looking over an area, and so rather than making repeated investigation rolls, they can use their passive score (it's kinda-sorta similar to the "take 10" rule from 3.x), and so get some guarantee of competency level, especially if they're any good at the skill, rather than having to rely on just a roll. Passive stealth would be if characters have to hide for a long period, rather than against specific things looking for them (so, something like hiding in woods being searched by enemies; if the GM didn't want to specifically game out the precise interactions between searches and PCs, they could just use the passive score to figure out how well the PCs do)
I really only keep track of passive perception and I only track languages if its going to matter.
The top things I like to have in front of me are passive perception, AC, and Spell DC. As others have pointed out, languages and skill proficiencies are good to have, but they aren’t as essential to have on a moments notice.
It's good to have their high and long distance jump distance as well as their max carry weight already calculated. Not because carry weight necessarily comes into play, but it is a handy reminder to judge whether they can or cannot _feasibly_ attempt whatever strength based task they want. Especially if they have racial traits like powerful build.
HP and AC are the only ones I track, because you can bet your bottom dollar they'll tell you whatever else when it's relevant. Player monke neuron activation comes from "big number do thing", so let them have that.
AC, ability score modifiers, proficiency bonus, and skill proficiencies. You can figure everything else out from there.
Here's what i use; * Name * Description [The description they gave me for their character incase i want to have NPC's comment on something] * Race [There might be some racial bias from some of the world or some situational relevance abilities i would otherwise forget about] * Class + Subclass [So i can remind them how some of these abilities work, casually remind them they have a situational bonus incase of rangers or make a correct ruling incase something seems off. Mostly useful for things such as barbarian's reckless providing advantage on my attacks when used, that the bard will get back full inspiration on a short rest post 5th, etc] * Background [Both written background cliffnotes and notes on their background ability, as they require effort on my part to make relevant a lot of the time] * Passive perception and investigation [Perception is what you see. Investigation is what you deduce from what you see. The players not having to ask to check for traps at every door and hallway is the biggest reason for me using them, but the ocassional stealthy individual will be picked up too alongside just noticing some extra details when they aren't specificly looking for something.] * Passive Insight [My players don't always notice my subtle hints, that doesn't mean their characters won't pick up if something seem odd. Can also use it as something feels off in terms of situations or objects as a gut feeling type of situation] * Languages [Incase they'd overhear someone talking in another language then common; i can just point out what was said] * AC [With and without a shield equipped incase they mix up their weapons and/or lack warcaster, if they wish to use reactions then i'll let them do so ofcource but it is easier to mention "Monster rolled X with his ability for Y damage".] * Spell DC's [Having to ask what their spell DC is with each spellcast gets annoying quickly, similar to the AC above.] * Prepared spells for the day incase it can fluctuate. [Allows me to subtly setup some ocassional usefullness with perhaps some less commonly used spells to make it feel like it was a better preparation even if it isn't "the top tier spell". My players tend to mix between 2 or 3 lists when playing clerics, wizards and the like for adventuring days, town days and then potentially have adjustments to try out new things.] * Magic items they have / are attuned to and what they do. I used to track skill proficiencies but it doesn't really matter seeing as the roll is what'll determine the result anyhow and being proficient in something doesn't mean someone auto passes or succeeds. Same logic with ability scores/saves.
I have their AC, passive perception, and total hp
Honestly: zero. I used to do this for my first few campaigns, but got zero value out of it. After 2 or 3 sessions, you'll just intuitively know the Fighter and Paladin have good AC. The Cleric, Druid, and Monk have good Perception. And the Rogue, Ranger, Bard, and Wizard have gold Knowledge skills.
I use dndbeyond and keep each player sheet open in a tab on my computer for virtual and in-person sessions. It's not perfect but I don't have to worry about maintaining a list
I'd have a sheet of all their static abilities, such as resistances, yes languages as mentioned by someone else, any background & class features that give them a static effect, along with AC and alignment, and the main passives. I wouldn't keep track of ability scores, skill proficiencies are up to you.
I am a DM for a mostly new group. I find that I have to have their entire character sheet because they simply don't know where to find stuff on their sheet and they don't know what their abilities really can do. I have come to realize it is a burden for me to have to have all this stuff but it is the only way for me to maintain my sanity. Before these last two sessions we had Saturday and Sunday, I sat down and went over some of their spells and abilities with them again. I talked with the cleric about Spiritual Weapon. I talked to the bard about Cutting Words. I talked to the Ranger about Hunter's Mark. I talked to the paladin about Smite and that it requires a melee attack. The fighter played AD&D and has read and understands their abilities. He's also into programming computers. The Druid is an avid 5e player and knows the rules maybe even better than I do. So my answer is it depends on you, and it depends on them. I run encounters off a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet lists each attribute score for the players, the NPCs and the monsters involved. It lists the HP. It lists the AC. It lists the weapons and the to-hit modifiers and damage rolls. The spell list and the other skills are not on the spreadsheet. But for the monsters I might have a note about "Charge" or "Pact Tactics". I always keep a copy of the player's current character sheet in my notes. When they level up I make a new sheet, so their older sheets are also stored in my directory. I figure at the end of the campaign they can print them all out and recollect their character progression. If there ever is a new campaign it will be interesting to hear hoe they can't wait to get to this or that ability.
Passive perception is good, but to be honest if you trust your players, you really don’t have to track any of their stats. I haven’t for the past six years. Too lazy!
In our online group we put AC, spell DC and passive perception after our character's names.
Include AC. Only use it for surprise attacks though. Announcing "you suddenly take XX damage" is a lot more impactful than "um, does a 21 hit your AC?"