D&D 5E Do You Hint at Damage Resistance?

[KarinsDad]

I do that.

Let me answer a couple more questions you might ask:

I regularly tell my players a monster's AC.

I pretty much always track the monsters' hit points in the open, in big numbers, counting down to 0.

I guess at your table, resistance would be obvious.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

My players know the damage their attacks make plus I narrate something like "The attack doesn't seem very effective". But I don't tell my players the max HP of a creature, so they first need to fight it once to be able to estimate it.

Alternatively my players can also do a nature check on a creature to get me to tell them information on resistances.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What does high AC mean? Does it only mean hard to hit? Does it mean lacking weak spots? What do hit points reflect? If they reflect wounds, how come a Cure Light Wounds almost fully heals a PC at level one and isn't even a drop in the bucket at level 15?

High AC means something is difficult to injure. Hit Points reflect your capacity to stay alive and conscious when injured. Ten damage is a consistent degree of injury, regardless of who is carrying it; the difference between the chump and the hero is that the chump dies from a wound that the hero can ignore. (Nowhere is it implied that ten damage is an arrow through the heart. Ten damage is enough to kill some chump, but a minor inconvenience to a hero, and we can extrapolate from there.)

With your interpretation, the PC never survives the Fireball cause he said a quick prayer to his deity because the mechanics never use Wisdom. Hence, that narrative doesn't exist in your campaign.

So the question becomes: why not? Why couldn't a PC narratively survive a Fireball because he did a quick prayer to his deity, or because of sheer luck, or some other reason not related to dodging out the way?

Because then the mechanics would no longer reflect the narrative. If the narrative is that you're praying, then why would we add Dexterity to the roll? You can't say that Dexterity is a factor in the mechanics, but it isn't a factor in the narrative, or else you violate causality. Everything happens for a reason, and that reason always comes down to the relevant factors which are accounted for in the model. That's why we call them relevant, and we call things like faith irrelevant to the situation at hand.

If you want to it to be a thing in your world that you can pray to avoid a fireball, then add a mechanic for using Wisdom in place of Dexterity for resisting fireballs. As far as the narrative in the existing model is concerned, standing in place would better be reflected by forgoing your Dexterity bonus and leaving everything up to chance (maybe you get hit with a less-intense part of the explosion, or maybe someone else will dodge in such a way that they shield you).

 

[KarinsDad]

Because then the mechanics would no longer reflect the narrative. If the narrative is that you're praying, then why would we add Dexterity to the roll? You can't say that Dexterity is a factor in the mechanics, but it isn't a factor in the narrative, or else you violate causality.

Nah. One violates nothing of the sort. You are getting too caught up in the mechanics, the very thing that I am cautioning against.

The designers just happened to pick Dex because historically it was used in this game system. Resisting against fire in a different game system could use Constitution to tough it out. Some mechanic has to be used. Would you change narrative because you are using a different game system that uses different mechanics? Or is a Fireball in an FRPG a Fireball in an FRPG?

From the point of view of the PCs, a ball of fire is thrown and a ball of fire damage is partially averted. Yeah, the Rogue might be better at doing that, but the Barbarian is pretty darn good as well. And his Dex might be average or even low for the party, but he is still better at it than most of the other PCs. In fact, he is sometimes better (better odds of saving due to Danger Sense) than the Rogue (before level 7), even though his Dex is not nearly as high. And he is even better at level 3 with Bear Totem.

Is the Bear Totem Barbarian toughing it out, or do you put him in the same narrow box of "he dodges the flames", just because it is a Dex save?


I think that you are really stuck on the concept of "which mechanic is used determines the subset of which narratives to use", so I doubt that we will ever have common ground on this.

 

[dave2008]

I think that you are really stuck on the concept of "which mechanic is used determines the subset of which narratives to use", so I doubt that we will ever have common ground on this.

KarinsDad,
Quick question: Did you play 4e D&D? I believe what your looking for (in terms of saves) was very similar to how we handled it in 4e. There was just one saving throw and you could/had to narrate it however you want (if I remember correctly).

 

[Kalshane]

I tell my players (via description) when they encounter resistance/immunity. Their characters know how their weapons and abilities work. When something doesn't work the way it should, they notice.

 

[Ristamar]

Given the players' ability to collect and interpret any respective PC sensory input is severely muted by the limited amount of information a DM is able to provide during an encounter, I don't see how the game is often improved by further and intentional obfuscation.

For those that choose to be mysterious in regard to the efficacy of a fireball, do you also force PCs to hide their hit point totals from each other? Do you hide their own totals from them since one may not know the true extent of their own injuries? Are knowledge or medicine checks required on the spot to determine the adequate spell level when casting Cure Wounds?

 

[Blue]

How does one dodge out of the way of a Fireball if one is in the dead center point of it?

Do all magical spells have little gaps in them for PCs to hide in?

That's a narrative attempt to explain why the mechanics work the way they do. Just as good of a narrative explanation would be willpower or favor of the gods or a variety of other things. This is a fine example of what I am attempting to point out here. PCs should not necessarily know about different game mechanics and narrative explanations should not necessarily inform players as to which game mechanic is responsible for a given result.

It's a DEX save. Describing it as willpower or divine providence would be lying to the characters.

DM: "Through divine providence you are barely hurt by the blast of fire."
Player: "Great! I've been a faithful cleric, I don't have to worry about this unholy fire! Charge."

Three rounds later the heavy armored 10 DEX war cleric is a smoking pile of ash.

Vs.

DM: "You see the ball of fire coming and whip your cloak over your head as you crouch into a small ball. The heat is intense and burns you, but not as much as if you were fully exposed. Your quick reaction saved the day."
Player: "Well, I don't know how often I can count on that."

If as a DM someone isn't imaginative enough to come up with a reasonable narrative to describe the results of the mechanics, try engaging the players. (Actually, not bad advice at any time.) "You succeeded on your DEX save and only took half damage from the ball of fire. Describe what happened."

 

[Blue]

In the "Describing the Effects of Damage" sidebar of the Players Handbook, there is verbiage that PCs should know when the creature is half damaged. I find this reasonable. There should be obvious clues that the players are making progress.

The concept that hints should be given for resistance or vulnerability would also seem to imply that 25% damage is something that should be known, or 10% damaged, or 2%, etc. In other words, where does the concept of "less damage than expected" come in? Is 10 points of damage on a 30 HP creature any more or less the expectation than on a 400 HP creature?

Why do you persist in repeating that falsehood? Information about resistance is not gained from how much total damage the creature has taken. It's gained from the description of the effects of the individual attack/spell. Perhaps in relation to other individual attacks or spells, but it in no way requires knowing what percentage of damage as a whole the creature has.

 

[Satyrn]

Nah. One violates nothing of the sort. You are getting too caught up in the mechanics, the very thing that I am cautioning against.

Oh man, you've got no chance of convincing me the mechanics shouldn't drive the narrative, that the narrative doesn't reflect the mechanics, I can't imagine you getting Saelorn onside with you.