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

Miladoon said:

I guess you could remove resistance and double hit points if you didn't care to translate to the narrative. You might have an objection from metagame. But we all know the guys in that department are crazy.

Click to expand...

Not sure how that would work if the foe was only resistant (or vulnerable) to one of the several forms of attack a party of adventurers use.

dave2008 said:

They could. I don't want to assume, so, what is your point? The question was how do you see a DEX save be applied to a creature in the center of a fireball. A creature's fire resistance doesn't change that to me. Ok, I lied, I assume you are asking: "if a fire resistant creatures protects itself from a fireball (saving throw) how would the characters know it was a fire resistant creature." Well:

1) A fire resistant creature might not turtle. Its over confidence, but still clearly taking damage could signal resistance
2) A fire resistant creature might be confident in its resistance and be less likely / quick to turtle (failed save), but still take less damage than expected, thus signalling its resistance
3) A fire resistant creature might turtle (successful save) and take all most no damage, hinting a resistance
4) A fire resistant creature might turtle and succeed or fail on the save and the damage provides no evidence to the PCs about its resistance.

I think #4 is a viable option, but I wouldn't limit myself to just that explanation. The are lot of possibilities that the PCs could see in game that would clue them in.

Click to expand...

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?

A creature has 500 hit points. After a long battle, it finally gets below 250 hit points. The PCs know that they are making progress. On the other hand, it has Fire Resistance and from his vantage point 120 feet away, the Wizard is able to immediately discern that his 25 points of damage Fireball (which could be 12 or 6) was more or less effective against this foe than the plethora of other foes that the Wizard has cast Fireball on in the past. It almost sounds nonsensical. Sure, when you Fireball Ogres, they are nearly half damaged, so it might be obvious. On the 500 hit point Dragon, it's white noise, no matter if the final result is 6, 12, or 25. The difference between 1% or 2% damage should rarely be noticeable.

dave2008 said:

Personally I think this is a bad example. To me, if a monster has DR than it is the mechanics suggesting to the DM that it should appear differently. Otherwise, just give it a higher AC. These shouldn't look the same or be described the same IMO. They can be, but then, to me, you are ignoring the suggestion of the mechanics. Ignoring an opportunity to tell something different. You can describe a difference between a higher AC and DR, and that can be interesting. You can also ignore the difference, but I don't see how that is more interesting.

Click to expand...

Actually, I consider it a very good example. AC is one of the game mechanics that does not just reflect being missed. It also reflects glancing blows that do no damage (e.g. Plate armor). The mechanic does not just suggest one thing. Even with Leather Armor, not all of the AC is the creature avoiding the blow. Some of it is the armor protecting. DR can also suggest many different things: regeneration or just plain lack of damage or a thick hide or some other type of protection. So to say that DR cannot indicate a strong exoskeleton and that AC does, or vice versa, indicates that there is a narrow way in which a given mechanic can and should be viewed.

I get it. As people at a table playing a game, resistance is often described in one set of ways and it's the way it has been viewed at that table for decades. That doesn't mean that the game mechanic cannot mean something else. Like a strong exoskeleton.

dave2008 said:

Most people have advocated providing hints. A hint is not supposed to be explicitly obvious. There are, of course, degrees of clarity when it comes to hints.

Click to expand...

I suspect that after the fourth or sixth resistance hint by a DM over the course of a campaign or over the course of years of multiple campaigns, the hints tend to become super obvious and they are not truly hints anymore. Just like there are only so many different ways that many DMs can narratively think to describe hits. Sooner or later, many DMs reuse the same flavor and it eventually becomes repetitive and known.

Blue said:

Again, 5e PHB, page 4. Whole section on the DM describes the results of the adventurers' actions.

It's not play style, it's it literally a cornerstone of RPGs that the DM/GM/storyteller/whatever describes the results of what happens. Leaving out to the players details the characters should observe is just as much a no-no as a player failing to record damage the DM gives out.

Click to expand...

You are making an assumption. That the characters should observe a given effect every single time and that is the DM's responsibility to always tell them about it.

Are you claiming that the DM should always tell the players about resistance, regardless of perception, knowledge, etc.?

That every form of resistance for every monster that has it is immediately noticeable?

That every time a PC hits a foe, that the damage and the degree of damage is also noticeable?


In all types of genres, a character could get thrown across a room and slammed into a wall. Is there always blood coming out of his mouth or some other indication that he "got damaged"? What if it does 2 hit points out of his 300 hit points?

The point I am making is that there is nothing wrong with describing resistance and letting the players know. There is also nothing wrong with requiring a perception roll to notice the difference, or a knowledge check to know that it is a possibility, or even to not in a given encounter let the players know at all, or to give a clue that the creature is actually vulnerable when it is resistant once in a while ("You Fireball the foe, he screams in agony and tries to back away from the flames" an old tactic by this monster). I am not advocating to never give information out about resistance, but I am advocating that it should not always be obvious or even accurate. I am advocating for some mystery in the game, not just the same old ho hum boring hints that tell the players exactly what actions their PCs should or shouldn't do. The mechanics should dictate the results, not necessarily the narrative and especially not necessarily the information that the players get.

Throw a curve ball into your game. Break out of your comfort zone of DMing.

KarinsDad said:

The point I am making is that there is nothing wrong with describing resistance and letting the players know. There is also nothing wrong with requiring a perception roll to notice the difference, or a knowledge check to know that it is a possibility, or even to not in a given encounter let the players know at all . . .

Click to expand...

That sounds significantly different than what you said at the start of this conversation:

KarinsDad said:

Telling the players this type of information sounds like really playing the numbers to me..

Click to expand...

This rather says the opposite of all but the last bit from the first quote.

If you really mean the stuff in the first quote, the wording in the second is wildly misleading.

Satyrn said:

Meanwhile, on the completely opposite end of this spectrum from [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION], I would rather make the game mechanics in play completely obvious.

I've grown tired of regularly reinventing narrative descriptions for commonly-used mechanics like Resistance , and so I've "downloaded" the work to the players by telling them "This monster's resistant to that attack" and leaving them to imagine the narrative details as they wish.

I do that as a DM because as a player I've grown to prefer just being told the mechanics, too. I like playing this game as a game. And we're not all great communicators. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but it's a common experience at my table that, after the DM has described a room (or contraption, or NPC) half of us are left scratching our heads in confusion while another player understood most of it, except for this other bit that the other player grokked - and still there's that list bit of info we all just forget immediately.

I find that stripping the mundane things down into game terms improves the narrative and description of things that aren't readily expressed that way.

On my battlemats, when I draw them out 4e style, I like to label slopes and walls with the base climbing DC. My players can decide just as well as me what their characters see when they look at a DC 5 slope compared to a DC 10 slope.

Click to expand...

Think of it more as a triangle with me being a different apex.


I agree with you. If some players are not grokking what is going on, then absolutely. Simplify it and get rid of the excessive narrative. In fact, our game is often that way. There is often several things that one or more players do not understand, especially in a 3 dimensional world described on a 2 dimensional map. I am a visual person and I have a tough time understanding audible clues or descriptions.

I also think that as the session wears on, people start getting tired and a DM should just cut to the chase and be less obscure with his explanations.


I just like adding mystery and not always telling a player exactly what is going on. You hit him with your poison arrow. Even though it looks kind of like a Goblin, it doesn't fall over like a Goblin would. Why? You don't know. Give me a nature check.

In fact, I change up my monsters quite drastically once in a while. Giving them obvious or non-obvious abilities that mess with the normal game mechanics. I have had monsters that reflected certain types of magic back at the caster (like necrotic damage); creatures that could merge out of stone, attack, and then merge back in on the same round; entire groups of foes that got changed into a totally different group of foes; creatures that could walk through the PC's hex; creatures immune to magic; creatures that gain hit points when hit with a weapon. All kinds of stuff. It's not an every adventuring day thing, but it does make the game more interesting than everyone knowing that a troll loses regeneration via fire.

Satyrn said:

That sounds significantly different than what you said at the start of this conversation:


This rather says the opposite of all but the last bit from the first quote.

If you really mean the stuff in the first quote, the wording in the second is wildly misleading.

Click to expand...

Part of a conversation. I do think that just blurting resistance out is playing the numbers. Especially if it should always be done which was the implication in the thread up to that point in time. Conversations evolve as more ideas and details are discussed. I stand by that first statement. It seems like playing the numbers, just like telling players that the reason the monster made the saving throw is because it has a high CON save modifier. Do you tell your players when a foe has a good save modifier when the foe saves on a spell? If not, why not if you tell them about resistance?

KarinsDad said:

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?

Click to expand...

IMO, it would vary given on the situation. As I mentioned, option #4 is completely viable. So sometimes not at all. I would not note a difference between 15 and 30 on a 400HP monster, but that's me.

KarinsDad said:

A creature has 500 hit points. After a long battle, it finally gets below 250 hit points. The PCs know that they are making progress. On the other hand, it has Fire Resistance and from his vantage point 120 feet away, the Wizard is able to immediately discern that his 25 points of damage Fireball (which could be 12 or 6) was more or less effective against this foe than the plethora of other foes that the Wizard has cast Fireball on in the past. It almost sounds nonsensical. Sure, when you Fireball Ogres, they are nearly half damaged, so it might be obvious. On the 500 hit point Dragon, it's white noise, no matter if the final result is 6, 12, or 25. The difference between 1% or 2% damage should rarely be noticeable.

Click to expand...

I agree. I wouldn't mention any difference in this situation. My point is to use all the tools in the tool box to make the game more interesting, and sometimes more realistic. If I believe it is more realistic for the characters to have the possibility of discerning a creatures resistance or immunity to a given attack I would probably provide hints. If not, I wouldn't. For me, it was makes sense in the game world first, and then what is more fun for my players a close second. Sometimes, the 2nd over rules the first.

KarinsDad said:

Actually, I consider it a very good example. AC is one of the game mechanics that does not just reflect being missed. It also reflects glancing blows that do no damage (e.g. Plate armor). The mechanic does not just suggest one thing. Even with Leather Armor, not all of the AC is the creature avoiding the blow. Some of it is the armor protecting. DR can also suggest many different things: regeneration or just plain lack of damage or a thick hide or some other type of protection. So to say that DR cannot indicate a strong exoskeleton and that AC does, or vice versa, indicates that there is a narrow way in which a given mechanic can and should be viewed.

I get it. As people at a table playing a game, resistance is often described in one set of ways and it's the way it has been viewed at that table for decades. That doesn't mean that the game mechanic cannot mean something else. Like a strong exoskeleton.

Click to expand...

That is not how I have generally played. I look at it like this: AC and HP are fairly abstract and can mean multiple things, as you described, depending on the needs of the situation/story. DR and Regeneration on the other hand are specific descriptors that inform the DM to modify AC / HP story. Thus, they inform the DM to described the attack / damage dynamic differently than normal. In addition, they even suggest how to do it, it is right there in the name after all!

I'm not suggestion AC or DR is the only way to describe a strong exoskeleton, they both can. What I am suggesting is that the intent, and the opportunity, is that one modifies the other. If DR wasn't intended to modify how we describe AC/HP then why have it all? Obviously you can play it so that there is no descriptive difference, but for me that is a lost opportunity. What is the reward for the players and DMs for not differentiating it. The only one I see is that it makes the game slightly easier to run, but I feel it sacrifices some of the fun.

KarinsDad said:

I suspect that after the fourth or sixth resistance hint by a DM over the course of a campaign or over the course of years of multiple campaigns, the hints tend to become super obvious and they are not truly hints anymore. Just like there are only so many different ways that many DMs can narratively think to describe hits. Sooner or later, many DMs reuse the same flavor and it eventually becomes repetitive and known.

Click to expand...

That is definitely and issue. Of course, over a campaign I would expect characters to become more and more aware of the effects of DR in world. So it should be easier for them to pick it up. I actually take that into account. At low levels I give few, vague, or no hints. These become more clear as they get higher in level. The few epic games we've played I pretty much straight up tell them what's going on.

Personally, I've only run 3 campaigns (with 2 groups) over my almost 30 yr gaming career, so it hasn't been a problem for me.

Yes. I describe it narratively. Especially where there is mixed damage (like a flaming sword), and they're only resistant to one of them.

Also, this thread should have had a poll.

dave2008 said:

My point is to use all the tools in the tool box to make the game more interesting, and sometimes more realistic. If I believe it is more realistic for the characters to have the possibility of discerning a creatures resistance or immunity to a given attack I would probably provide hints. If not, I wouldn't. For me, it was makes sense in the game world first, and then what is more fun for my players a close second. Sometimes, the 2nd over rules the first.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Do what works for the situation, do not just blanket answer with the same (more or less) information to the players, just because the mechanic from monster #1 in encounter #1 is the same as monster #2 in encounter #2. Don't describe based on the mechanic, describe based on the situation.

Use the tool in the tool box for the situation at hand, do not just answer the OP that this is the way it should always be done.

KarinsDad said:

Precisely. Do what works for the situation, do not just blanket answer with the same (more or less) information to the players, just because the mechanic from monster #1 in encounter #1 is the same as monster #2 in encounter #2. Don't describe based on the mechanic, describe based on the situation.

Use the tool in the tool box for the situation at hand, do not just answer the OP that this is the way it should always be done.

Click to expand...

You're rich for espousing to that point of view, when your view so far has been 'don't tell players anything because game mechanic abstraction means there is no possible way the characters can perceive any difference in anything they do'.

Can you put the goalposts back where they belong after you're done moving them, please?