Do you announce Damage Reduction immediately?

[carborundum]

The poll about DR reminded me about a situation that came up the other day.
The characters are all first level and came up against some zombies, which had DR/slashing.
The first player who hit it with his stick was a wizard and the blow ended up doing no damage. I figured he had not so much experience with this sort of situation and rolled a quick spot check for him, just to see what sort of roll I got. I was thinking a low check (maybe 5-BAB) would be enough to get suspicious. It was a one (hooray) so I just said that it was still standing and didn't seem staggered or bothered. Later he hit it for maximum damage and I crossed a few points off it, rolled another really useless spot check and repeated the same story.
The player figured out what was going on was slightly upset that I hadn't interrupted the narrative to actually say the words Damage Reduction. I said that his character hadn't really noticed anything beyond the fact that it was surprisingly tough but he said he'd prefer to know as a player and role-play it.
I'm inclined to believe that this meta-knowledge would immediately make his character more suspicious than he had been.
No big deal but I'm wondering if there's an actual rule I missed about how soon the player should know the mechanics of the situation - certainly with 1st level characters.

 

[Drowbane]

No, I don't think so.

There is no need to inform a player about DR, such metagame knowledge is not required. As a wizard he should've been more upset about being in Melee.

On the other hand, I would've called for a Knowledge (religion) check rather than a Spot check to know that Zombies are unnaturally tough like that. The cleric (if any) should have known better

 

[Zurai]

An appropriate Knowledge check (usually something like DC15+CR - or is it 15+HD? I forget...) will return that info. Short of that, you're not obligated to say anything about it.

I personally don't tell my players when they're encountering DR, Fast Healing, etc, unless they pass the knowledge check. I might give them clues - their wounds seem to be slowly closing, for example - but I won't reveal the actual mechanic without a skill check.

 

[delericho]

I'm about 90% sure that this was addressed, either in the DMG, by the sage, or in the FAQ, and the answer was that the PCs should be made aware that Damage Reduction has come into play. Obviously, they wouldn't be informed about the exact amount of DR (only whether it negated all damage or not), and certainly not how it can be bypassed (unless they happen to hit on just the right weapon).

 

[Piratecat]

I'll definitely tell them if it negates the entire blow. If it negates part of the damage, I may say "You're not sure, but he doesn't look as hurt as you'd expect him to be."

 

[The_Universe]

I think the OP was well within the realm of reasonableness. He gave the PCs a chance to notice the DR. They didn't, and so the game goes on. I usually try to do the same in similar situations (although I usually substitute the apropriate Knowledge check for Spot), and when they miss the rolls, they miss the information.

It certainly doesn't seem crazy that, in the heat of battle, characters are not entirely aware of the precise effectiveness their weapons are having on an unknown and probably unnatural creature. Like P-Kitty, I try to let them know when they're not hitting as hard as they should, but I try to avoid using the phrase "Damage Reduction" until after the fight is over.

 

[Wolfspider]

I'm about 90% sure that this was addressed, either in the DMG, by the sage, or in the FAQ, and the answer was that the PCs should be made aware that Damage Reduction has come into play. Obviously, they wouldn't be informed about the exact amount of DR (only whether it negated all damage or not), and certainly not how it can be bypassed (unless they happen to hit on just the right weapon).

I tend to agree with this approach. If a character pokes a monster with his rapier in a way that would drop a normal opponent or at least wound it, and nothing happens when he pokes the skeleton with his rapier, then he's going to know something's up.

Let me put it to you this way: If a wizard were to use burning hands on a monster that is immune or resistant to fire, are you going to make the wizard make a roll to see if he notices that the creature is not char-broiled?

Characters should be familiar with the normal effects of their powers and abilities. Otherwise, they really ARE losers.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'll definitely tell them if it negates the entire blow. If it negates part of the damage, I may say "You're not sure, but he doesn't look as hurt as you'd expect him to be."

Precisely. Something like "the blows of your weapon do not seem to fall as heavily upon the creature as you would expect, given the force you applied" or "your weapon strikes but does not seem to bite as deeply as it should have" is the way I've described it.

 

[Drowbane]

Precisely. Something like "the blows of your weapon do not seem to fall as heavily upon the creature as you would expect, given the force you applied" or "your weapon strikes but does not seem to bite as deeply as it should have" is the way I've described it.

With respect, I just don't buy that. Weapon damage is already random, with it assumed (by me, if no one else ) that each strike has just as much force put behind it (power attack not withstanding).

 

[carborundum]

I should have thought of a Knowledge check - doh! I agree that characters should have a clue as to what their weapons do - though I'd base it on their experience for RP purposes. A wizard, out of school for the first time, out of spells and cornered by an undead lashes out with his staff for the first time ever. It just seems different to a warrior in the same situation.

The Burning Hands for a wizard seems trickier and yet I can imagine arguments for throwing in a check there too. If you imagine a fire-resistant undead:
If you describe the effects by saying the flesh blackens and burns but it doesn't seem to care - how would the character know if it's actually getting hurt?
If you choose to describe the effect by saying that the fire just washes over it and does nothing then you'd be giving a much stronger hint that DR is in play.

I couldn't find a rule mentioned in the DMG - I'll have to go check out the Sage. I like the Knowledge check - you could use it on first encountering them (whether or not the player asks - the character would have an automatic chance of knowing) and again when the effect comes into play. Warriors would have a disadvantage here though, although they should tend to notice very quickly - certainly if it was their primary attack that wasn't getting through. Maybe substitute BAB for the skill, or give a bonus based on their level or the damage done?