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

[Blue]

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

How do the PCs (let alone the players) know the difference between a CR 5 monster with 80 hits points and no damage resistance vs. a CR 5 monster with 40 hits points and damage resistance? From the perspective of the PCs, both of these monsters have taken the exact same percentage amount of damage with a 10 point non-magic weapon attack.

Except that Hit Points don't exist in the narrative. Let's try these:

"Your swing at the twenty foot giant hits with a nice meaty thunk. It's as nasty a wound as you've delivered but it doesn't seem to inconvenience him."

"Your swing at the animated statue sparks off. Even though it felt like a solid connection, it barely chipped it and didn't inconvenience it."

"Your swing at the gnoll chieftain carves between it's ribs. It was a solid hit, and it stumbles with the pain. It's insane laughter now bubbles with blood, but with a delighted shiver of pain it manages to straighten up and close."

So, which of these was the 15 HP hit vs. 160 HP foe and which was the 15 HP hit vs. the 80 HP foe with resistance. Pretty easy to tell, even though it's the same percentage damage. Your PCs know what they can expect their weapons and spells to do - if it's less (or more), they can tell.

Just like the PCs (and players) should not know how many current or total hit points of damage a given monster has (with the possible exceptions of half damage as per the PHB, or nearly total damage), they also shouldn't know whether a monster has resistance or not (shy of a knowledge check).

This seems the same as saying "As the PCs should not know what color the house is, they also shouldn't know if it has a chimney (shy of a knowledge check)".

Damage and wounds have in-game narrative effects. They are absolutely visible to the PCs. Actual numbers - no. Those don't exist in the narrative. But if a ball of fire washes over a monster and it's not singed and blackened like expected, then it's on the DM to relay that information to the players just as much as if it has a vulnerability and it takes more damage then expected from it. If you'd like that as a rule, 5e PHB pg 4: "3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions".

If I Fireball a 200 hit point monster for 25 points, how exactly do I know that he took 25 (no resistance, no save) or 12 (resistance or save) or 6 (resistance and save) points of damage compared to a monster with 50 hit points, 100 hit points, or 500 hit points? The monster took some damage. The player might know that the monster saved or not (depending on table), but the PC should be mostly in the dark. The description "he doesn't appear to be as hurt as you'd expect him to be" is just as applicable an expression to the 25 point Fireball against a 500 hit point monster as it is for resistance.

That's because "he doesn't appear to be as hurt as you'd expect him to be" is only half the descriptor. The other part is about the blow you landed. You wouldn't tell a player "you attack didn't seem to hurt it" but hide that they missed the AC, you'd tell them "you missed".

Really, this issue sounds like the DM isn't doing their job of narrating what is happening in sufficient detail that the adventurers would notice. Every case you've brought up has things that the PCs would be in position to observe but instead the feedback on the monster's health instead of on the PC's actions. If the DM focuses on describing the results of the actions instead then the player gets the information their character would have.

 

[Caliban]

On the flip side, I don't generally give out exactly how damaged critters are. If someone wants to spend an action to use Medicine to size up a critter, they'll get a percentage. Otherwise, I borrow a page from 4E and tell the players, "He's bloodied," when the critter reached half hit points.

Technically, this still exists in 5e - they just don't use the term "bloodied" in the PHB. It's in the "Describing the Effects of Damage" sidebar on page 197 of the PHB.

Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

 

[Miladoon]

My players might know what resistance is but the characters don't understand the combat mechanical term and usage. It becomes as abstract as hit points.

Most of my encounters have DMG crafted monstrosities. They all have resistance.

 

[KarinsDad]

Except that Hit Points don't exist in the narrative. Let's try these:

"Your swing at the twenty foot giant hits with a nice meaty thunk. It's as nasty a wound as you've delivered but it doesn't seem to inconvenience him."

"Your swing at the animated statue sparks off. Even though it felt like a solid connection, it barely chipped it and didn't inconvenience it."

"Your swing at the gnoll chieftain carves between it's ribs. It was a solid hit, and it stumbles with the pain. It's insane laughter now bubbles with blood, but with a delighted shiver of pain it manages to straighten up and close."

So, which of these was the 15 HP hit vs. 160 HP foe and which was the 15 HP hit vs. the 80 HP foe with resistance. Pretty easy to tell, even though it's the same percentage damage. Your PCs know what they can expect their weapons and spells to do - if it's less (or more), they can tell.

Hit points are an abstraction. Or, at least that is what many people here on the forums have been saying for over a decade. Some have called it luck, skill, grit, willpower, actual wounds, a bit of all of these.

But when damage resistance comes into play, every narrative example talks solely about wounds. Nobody talks about how lucky the animated statue was to only be chipped by the sword.

I wonder why that is.

 

[Caliban]

Hit points are an abstraction. Or, at least that is what many people here on the forums have been saying for over a decade. Some have called it luck, skill, grit, willpower, actual wounds, a bit of all of these.

But when damage resistance comes into play, every narrative example talks solely about wounds. Nobody talks about how lucky the animated statue was to only be chipped by the sword.

I wonder why that is.

Because this is a game and since hit points are an abstraction, it's up to the DM to determine how to describe it. It specifically states this in the "Describing Damage Sidebare" - "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways."

*Shrug* I'm not sure what point you think you are making here.

 

[Seramus]

*Shrug* I'm not sure what point you think you are making here.

I might be putting words in his mouth, but I think the point he's trying to make is... "There's no way to tell the difference."

Since Hit Points are an abstraction, and the sidebar suggests you barely even show damage until you're below half health, then what's the visual difference? Guy A narrowly dodges the fireball. He took 25 points of damage, but his Hit Points are represented by exhaustion and good luck. Guy B takes the fireball on the chest. He took 25 points of damage, but he looks barely singed. His Hit Points are represented by sheer superhuman durability. Guy C throws up a magical barrier that seems to snuff out most of the fire, though his fingers begin to tremble. He took 25 points of damage, but his Hit Points are represented by magical shielding. Etc, etc, etc.

 

[Caliban]

I might be putting words in his mouth, but I think the point he's trying to make is... "There's no way to tell the difference."

If that's the case, I'd say it's the DM's job to give the players a way to tell the difference. Even if it's only saying "that didn't seem do as much damage as it should have". The players know how much damage they rolled for their attack, after all.

 

[KarinsDad]

If that's the case, I'd say it's the DM's job to give the players a way to tell the difference. Even it it's only saying "that didn't seem do as much damage as it should have". The players know how much damage they rolled for their attack, after all.

No, it's not necessarily the DM's job to do that. That's a play style assumption on your part.


Seramus basically got it correct.

Just like the PCs do not know about hit points and the players do not know how many hit points the monster has, the PCs do not know truly know about damage resistance (since it is a game mechanic, the game mechanic could just as easily be that the monster regenerates hit points on its next turn), nor should the players know the difference between a monster with high hit points vs. a monster with low hit points and damage resistance.

In other words, it's ok for the DM to not describe damage resistance at all. It's ok if he does, but your contention that it's "not particularly fun or useful" if he does not is not necessarily true.

Describing resistance narratively, or not describing it at all are both ok.


If one describes it, one is giving a hint to players as to what different actions might work. And that's fine.

If one does not describe it, the players make those decisions without DM influence. And that's fine too.

Alternatively, a DM could give a Perception roll, a Knowledge check, etc. There are a lot of ways the DM could handle this situation and give out this information (or not) without flat out narratively spoon feeding it to the players.


Hit points and even damage resistance are merely rules in the game. There are a lot of ways to describe resistance, or even to allow the players to never discover it. It does not have to be the DM giving a hint or flat out saying it.

 

[Caliban]

No, it's not necessarily the DM's job to do that. That's a play style assumption on your part.

Not just my part. Almost everyone else who has commented seems to make the same assumption. I don't think it makes the game any more enjoyable to withhold that information from the players once they have actually hit it with an attack or spell that is resisted.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Staffan]

I think the question could easily be widened to "How opaque/transparent are game mechanics to PCs?"

On one hand, you could easily argue that the PCs know nothing of levels, armor class, hit points, saving throws, and ability scores.

But on the other hand, they do live in the world, and should be familiar with the real-world implications of those things. They might not know that a bulette has a Con save of +5 and Dex and Wis saves of +0, but they should be able to see that it's tough as hell so maybe magic that's resisted by physical toughness isn't a good idea. They might not know it has AC 17, but they should be able to see that it's covered in tough plates and well armored.