So I have a drake warden ranger and they made the argument that they don't have to tell me the draconic resistance of their drake companion until it's relevant.
My main concern is that they are gonna keep it blank until I make an attack and then they choose the resistance.
Yes, as DM you kind of have to know everything about the player characters. If your player is actively trying to hide mechanical details about their character from you, that’s highly suspicious.
Probably best to tell your player that if they don’t tell you their choice for the resistance, you’ll just assign one for them.
As per the answer above, they tell you when the dragon is summoned, so it isn't something they choose at character creation necessarily, but, as soon as a drake is summoned they need to tell you the kind they have created. So no they don't have to tell you until it is relevant, but it becomes relevant the moment they summon it because once it is summoned then they will do elemental damage with there own attack (it adds d6 elemental damage to there own attack damage roll) and, from level 7, make them resistant to that damage type. So if they mean that they don't need to tell you from the start they are correct. And note, they could cycle through every type of Drake each day, so they are not stuck with the first type they summon.
If you feel like your player is going to play this type of cheesy tactic to munchkin an encounter, I'm suggesting that you have bigger things to concern yourself with than the resistance of a make-believe pet. From your description, you have an adversarial relationship with this player, or the beginnings of one. The particular resistance leans towards irrelevant. The fact that your player doesn't want to be transparent with PC/Pet build info, that you need to attempt to balance encounters with, is the real issue. I might suggest starting there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
The above answers focus on the player being the problem - which is generally true - but I think it also might be said that you as the DM might also be at fault. It is really easy for a DM to use metagame information to invalidate a character choice. The player might be making this decision based on a history of metagaming on your part. You might know that they are resistant to, say, fire, but your NPC does not. If you are the kind of DM who never targets a fire-resistant mage with fire because of your meta knowledge of resistances, I can see why the player would want to do this.
Examine your own DMing and think about whether the player might have cause to be concerned about your bypassing one of their class features. If so, either try to change up your DMing to account for it, or, if you struggle to divorce your knowledge from the NPCs knowledge, you could have a compromise where the player writes down the resistance and gives it to another player upon summoning - that way you do not have meta knowledge influencing your decisions, and they have a way of verifying what their choice was removing the “I’ll just say it is whatever is most convenient at the time of being hit, not of being summoned.”
So been reading all the responses so far. I just wanna make something clear.
I'm new to DMing and we only been playing for about nine sessions. The only monster I have thrown at them with any immunity was a will O wisp (which I filled down it's AC and attack power to make it more fair for my players when they were level two).
I wouldn't munchkin an encounter mid battle to give a monster an immunity to damage (unless I already planned for it pre session. Like a monster changing immunities and vulnerabilities at certain stages. Like a video game boss)
I do want to prevent a DM v Player mentality. I want to have fun making the world and letting my players make their decisions through it, but not in a 'im gonna negate all your dangers instead of working through them' sorta way.
I mean there will be times they will negate my dangers with clever and unorthodox methods, that is cool and encouraged. But munchkin tactics and metagaming kinda sucks the fun out of it.
If it is a concern that the player might cheat then just have them write down the damage resistance on a piece of paper when the creature is summoned and they can then reveal it if it becomes relevant.
It sounds like you are new to DMing but it could be that the player is also new to playing.
Usually this information is shared with the DM, not so they can introduce monsters which do other types of damage, but just to make the game run more smoothly. Good DMs choose the monsters and encounters consistent with the game world and any plots/actions happening in the game world. The game is logically consistent and the DM adjudicates the player/character interactions with the game world. The DM should not put in a creature doing lightning damage just because a player summoned a creature resistant to fire.
Anyway, you should chat with the player and find out why they think it necessary to keep it secret without making it confrontational and ask them to write it down just so that it is fair to the other players. If they were planning to change the damage type depending on the encounter then having it written down removes that issue. If they ask you why you don't trust them then you can ask them why they don't trust you to not metagame with the information. Trust goes both ways and is an essential part of D&D. If the player doesn't trust the DM to run the game fairly then they might as well leave.
I think, from what you've said, especially since you and the players are new to the game, that a "Player vs DM" mindset sounds like the problem. I understand why a player might think that way... the DM is, quite literally, controlling all of the enemies and battling against the players. It's very easy to perceive the DM themself as the challenge that needs to be overcome, rather than the NPCs the DM is controlling.
I'd say, for now at least, when the player summons their drake, have them write down its damage type on a piece of paper, fold it up, and set it aside. When/if it becomes relevant, they can unfold the paper to show you the damage type they decided on when they summoned it. This will help to show that you're not interested in metagaming... you just know that the damage type needs to be settled on when the creature is summoned. After a few sessions your player will either grow to really enjoy the moment of reveal where they unfold the paper and show you the type, or they'll get tired of needing to keep scraps of paper handy and will start just telling you when they summon it. Either way, it shows that you're working with the players, not against them.
Of course the player has to tell the DM! The drake's damage type is determined when surmmoned based on its Draconic Essence, not when its relevant so it can be used more advantageously.
So I have a drake warden ranger and they made the argument that they don't have to tell me the draconic resistance of their drake companion until it's relevant.
My main concern is that they are gonna keep it blank until I make an attack and then they choose the resistance.
As the DM shouldn't I know what they pick?
D&D is a game that assumes the DM has full knowledge and trusts the DM to not abuse this information. So no, PCs are not entitled to hide information from the DM.
All the above is great, and I think he should tell you.
Here is a idea that is meta but to the players advantage. Have a spell caster attack him with some spells but make it what his resistance is. That way you let his ability be valid, and useful, and show your not ploting his downfall. Don't always do this of course, but from time to time.
So been reading all the responses so far. I just wanna make something clear.
I'm new to DMing and we only been playing for about nine sessions. The only monster I have thrown at them with any immunity was a will O wisp (which I filled down it's AC and attack power to make it more fair for my players when they were level two).
I wouldn't munchkin an encounter mid battle to give a monster an immunity to damage (unless I already planned for it pre session. Like a monster changing immunities and vulnerabilities at certain stages. Like a video game boss)
I do want to prevent a DM v Player mentality. I want to have fun making the world and letting my players make their decisions through it, but not in a 'im gonna negate all your dangers instead of working through them' sorta way.
I mean there will be times they will negate my dangers with clever and unorthodox methods, that is cool and encouraged. But munchkin tactics and metagaming kinda sucks the fun out of it.
And I say that as a player and newbie DM
Can I just confirm please, when he says he doesn’t need to tell you until it is relevant, do you mean he is it telling you as he summons it, or he is not telling you now at character creation point. I think that is an important distinction.
Many people think of D&D as the party v the DM. This is not the case the DM is the referee and lead story teller. The players have to trust the DM to not use out of character knowledge against the party. For example if the npc wizard would be equally likely to use firebolt against the drake whatever its resistance unless and until the wizard would know about it. The same is true of players and while the dm can withhold some information from the players to prevent metagaming they can not do it for everything.
It appears the player does not trust the dm in this case, whether that is deserved or not I do not know, but unless that trustcan be formed it will be impossible to play.
Many people think of D&D as the party v the DM. This is not the case the DM is the referee and lead story teller. The players have to trust the DM to not use out of character knowledge against the party. For example if the npc wizard would be equally likely to use firebolt against the drake whatever its resistance unless and until the wizard would know about it. The same is true of players and while the dm can withhold some information from the players to prevent metagaming they can not do it for everything.
It appears the player does not trust the dm in this case, whether that is deserved or not I do not know, but unless that trustcan be formed it will be impossible to play.
As a DM I agree with part of this. It is not a fight DM vs Players but as DM it is also my job to give the players challenging encounters that make them think, for many parties this means challenging them tactically on the battlefield which means very much meta gaming my encounters to ensure that if the party always fight from range I put things that can stop this in the fight, if the wizard always uses fire magic I put lots of anti fire stuff on the battlefield sometimes, if the party have a tendency to ignore or forget to look for traps then I make sure an area is full of them. If the Tanks always charge forward and uses Sentinel to stop enemies getting to the wizards/archers then I find ways to outflank, or I use sentinel myself to bog those tanks down. Using enemies resistant to stunned if the Monk go to is to stun everything.
Likewise if I am on the battlefield and the wizard has firebolt, if the drake is red then it is ok for me to assume the npc wizard figures out that it might be resistant to fire. I think sometimes DMs try to be too even handed which leads to encounters not being fun for players because they breeze through them. It shouldn't be DM vs Players in the game, but, I do find that thinking about how best to beat the players in a fight (without just throwing 3 ancient dragons at them) based on the way the party approaches combat helps a DM come up with a challenging encounter that will make the players think about there approach in future and actually worry and think about things like spell selection, march order etc rather then just do the same thing over and over.
PC/Pet build info, that you need to attempt to balance encounters with...
To be honest, this is probably the exact thinking the player is trying to avoid. DMs shouldn't be balancing encounters around individual abilities like this. If they summon a fire drake, it's a pointless ability if you adjust the enemy to have double fire damage to account for the fire resistance, or use enemies with fire resistance so you can restore the balance. The point of the ability isn't to affect who or what they fight, but to give them the chance to try and divine what they will be fighting so they can leverage an advantage.
The player should be open with all the information the DM wants. But not so the DM can nullify those abilities. In some cases it might be to highlight an otherwise backseat ability, but it's just about openness and helping the player to not be tempted to change their drake's type.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
PC/Pet build info, that you need to attempt to balance encounters with...
To be honest, this is probably the exact thinking the player is trying to avoid. DMs shouldn't be balancing encounters around individual abilities like this. If they summon a fire drake, it's a pointless ability if you adjust the enemy to have double fire damage to account for the fire resistance, or use enemies with fire resistance so you can restore the balance. The point of the ability isn't to affect who or what they fight, but to give them the chance to try and divine what they will be fighting so they can leverage an advantage.
The player should be open with all the information the DM wants. But not so the DM can nullify those abilities. In some cases it might be to highlight an otherwise backseat ability, but it's just about openness and helping the player to not be tempted to change their drake's type.
I think everyone is totally misunderstanding what the ability actually is, the Ranger can pick any resistance every time they summon the Drake, it isn't Fixed" for the campaign, So they can summon it now and make it Cold, then after a long rest summon it again and it is Fire, and then again. That is why I asked for clarity on what the player is actually doing. I think they can also use a spell slot to summon it more then once between long rests, so if they are facing Fire and have Acid resistance drake they can just drop the drake and summon a new one that is fire.
The player should be fine to tell you. Might be worth explaining to them that literally at any point in the game you can declare that a rock falls from the sky and deals a billion damage to their character, no saving throw. Point out that if you want to you can chuck a dozen [monster]Tarrasque[.monster]s at them whenever you feel like it. They should have realised this, but it doesn't hurt to point it out.
If the player thinks it's fun to keep it secret then have them write down the type of drake when it's summoned and then put the paper out in the open. That way it might give you a fun reveal? Personally as a DM I'd quite enjoy that. I wouldn't make my players write it down, they're the type to say "actually the monster has advantage against me because I used Reckless Attack." That's the player mentality you need.
Many people think of D&D as the party v the DM. This is not the case the DM is the referee and lead story teller. The players have to trust the DM to not use out of character knowledge against the party. For example if the npc wizard would be equally likely to use firebolt against the drake whatever its resistance unless and until the wizard would know about it. The same is true of players and while the dm can withhold some information from the players to prevent metagaming they can not do it for everything.
It appears the player does not trust the dm in this case, whether that is deserved or not I do not know, but unless that trustcan be formed it will be impossible to play.
As a DM I agree with part of this. It is not a fight DM vs Players but as DM it is also my job to give the players challenging encounters that make them think, for many parties this means challenging them tactically on the battlefield which means very much meta gaming my encounters to ensure that if the party always fight from range I put things that can stop this in the fight, if the wizard always uses fire magic I put lots of anti fire stuff on the battlefield sometimes, if the party have a tendency to ignore or forget to look for traps then I make sure an area is full of them. If the Tanks always charge forward and uses Sentinel to stop enemies getting to the wizards/archers then I find ways to outflank, or I use sentinel myself to bog those tanks down. Using enemies resistant to stunned if the Monk go to is to stun everything.
Likewise if I am on the battlefield and the wizard has firebolt, if the drake is red then it is ok for me to assume the npc wizard figures out that it might be resistant to fire. I think sometimes DMs try to be too even handed which leads to encounters not being fun for players because they breeze through them. It shouldn't be DM vs Players in the game, but, I do find that thinking about how best to beat the players in a fight (without just throwing 3 ancient dragons at them) based on the way the party approaches combat helps a DM come up with a challenging encounter that will make the players think about there approach in future and actually worry and think about things like spell selection, march order etc rather then just do the same thing over and over.
As a DM I agree with part of this :) (and disagree with other parts :).
I agree "my job to give the players challenging encounters that make them think, for many parties this means challenging them tactically on the battlefield"
and completely disagree with "which means very much meta gaming my encounters".
If a DM designs a logical consistent world with events happening independent of the characters and intelligent opponents then they never need to meta game to provide the party with interesting challenges. A real world has challenges that are easy and others that are too hard. There will be some that the party deals with easily and others that take a lot of effort.
However, this is not because I design the encounters for the particular party - the encounters are designed as part of ongoing story lines in the game world.
Why does this help and mean that I don't need to meta game? The higher level the characters get the more likely they are to face intelligent opponents. Intelligent opponents are already prepared to deal with a variety of encounters. The bad guys can be as smart as the good guys - their flaws if they have some are not usually stupidity. The bad guys are likely to have ranged, melee and spell attack options and can adapt their tactics on the fly to the party they are facing. I don't need to design the opponents for the party because it really doesn't matter what the party can do - the party faces the opponents that fit the story.
So, unless it is part of the storyline, I completely avoid meta gaming as a DM since I am adjudicating the interaction of the party with the game world - not tailoring the game world to the particular party and their capabilities (except in a situation where the IN game NPCs have acquired some knowledge of the PCs and use that knowledge in planning their response - otherwise, I don't care what the PCs can or can't do).
One more comment:
"Likewise if I am on the battlefield and the wizard has firebolt, if the drake is red then it is ok for me to assume the npc wizard figures out that it might be resistant to fire."
Sure that makes sense - but what if the Drake is actually immune to cold? Does your NPC wizard use firebolt anyway just because the DM knows it will work fine?
The appearance of the Drakewarden companion is entirely up to the character and has NO requirement to reflect the resistances or elemental nature of the Drake. So the player could have a cool looking red drake that was immune to cold damage. However, would your wizard use the firebolt against a red colored drake that the DM knows is immune to cold? In my game, no. The wizard would likely try a different cantrip, maybe ray of frost, discover it does nothing, be a bit confused and maybe try firebolt or a different spell later.
Many people think of D&D as the party v the DM. This is not the case the DM is the referee and lead story teller. The players have to trust the DM to not use out of character knowledge against the party. For example if the npc wizard would be equally likely to use firebolt against the drake whatever its resistance unless and until the wizard would know about it. The same is true of players and while the dm can withhold some information from the players to prevent metagaming they can not do it for everything.
It appears the player does not trust the dm in this case, whether that is deserved or not I do not know, but unless that trustcan be formed it will be impossible to play.
As a DM I agree with part of this. It is not a fight DM vs Players but as DM it is also my job to give the players challenging encounters that make them think, for many parties this means challenging them tactically on the battlefield which means very much meta gaming my encounters to ensure that if the party always fight from range I put things that can stop this in the fight, if the wizard always uses fire magic I put lots of anti fire stuff on the battlefield sometimes, if the party have a tendency to ignore or forget to look for traps then I make sure an area is full of them. If the Tanks always charge forward and uses Sentinel to stop enemies getting to the wizards/archers then I find ways to outflank, or I use sentinel myself to bog those tanks down. Using enemies resistant to stunned if the Monk go to is to stun everything.
Likewise if I am on the battlefield and the wizard has firebolt, if the drake is red then it is ok for me to assume the npc wizard figures out that it might be resistant to fire. I think sometimes DMs try to be too even handed which leads to encounters not being fun for players because they breeze through them. It shouldn't be DM vs Players in the game, but, I do find that thinking about how best to beat the players in a fight (without just throwing 3 ancient dragons at them) based on the way the party approaches combat helps a DM come up with a challenging encounter that will make the players think about there approach in future and actually worry and think about things like spell selection, march order etc rather then just do the same thing over and over.
As a DM I agree with part of this :) (and disagree with other parts :).
I agree "my job to give the players challenging encounters that make them think, for many parties this means challenging them tactically on the battlefield"
and completely disagree with "which means very much meta gaming my encounters".
If a DM designs a logical consistent world with events happening independent of the characters and intelligent opponents then they never need to meta game to provide the party with interesting challenges. A real world has challenges that are easy and others that are too hard. There will be some that the party deals with easily and others that take a lot of effort.
However, this is not because I design the encounters for the particular party - the encounters are designed as part of ongoing story lines in the game world.
Why does this help and mean that I don't need to meta game? The higher level the characters get the more likely they are to face intelligent opponents. Intelligent opponents are already prepared to deal with a variety of encounters. The bad guys can be as smart as the good guys - their flaws if they have some are not usually stupidity. The bad guys are likely to have ranged, melee and spell attack options and can adapt their tactics on the fly to the party they are facing. I don't need to design the opponents for the party because it really doesn't matter what the party can do - the party faces the opponents that fit the story.
So, unless it is part of the storyline, I completely avoid meta gaming as a DM since I am adjudicating the interaction of the party with the game world - not tailoring the game world to the particular party and their capabilities (except in a situation where the IN game NPCs have acquired some knowledge of the PCs and use that knowledge in planning their response - otherwise, I don't care what the PCs can or can't do).
One more comment:
"Likewise if I am on the battlefield and the wizard has firebolt, if the drake is red then it is ok for me to assume the npc wizard figures out that it might be resistant to fire."
Sure that makes sense - but what if the Drake is actually immune to cold? Does your NPC wizard use firebolt anyway just because the DM knows it will work fine?
The appearance of the Drakewarden companion is entirely up to the character and has NO requirement to reflect the resistances or elemental nature of the Drake. So the player could have a cool looking red drake that was immune to cold damage. However, would your wizard use the firebolt against a red colored drake that the DM knows is immune to cold? In my game, no. The wizard would likely try a different cantrip, maybe ray of frost, discover it does nothing, be a bit confused and maybe try firebolt or a different spell later.
We can agree to disagree re the meta gaming element to encounter creation, really it's approaching the same thing form 2 directions. In regards to the Drake, a key tennant of DnD is Dragon resistance being absolutely tied to the colour of the Dragon, this feeds down to Dragon born, and other dragon types so yes a Drake would be the colour that relates to it's resistance and damage type, if you run a world based on those rules. If you run a world where scale colour is independant of all other abilities then you can say your Red Dragon is actually a green or black in terms of damage and personality. So the Drake summoned is always the colour that relates to the resistance provided (player decides if that is metallic or chromatic).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I have a drake warden ranger and they made the argument that they don't have to tell me the draconic resistance of their drake companion until it's relevant.
My main concern is that they are gonna keep it blank until I make an attack and then they choose the resistance.
As the DM shouldn't I know what they pick?
Yes, as DM you kind of have to know everything about the player characters. If your player is actively trying to hide mechanical details about their character from you, that’s highly suspicious.
Probably best to tell your player that if they don’t tell you their choice for the resistance, you’ll just assign one for them.
Yes, it says that they choose a type when the dragon is summoned and so they should tell you then.
They should be saying "i summon a fire drake" or whatever
In some ways they are right
As per the answer above, they tell you when the dragon is summoned, so it isn't something they choose at character creation necessarily, but, as soon as a drake is summoned they need to tell you the kind they have created. So no they don't have to tell you until it is relevant, but it becomes relevant the moment they summon it because once it is summoned then they will do elemental damage with there own attack (it adds d6 elemental damage to there own attack damage roll) and, from level 7, make them resistant to that damage type. So if they mean that they don't need to tell you from the start they are correct. And note, they could cycle through every type of Drake each day, so they are not stuck with the first type they summon.
If you feel like your player is going to play this type of cheesy tactic to munchkin an encounter, I'm suggesting that you have bigger things to concern yourself with than the resistance of a make-believe pet. From your description, you have an adversarial relationship with this player, or the beginnings of one. The particular resistance leans towards irrelevant. The fact that your player doesn't want to be transparent with PC/Pet build info, that you need to attempt to balance encounters with, is the real issue. I might suggest starting there.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
The above answers focus on the player being the problem - which is generally true - but I think it also might be said that you as the DM might also be at fault. It is really easy for a DM to use metagame information to invalidate a character choice. The player might be making this decision based on a history of metagaming on your part. You might know that they are resistant to, say, fire, but your NPC does not. If you are the kind of DM who never targets a fire-resistant mage with fire because of your meta knowledge of resistances, I can see why the player would want to do this.
Examine your own DMing and think about whether the player might have cause to be concerned about your bypassing one of their class features. If so, either try to change up your DMing to account for it, or, if you struggle to divorce your knowledge from the NPCs knowledge, you could have a compromise where the player writes down the resistance and gives it to another player upon summoning - that way you do not have meta knowledge influencing your decisions, and they have a way of verifying what their choice was removing the “I’ll just say it is whatever is most convenient at the time of being hit, not of being summoned.”
So been reading all the responses so far. I just wanna make something clear.
I'm new to DMing and we only been playing for about nine sessions. The only monster I have thrown at them with any immunity was a will O wisp (which I filled down it's AC and attack power to make it more fair for my players when they were level two).
I wouldn't munchkin an encounter mid battle to give a monster an immunity to damage (unless I already planned for it pre session. Like a monster changing immunities and vulnerabilities at certain stages. Like a video game boss)
I do want to prevent a DM v Player mentality. I want to have fun making the world and letting my players make their decisions through it, but not in a 'im gonna negate all your dangers instead of working through them' sorta way.
I mean there will be times they will negate my dangers with clever and unorthodox methods, that is cool and encouraged. But munchkin tactics and metagaming kinda sucks the fun out of it.
And I say that as a player and newbie DM
If it is a concern that the player might cheat then just have them write down the damage resistance on a piece of paper when the creature is summoned and they can then reveal it if it becomes relevant.
It sounds like you are new to DMing but it could be that the player is also new to playing.
Usually this information is shared with the DM, not so they can introduce monsters which do other types of damage, but just to make the game run more smoothly. Good DMs choose the monsters and encounters consistent with the game world and any plots/actions happening in the game world. The game is logically consistent and the DM adjudicates the player/character interactions with the game world. The DM should not put in a creature doing lightning damage just because a player summoned a creature resistant to fire.
Anyway, you should chat with the player and find out why they think it necessary to keep it secret without making it confrontational and ask them to write it down just so that it is fair to the other players. If they were planning to change the damage type depending on the encounter then having it written down removes that issue. If they ask you why you don't trust them then you can ask them why they don't trust you to not metagame with the information. Trust goes both ways and is an essential part of D&D. If the player doesn't trust the DM to run the game fairly then they might as well leave.
I think, from what you've said, especially since you and the players are new to the game, that a "Player vs DM" mindset sounds like the problem. I understand why a player might think that way... the DM is, quite literally, controlling all of the enemies and battling against the players. It's very easy to perceive the DM themself as the challenge that needs to be overcome, rather than the NPCs the DM is controlling.
I'd say, for now at least, when the player summons their drake, have them write down its damage type on a piece of paper, fold it up, and set it aside. When/if it becomes relevant, they can unfold the paper to show you the damage type they decided on when they summoned it. This will help to show that you're not interested in metagaming... you just know that the damage type needs to be settled on when the creature is summoned. After a few sessions your player will either grow to really enjoy the moment of reveal where they unfold the paper and show you the type, or they'll get tired of needing to keep scraps of paper handy and will start just telling you when they summon it. Either way, it shows that you're working with the players, not against them.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Of course the player has to tell the DM! The drake's damage type is determined when surmmoned based on its Draconic Essence, not when its relevant so it can be used more advantageously.
D&D is a game that assumes the DM has full knowledge and trusts the DM to not abuse this information. So no, PCs are not entitled to hide information from the DM.
All the above is great, and I think he should tell you.
Here is a idea that is meta but to the players advantage. Have a spell caster attack him with some spells but make it what his resistance is. That way you let his ability be valid, and useful, and show your not ploting his downfall. Don't always do this of course, but from time to time.
Can I just confirm please, when he says he doesn’t need to tell you until it is relevant, do you mean he is it telling you as he summons it, or he is not telling you now at character creation point. I think that is an important distinction.
Many people think of D&D as the party v the DM. This is not the case the DM is the referee and lead story teller. The players have to trust the DM to not use out of character knowledge against the party. For example if the npc wizard would be equally likely to use firebolt against the drake whatever its resistance unless and until the wizard would know about it. The same is true of players and while the dm can withhold some information from the players to prevent metagaming they can not do it for everything.
It appears the player does not trust the dm in this case, whether that is deserved or not I do not know, but unless that trustcan be formed it will be impossible to play.
As a DM I agree with part of this. It is not a fight DM vs Players but as DM it is also my job to give the players challenging encounters that make them think, for many parties this means challenging them tactically on the battlefield which means very much meta gaming my encounters to ensure that if the party always fight from range I put things that can stop this in the fight, if the wizard always uses fire magic I put lots of anti fire stuff on the battlefield sometimes, if the party have a tendency to ignore or forget to look for traps then I make sure an area is full of them. If the Tanks always charge forward and uses Sentinel to stop enemies getting to the wizards/archers then I find ways to outflank, or I use sentinel myself to bog those tanks down. Using enemies resistant to stunned if the Monk go to is to stun everything.
Likewise if I am on the battlefield and the wizard has firebolt, if the drake is red then it is ok for me to assume the npc wizard figures out that it might be resistant to fire. I think sometimes DMs try to be too even handed which leads to encounters not being fun for players because they breeze through them. It shouldn't be DM vs Players in the game, but, I do find that thinking about how best to beat the players in a fight (without just throwing 3 ancient dragons at them) based on the way the party approaches combat helps a DM come up with a challenging encounter that will make the players think about there approach in future and actually worry and think about things like spell selection, march order etc rather then just do the same thing over and over.
To be honest, this is probably the exact thinking the player is trying to avoid. DMs shouldn't be balancing encounters around individual abilities like this. If they summon a fire drake, it's a pointless ability if you adjust the enemy to have double fire damage to account for the fire resistance, or use enemies with fire resistance so you can restore the balance. The point of the ability isn't to affect who or what they fight, but to give them the chance to try and divine what they will be fighting so they can leverage an advantage.
The player should be open with all the information the DM wants. But not so the DM can nullify those abilities. In some cases it might be to highlight an otherwise backseat ability, but it's just about openness and helping the player to not be tempted to change their drake's type.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think everyone is totally misunderstanding what the ability actually is, the Ranger can pick any resistance every time they summon the Drake, it isn't Fixed" for the campaign, So they can summon it now and make it Cold, then after a long rest summon it again and it is Fire, and then again. That is why I asked for clarity on what the player is actually doing. I think they can also use a spell slot to summon it more then once between long rests, so if they are facing Fire and have Acid resistance drake they can just drop the drake and summon a new one that is fire.
The player should be fine to tell you. Might be worth explaining to them that literally at any point in the game you can declare that a rock falls from the sky and deals a billion damage to their character, no saving throw. Point out that if you want to you can chuck a dozen [monster]Tarrasque[.monster]s at them whenever you feel like it. They should have realised this, but it doesn't hurt to point it out.
If the player thinks it's fun to keep it secret then have them write down the type of drake when it's summoned and then put the paper out in the open. That way it might give you a fun reveal? Personally as a DM I'd quite enjoy that. I wouldn't make my players write it down, they're the type to say "actually the monster has advantage against me because I used Reckless Attack." That's the player mentality you need.
As a DM I agree with part of this :) (and disagree with other parts :).
I agree "my job to give the players challenging encounters that make them think, for many parties this means challenging them tactically on the battlefield"
and completely disagree with "which means very much meta gaming my encounters".
If a DM designs a logical consistent world with events happening independent of the characters and intelligent opponents then they never need to meta game to provide the party with interesting challenges. A real world has challenges that are easy and others that are too hard. There will be some that the party deals with easily and others that take a lot of effort.
However, this is not because I design the encounters for the particular party - the encounters are designed as part of ongoing story lines in the game world.
Why does this help and mean that I don't need to meta game? The higher level the characters get the more likely they are to face intelligent opponents. Intelligent opponents are already prepared to deal with a variety of encounters. The bad guys can be as smart as the good guys - their flaws if they have some are not usually stupidity. The bad guys are likely to have ranged, melee and spell attack options and can adapt their tactics on the fly to the party they are facing. I don't need to design the opponents for the party because it really doesn't matter what the party can do - the party faces the opponents that fit the story.
So, unless it is part of the storyline, I completely avoid meta gaming as a DM since I am adjudicating the interaction of the party with the game world - not tailoring the game world to the particular party and their capabilities (except in a situation where the IN game NPCs have acquired some knowledge of the PCs and use that knowledge in planning their response - otherwise, I don't care what the PCs can or can't do).
One more comment:
"Likewise if I am on the battlefield and the wizard has firebolt, if the drake is red then it is ok for me to assume the npc wizard figures out that it might be resistant to fire."
Sure that makes sense - but what if the Drake is actually immune to cold? Does your NPC wizard use firebolt anyway just because the DM knows it will work fine?
The appearance of the Drakewarden companion is entirely up to the character and has NO requirement to reflect the resistances or elemental nature of the Drake. So the player could have a cool looking red drake that was immune to cold damage. However, would your wizard use the firebolt against a red colored drake that the DM knows is immune to cold? In my game, no. The wizard would likely try a different cantrip, maybe ray of frost, discover it does nothing, be a bit confused and maybe try firebolt or a different spell later.
We can agree to disagree re the meta gaming element to encounter creation, really it's approaching the same thing form 2 directions. In regards to the Drake, a key tennant of DnD is Dragon resistance being absolutely tied to the colour of the Dragon, this feeds down to Dragon born, and other dragon types so yes a Drake would be the colour that relates to it's resistance and damage type, if you run a world based on those rules. If you run a world where scale colour is independant of all other abilities then you can say your Red Dragon is actually a green or black in terms of damage and personality. So the Drake summoned is always the colour that relates to the resistance provided (player decides if that is metallic or chromatic).