Persistent Damage

[ElementalofCuteness]

Do PCs know when creatures are taking Persistent Damage from one of their abiltiies?

[Finoan]

The rules don't say.

... why do you ask?

The players probably should know the mechanics of what is going on in the combat. The characters may not, but that is a level of metagaming that is really hard to avoid - and is probably better for cooperative storytelling than it is a detriment.

It comes across that you are wanting a more simulationist style of game. And want to police the amount of information that other players use when making decisions for their characters.

[shroudb]

i mean, I can't see why you wouldn't be able to see your enemy being on fire, or bleeding, or melting away.

sounds exactly like you can see when your sword cuts him and when it doesn't, no?

[Eoran]

By knowing the exact amount of blood coming from a wound, I should be able to distinguish between normal bleeding from a sword cut and the persistent bleed damage condition. And if I know how many Hit Points the target has, I can calculate how long it will take for them to die from the condition.

[shroudb]

Eoran wrote:

By knowing the exact amount of blood coming from a wound, I should be able to distinguish between normal bleeding from a sword cut and the persistent bleed damage condition. And if I know how many Hit Points the target has, I can calculate how long it will take for them to die from the condition.

I mean, when you roll damage with a sword and deal 9 points of damage instead of 0 points of damage, don't you know that already though?

Plus, like most GMs, I'd expect something similar to "he's wounded", "he's very wounded" and etc, instead of actual numerical values.

So yes, the difference in "how much you bleed" is akin to your sword dealing 0 points of damage with a strike and 7-8-9-22 points of damage, so I'd say that this is a pretty observable difference of how much hes bleeding when he's under a persistent damage condition and when he's not.

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

We finished a fight yesterday with our Gunslinger down and taking 4d8 persistent damage - it was an all hands on deck situation.
Our GM allowed us to use medicine for recall knowledge and our "doctors" checked the patient while the others tried to keep him alive by feeding him healing potions or getting a heal scroll out.
The next round they assisted with recovery and he made the flat check, yay!

[ElementalofCuteness]

I ask because of abilities/spells which deal persistent damage and you don't want to double up on something that doesn't reapply.

[shroudb]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

I ask because of abilities/spells which deal persistent damage and you don't want to double up on something that doesn't reapply.

I don't see why the GM wouldn't say "you can see he's burning" if you ask him.

Exact amounts and numericals will differ from table to table, but a simple yes/no should be widely acceptable to most.

[Finoan]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

I ask because of abilities/spells which deal persistent damage and you don't want to double up on something that doesn't reapply.

Yeah, that falls into the category of: yes, it is technically metagaming, but it is metagaming that makes the game more fun, not less fun.

[graystone]

It'd be quite hard to use Assisted Recovery, Administer First Aid [Stop Bleeding], Emergency Medical Assistance, ect is you were unable to notice persistent damage. If it's metagaming, then it's metagaming the game expects you to use.