[RPG] Can an attacker tell they’re dealing non-lethal damage

combatdamagedamage-typesdnd-3.5e

While reviewing regeneration I was reminded that "damage dealt to the creature is treated as nonlethal damage".
This made me wonder if the attacker can tell (before regeneration happens) that the damage is non-lethal so that they may adjust their tactics etc.

So for example, if I encountered a troll and had never done so before, and struck it with a normal battleaxe…could I tell I was striking for non-lethal damage? Or would I be waiting to see its wounds bind before I knew something was up?
You could argue that you might realize immediately, like when you remove the axe to strike again it's not the same as striking a non-regen creature, the gaps tighten slightly, etc so…

Similarly, in the same situation (not in water), let's take a scrag (type of troll), that only regens in water. The damage to it is non-lethal still but there would be no immediate visual regen effect because it's not actively regenerating (when not in water).

I realize this could be a question that boils down to opinion so book quotes/examples are welcome.

Maybe related: Could non-lethal damage draw blood?

Best Answer

Yes, you can tell

DMG p.26

When running a combat, make sure that you describe nonlethal and lethal damage differently. The distinction should be clear—both in the players’ imaginations and on their character sheets.

Does this only apply to damage the characters receive?

Personally I am happy to take what the rulebooks say at face value: "make sure that you describe nonlethal and lethal damage differently" is pretty unequivocal. Some people, however, like to keep their players in the dark about stuff like this.

With all due respect, these people are wrong because Poor Communication Kills and the role of the DM is to give the players adequate and sufficient information for them to make informed decisions about their characters that have reasonable consequences. This is called agency and it is the entire point of any RPG - if you want a game without agency Snakes and Ladders is cheap and has a much shallower learning curve. I have written about it in My PCs have a plan that will get them all killed; how and why should I save them? Playing games where you are denied the right to choose is not fun!

With respect to the specific example, if you keep this information secret then the players will have their decision making ability constrained to their detriment. The fight will be tougher (probably) than it would have been and result in more expenditure of resources by the party and possibly unnecessary casualties. This will mean fewer encounters before the party needs to rest and less fun all around.

If instead, you say, "You strike solidly with your sword and open a wide gash. You recoil in horror as the green muscle tissue writhes and begins to knit back together and the severed veins grope towards one another like some macabre game of blind man's bluff" the players have been given information that things are not as they expect. They now have more agency, more choices available which broadly speaking are to persist in what they would normally do or do something different. Now, they may make a good choice and save some resources or they may not but you will have enabled instead of disabling their agency.

Related Topic