So, I had an interesting session as a player, which through up a couple of interesting choices by the DM, at least from my point of view. I'm curious if I'm interpreting the rules wrongly or just not making the best decisions when I DM.
The DM often withheld what was important information from the players to resolve the mechanics of the situation. For example, there was a certain kind of attack that evidently was a special type (probably acid from the description, but could have been fire or some other type) which was important as one of the characters had some immunities. Another instance was during a fight with a creature that was an obvious candidate for being undead or fiend, and a Paladin used his smite. He needed to know in order to know whether he got is extra d8 damage. However, the DM refused to tell us this information without a check - despite it being pertinent on how to resolve the damages involved, and neither case was dependent on the character's knowledge. The immunity would apply, regardless of whether the character knew it was that type of attack, the smite would have done extra damage regardless of whether the Paladin knew it was an undead or whatever. Obviously, it wouldn't apply if they weren't of the correct types.
I understand why the DM might decide to do things that way. The Paladin hadn't used his divine sense and I guess narratively a character may or may not recognise the type of an attack...
How would you have handled those situations?
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.
1) I agree with not sharing weaknesses unless the players dig for it
2) the bonus should apply regardless of whether or not the players know, although I might not tell the player whether the bonus apply (example-I roll the extra dice behind the screen and tell the player whether or not it dies)
I sometimes withhold combat information from players if it serves the plot or is a part of the challenge of the encounter. I only narrate damage type effectiveness if it would be obvious in-game - or if the players specifically ask me. And if I do hide information that would result in different HP, I account for that behind the screen: rolling extra or reducing damage before I announce it.
Without knowing more about the scenarios you gave, it does on the surface sound like combat mechanics benefitting the party might have been sidestepped in a DM-versus-player kind of way. Some tables do have that dynamic, and I won't pass judgment on that playstyle. That said, my players do sometimes struggle a little with metagaming, so I am pretty reticent to give stat block information away unless their characters would be experienced enough or perceptive enough to know it.
I guess for me, I'd assume that a character would understand how they were being hurt. Even a soft, unseasoned guy who works with computers like me would know the difference between being hurt because being stabbed, burned, corroded, sound waves thumping me around, etc. Perhaps I'm wrong in that assessment, but it just seems like a natural bit of information the characters would gain, at least towards the end of Tier 2 play, like our characters were.
I can see why a DM might deal with those things behind a screen, although you'd have to know how every class feature works very intimately and how it interacts with every other mechanic, and I've yet to play with a DM that had that level of knowledge, including this one (and myself), since they didn't know how my features (at least) worked. And that's fine if you trust your players, but it can cause problems if a mechanic comes into play and you're not on top of it. That recognition has shaped my philosophy, where I regard the players to be the keepers of their characters and stats. I'll help if I can and remind them if I remember, but it's upto them to apply their mechanics. It's an interesting difference.
I don't know if the DM was intentionally trying to sidestep features, it just seemed a little more adversarial than I'm used to. Not fully adversarial, but perhaps...nickle and diming, where everything had to be paid for, even when it was in the common interest of the table for us to know.
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.
The DM often withheld what was important information from the players to resolve the mechanics of the situation. For example, there was a certain kind of attack that evidently was a special type (probably acid from the description, but could have been fire or some other type) which was important as one of the characters had some immunities.
Ignorance to one's immunities doesn't suddenly make the immunities go away: if a PC is immune to the damage, they're immune to the damage. It would be good to know at the end of the session if it was some kind of new kind of damage, like World of Warcraft's Frostfire or Felflame damage (which make no difference because elemental resistance was removed when these types were added), but cheesy to spitefully bypass immunity unless its mystery factor pays off.
Another instance was during a fight with a creature that was an obvious candidate for being undead or fiend, and a Paladin used his smite. He needed to know in order to know whether he got is extra d8 damage. However, the DM refused to tell us this information without a check - despite it being pertinent on how to resolve the damages involved, and neither case was dependent on the character's knowledge.
I don't see what check would be relevant: WIS (Perception) DC 5 required to detect the monster reeling in agony as it's vulnerable to the damage type? Again, it just seems petty, especially if this Paladin is experienced in fighting such creatures or their ilk. It costs an insignificant amount of time to say whether it's hurt a little bit more by the damage.
Whatever the DM's trying to achieve stumbles at the hurdle of them unnecessarily arsing about. I think I get their reasoning of trying to tackle metagaming and encouraging in-game reasoning for character deeds, but this just slows down the already longest part of a session.
Maybe a Session Zero-style chat is needed about the tone of the game, just to clarify the way things are ruled, especially if other players have noticed this. Nothing wrong with doing a mid-campaign M.O.T.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
A player should always be told what type of damage the PC is receiving.
Some attacks by PCs automatically inflict additional damage against certain creature types - these probably have some sort of visible sign that the extra damage was inflicted (to give clues to the PCs as to the nature of the thing they are attacking).
If a PC has to choose whether to use an ability against a creature, such as whether to use a Smite or not, then the PC will have to determine somehow whether the creature they are attacking could be affected by that ability.
Ignorance to one's immunities doesn't suddenly make the immunities go away: if a PC is immune to the damage, they're immune to the damage. It would be good to know at the end of the session if it was some kind of new kind of damage, like World of Warcraft's Frostfire or Felflame damage (which make no difference because elemental resistance was removed when these types were added), but cheesy to spitefully bypass immunity unless its mystery factor pays off.
To clarify, I don't think it was a novel (to 5e) type, it was likely acid, although poison is possible, and technically it could be fire, thunder, force, etc. But yeah, I agree. A Balor doesn't take damage from fire just because he didn't recognise it as a fire.
Whatever the DM's trying to achieve stumbles at the hurdle of them unnecessarily arsing about. I think I get their reasoning of trying to tackle metagaming and encouraging in-game reasoning for character deeds, but this just slows down the already longest part of a session.
That was my view. It's not like as if we could metagame it anyway really - maybe the Paladin would be more likely to use his Divine Smite more often if he knew it was undead or a fiend? Otherwise...none of our abilities were relevant.
Maybe a Session Zero-style chat is needed about the tone of the game, just to clarify the way things are ruled, especially if other players have noticed this. Nothing wrong with doing a mid-campaign M.O.T.
If it were a campaign I would. It was a one-shot though, and due to scheduling conflicts, they're unlikely to do it again for us, so the thread is just about me figuring out if I'm DMing wrong or if it was just their way of doing it. I enjoyed the session, but this just jumped out at me as very different to how I do it.
Some attacks by PCs automatically inflict additional damage against certain creature types - these probably have some sort of visible sign that the extra damage was inflicted (to give clues to the PCs as to the nature of the thing they are attacking).
If a PC has to choose whether to use an ability against a creature, such as whether to use a Smite or not, then the PC will have to determine somehow whether the creature they are attacking could be affected by that ability.
I'm not clear on your position, since you mention Smite in the second category, but it's also valid for the first, in my opinion at least. The scenario was that the Paladin decided to enhance his attack with a Divine Smite, which would work against the creature (regardless of being fiend, undead or otherwise). It has a feature that if used against a fiend or undead, it does an additional d8 damage on top whatever the Smite normally would have done had they not been a fiend or undead.
Are you saying that even if the target is a fiend or undead, if the Paladin is unaware of that fact, then the additional d8 damage isn't inflicted?
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.
The only thing I'll add is that it can be easy to get overwhelmed if you're running combat and forget details like whether damage types matter to certain characters. Habitually not specifying damage type might also simply be a symptom of a scatterbrained DM, and it's up to the player to double check about the damage. This is a completely different beast than intentionally withholding information you know would benefit your players in combat, though.
I'm not clear on your position, since you mention Smite in the second category, but it's also valid for the first, in my opinion at least. The scenario was that the Paladin decided to enhance his attack with a Divine Smite, which would work against the creature (regardless of being fiend, undead or otherwise). It has a feature that if used against a fiend or undead, it does an additional d8 damage on top whatever the Smite normally would have done had they not been a fiend or undead.
Are you saying that even if the target is a fiend or undead, if the Paladin is unaware of that fact, then the additional d8 damage isn't inflicted?
No, I was saying that the Paladin has to choose whether to use Smite based on what they see and/or know at the time.
There are two different aspects to using the Smite:
- the player declares his normal weapon damage and states separately that the Smite causes whatever the D8 rolled. The DM can then adjust the monster's HP accordingly, adding the extra declared Smite damage if relevant, or ignoring it if the monster wouldn't have been affected.
- if I was DMing, I would describe some visible effect to indicate whether the extra Smite damage hurt the creature or not (e.g. holy flames briefly flicker over the creature and sear away some of its skin).
I'm not clear on your position, since you mention Smite in the second category, but it's also valid for the first, in my opinion at least. The scenario was that the Paladin decided to enhance his attack with a Divine Smite, which would work against the creature (regardless of being fiend, undead or otherwise). It has a feature that if used against a fiend or undead, it does an additional d8 damage on top whatever the Smite normally would have done had they not been a fiend or undead.
Are you saying that even if the target is a fiend or undead, if the Paladin is unaware of that fact, then the additional d8 damage isn't inflicted?
No, I was saying that the Paladin has to choose whether to use Smite based on what they see and/or know at the time.
There are two different aspects to using the Smite:
- the player declares his normal weapon damage and states separately that the Smite causes whatever the D8 rolled, or even that if the target is of the particular types than it also does an additional (whatever is rolled on another D8). The DM can then adjust the monster's HP accordingly, adding the extra declared Smite damage if relevant, or ignoring it if the monster wouldn't have been affected.
- if I was DMing, I would describe some visible effect to indicate whether the extra Smite damage hurt the creature or not (e.g. holy flames briefly flicker over the creature and sear away some of its skin).
I can appreciate not wanting to fully disclose everything, the game should have an element of discovery to it.
Withholding damage type, sure for the first few hits… but then it should be easy to figure out after some damage has been dealt. Acid feels different than fire, thunder should make a sound etc…
When a class feature comes into play though, maybe don’t disclose the foe is vulnerable or takes extra damage… but at least account for it behind the screen, otherwise the class feature is wasted. Divine smite being the example, the description clearly states that Fiends and Undead take extra damage, it shouldn’t rely on character knowledge for this to happen. Plus, what about when players/characters don’t know they’re using a damage type the foe is vulnerable to?
I’m curious if the Paladin had an opportunity to use an action for Divine Sense (DS) before combat started… if not, there’s a teachable moment! Tactically, when is DS a better option than attacking or casting a spell once initiative is rolled? I know there are other class/subclass features that can identify weaknesses & vulnerabilities as an action, but they tend to have a bit more impact than an extra 1d8 on a smite.
Pretty sure it all comes down to ‘talk to your DM’, it sounds like there were some unspoken expectations at the table.
I've usually ruled that most of this info is pretty clear after the fact, if nothing else. Once an attack hits you, you know what type of damage it did; you paid for that info with your HP. Once you hit a creature that's immune to your attack's damage type, you can tell that you did nothing to it; you paid for that info with your wasted action (and possibly a spell slot). Resistance or vulnerability can be less obvious, so I usually give a narrative hint the first time that damage is used ("wisps of smoke curl upward from the creature's singed hide, but it charges forward despite your blasts of flame"), and let them know directly after their second not-so-effective hit ("it's clear now that the fire isn't having as much effect as it usually does"). That works at my table, where combat rarely lasts more than 4 or 5 rounds at most, but it might not be appropriate for other groups.
On the other hand, if someone is trying to figure these types of things out just by memory, or just by watching, they'll need some kind of skill check and spend an action. Once or twice I've even told a player "you can try to make an Arcana/Nature/Religion check to figure that out, but if you roll low, then you've used up your next action on it" -- I know some people will chafe at that suggestion, but mine tend to approach D&D as a game of taking calculated risks, so it works for us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, I had an interesting session as a player, which through up a couple of interesting choices by the DM, at least from my point of view. I'm curious if I'm interpreting the rules wrongly or just not making the best decisions when I DM.
The DM often withheld what was important information from the players to resolve the mechanics of the situation. For example, there was a certain kind of attack that evidently was a special type (probably acid from the description, but could have been fire or some other type) which was important as one of the characters had some immunities. Another instance was during a fight with a creature that was an obvious candidate for being undead or fiend, and a Paladin used his smite. He needed to know in order to know whether he got is extra d8 damage. However, the DM refused to tell us this information without a check - despite it being pertinent on how to resolve the damages involved, and neither case was dependent on the character's knowledge. The immunity would apply, regardless of whether the character knew it was that type of attack, the smite would have done extra damage regardless of whether the Paladin knew it was an undead or whatever. Obviously, it wouldn't apply if they weren't of the correct types.
I understand why the DM might decide to do things that way. The Paladin hadn't used his divine sense and I guess narratively a character may or may not recognise the type of an attack...
How would you have handled those situations?
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.
1) I agree with not sharing weaknesses unless the players dig for it
2) the bonus should apply regardless of whether or not the players know, although I might not tell the player whether the bonus apply (example-I roll the extra dice behind the screen and tell the player whether or not it dies)
I sometimes withhold combat information from players if it serves the plot or is a part of the challenge of the encounter. I only narrate damage type effectiveness if it would be obvious in-game - or if the players specifically ask me. And if I do hide information that would result in different HP, I account for that behind the screen: rolling extra or reducing damage before I announce it.
Without knowing more about the scenarios you gave, it does on the surface sound like combat mechanics benefitting the party might have been sidestepped in a DM-versus-player kind of way. Some tables do have that dynamic, and I won't pass judgment on that playstyle. That said, my players do sometimes struggle a little with metagaming, so I am pretty reticent to give stat block information away unless their characters would be experienced enough or perceptive enough to know it.
I guess for me, I'd assume that a character would understand how they were being hurt. Even a soft, unseasoned guy who works with computers like me would know the difference between being hurt because being stabbed, burned, corroded, sound waves thumping me around, etc. Perhaps I'm wrong in that assessment, but it just seems like a natural bit of information the characters would gain, at least towards the end of Tier 2 play, like our characters were.
I can see why a DM might deal with those things behind a screen, although you'd have to know how every class feature works very intimately and how it interacts with every other mechanic, and I've yet to play with a DM that had that level of knowledge, including this one (and myself), since they didn't know how my features (at least) worked. And that's fine if you trust your players, but it can cause problems if a mechanic comes into play and you're not on top of it. That recognition has shaped my philosophy, where I regard the players to be the keepers of their characters and stats. I'll help if I can and remind them if I remember, but it's upto them to apply their mechanics. It's an interesting difference.
I don't know if the DM was intentionally trying to sidestep features, it just seemed a little more adversarial than I'm used to. Not fully adversarial, but perhaps...nickle and diming, where everything had to be paid for, even when it was in the common interest of the table for us to know.
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.
Ignorance to one's immunities doesn't suddenly make the immunities go away: if a PC is immune to the damage, they're immune to the damage. It would be good to know at the end of the session if it was some kind of new kind of damage, like World of Warcraft's Frostfire or Felflame damage (which make no difference because elemental resistance was removed when these types were added), but cheesy to spitefully bypass immunity unless its mystery factor pays off.
I don't see what check would be relevant: WIS (Perception) DC 5 required to detect the monster reeling in agony as it's vulnerable to the damage type? Again, it just seems petty, especially if this Paladin is experienced in fighting such creatures or their ilk. It costs an insignificant amount of time to say whether it's hurt a little bit more by the damage.
Whatever the DM's trying to achieve stumbles at the hurdle of them unnecessarily arsing about. I think I get their reasoning of trying to tackle metagaming and encouraging in-game reasoning for character deeds, but this just slows down the already longest part of a session.
Maybe a Session Zero-style chat is needed about the tone of the game, just to clarify the way things are ruled, especially if other players have noticed this. Nothing wrong with doing a mid-campaign M.O.T.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
A player should always be told what type of damage the PC is receiving.
Some attacks by PCs automatically inflict additional damage against certain creature types - these probably have some sort of visible sign that the extra damage was inflicted (to give clues to the PCs as to the nature of the thing they are attacking).
If a PC has to choose whether to use an ability against a creature, such as whether to use a Smite or not, then the PC will have to determine somehow whether the creature they are attacking could be affected by that ability.
To clarify, I don't think it was a novel (to 5e) type, it was likely acid, although poison is possible, and technically it could be fire, thunder, force, etc. But yeah, I agree. A Balor doesn't take damage from fire just because he didn't recognise it as a fire.
That was my view. It's not like as if we could metagame it anyway really - maybe the Paladin would be more likely to use his Divine Smite more often if he knew it was undead or a fiend? Otherwise...none of our abilities were relevant.
If it were a campaign I would. It was a one-shot though, and due to scheduling conflicts, they're unlikely to do it again for us, so the thread is just about me figuring out if I'm DMing wrong or if it was just their way of doing it. I enjoyed the session, but this just jumped out at me as very different to how I do it.
I'm not clear on your position, since you mention Smite in the second category, but it's also valid for the first, in my opinion at least. The scenario was that the Paladin decided to enhance his attack with a Divine Smite, which would work against the creature (regardless of being fiend, undead or otherwise). It has a feature that if used against a fiend or undead, it does an additional d8 damage on top whatever the Smite normally would have done had they not been a fiend or undead.
Are you saying that even if the target is a fiend or undead, if the Paladin is unaware of that fact, then the additional d8 damage isn't inflicted?
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.
The only thing I'll add is that it can be easy to get overwhelmed if you're running combat and forget details like whether damage types matter to certain characters. Habitually not specifying damage type might also simply be a symptom of a scatterbrained DM, and it's up to the player to double check about the damage. This is a completely different beast than intentionally withholding information you know would benefit your players in combat, though.
No, I was saying that the Paladin has to choose whether to use Smite based on what they see and/or know at the time.
There are two different aspects to using the Smite:
- the player declares his normal weapon damage and states separately that the Smite causes whatever the D8 rolled. The DM can then adjust the monster's HP accordingly, adding the extra declared Smite damage if relevant, or ignoring it if the monster wouldn't have been affected.
- if I was DMing, I would describe some visible effect to indicate whether the extra Smite damage hurt the creature or not (e.g. holy flames briefly flicker over the creature and sear away some of its skin).
No, I was saying that the Paladin has to choose whether to use Smite based on what they see and/or know at the time.
There are two different aspects to using the Smite:
- the player declares his normal weapon damage and states separately that the Smite causes whatever the D8 rolled, or even that if the target is of the particular types than it also does an additional (whatever is rolled on another D8). The DM can then adjust the monster's HP accordingly, adding the extra declared Smite damage if relevant, or ignoring it if the monster wouldn't have been affected.
- if I was DMing, I would describe some visible effect to indicate whether the extra Smite damage hurt the creature or not (e.g. holy flames briefly flicker over the creature and sear away some of its skin).
I can appreciate not wanting to fully disclose everything, the game should have an element of discovery to it.
Withholding damage type, sure for the first few hits… but then it should be easy to figure out after some damage has been dealt. Acid feels different than fire, thunder should make a sound etc…
When a class feature comes into play though, maybe don’t disclose the foe is vulnerable or takes extra damage… but at least account for it behind the screen, otherwise the class feature is wasted. Divine smite being the example, the description clearly states that Fiends and Undead take extra damage, it shouldn’t rely on character knowledge for this to happen. Plus, what about when players/characters don’t know they’re using a damage type the foe is vulnerable to?
I’m curious if the Paladin had an opportunity to use an action for Divine Sense (DS) before combat started… if not, there’s a teachable moment! Tactically, when is DS a better option than attacking or casting a spell once initiative is rolled? I know there are other class/subclass features that can identify weaknesses & vulnerabilities as an action, but they tend to have a bit more impact than an extra 1d8 on a smite.
Pretty sure it all comes down to ‘talk to your DM’, it sounds like there were some unspoken expectations at the table.
I've usually ruled that most of this info is pretty clear after the fact, if nothing else. Once an attack hits you, you know what type of damage it did; you paid for that info with your HP. Once you hit a creature that's immune to your attack's damage type, you can tell that you did nothing to it; you paid for that info with your wasted action (and possibly a spell slot). Resistance or vulnerability can be less obvious, so I usually give a narrative hint the first time that damage is used ("wisps of smoke curl upward from the creature's singed hide, but it charges forward despite your blasts of flame"), and let them know directly after their second not-so-effective hit ("it's clear now that the fire isn't having as much effect as it usually does"). That works at my table, where combat rarely lasts more than 4 or 5 rounds at most, but it might not be appropriate for other groups.
On the other hand, if someone is trying to figure these types of things out just by memory, or just by watching, they'll need some kind of skill check and spend an action. Once or twice I've even told a player "you can try to make an Arcana/Nature/Religion check to figure that out, but if you roll low, then you've used up your next action on it" -- I know some people will chafe at that suggestion, but mine tend to approach D&D as a game of taking calculated risks, so it works for us.