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

[KarinsDad]

Not just my part. Almost everyone else who has commented seems to make the same assumption.

argumentum ad populum

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.

Players at my table might start wondering without that information when 3 solid hits have not even bloodied a foe. Just as enjoyable, at least based on the amount of laughter at my table.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I guess.

 

[Caliban]

argumentum ad populum

If it makes you feel better.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

True.

On the other hand, a foe might not take much damage from a Fireball due to having a high Dex save bonus, or due to having Fire Resistance. Should the PCs necessarily know why the foe doesn't take much damage? Should player knowledge drill down to those mechanics level of details?

Does the NPC have a huge knowledge in Arcana, or does the NPC have a high Int? Does the DM give a hint after a few sentence conversation, or after multiple interactions with the NPC?

Same types of mechanics vs. PC knowledge questions.

 

[Staffan]

True.

On the other hand, a foe might not take much damage from a Fireball due to having a high Dex save bonus, or due to having Fire Resistance. Should the PCs necessarily know why the foe doesn't take much damage? Should player knowledge drill down to those mechanics level of details?

Succeeding on a Dexterity save should be obvious: they dodged out of the way. So yes, you should be able to tell the difference between the two.

 

[KarinsDad]

If it makes you feel better.

I thought you using argumentum ad populum was done to make you feel better.

I'm ambivalent to those types of arguments.

 

[KarinsDad]

Succeeding on a Dexterity save should be obvious: they dodged out of the way. So yes, you should be able to tell the difference between the two.

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.

 

[Caliban]

I thought you using argumentum ad populum was done to make you feel better.

You know, I don't appreciate the condescension. We obviously have different playstyles, just leave it at that.


(Edited because I have an unfortunate tendency towards hyperbole when I'm irritated. And I'm rarely that polite or respectful at the best of times.)

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

All these arguments only really make a difference either the first couple of times the characters have fought a particular enemy/monster or if no one in the party has any lore knowledge of the monster to call on in an initial encounter. The party is fighting orcs for the 20th time? They know what it takes to take them down. Fighting something for the first time? Have fun with the vague wound descriptions. Unless your group does not like that kind of narrative and roleplay.

Plus there is the problem of player knowledge versus character knowledge. It is the old Troll argument. Anyone who has played a decent amount of any version of D&D knows they regenerate and fire hurts them. So why spend time with the vague descriptions, unless you are a creative DM who has enough spare time to modify the standard creatures in order to surprise your veteran players.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

That's because the whole "Hit Points are an abstraction" argument is so inconsistent as to be unusable. If you care about mechanics being consistent, then Hit Point damage measures how beaten up somebody is, end of story.

If you really want to try and have it both ways, you could argue that Hit Point damage measures how beaten up an animal or monster is, but mostly measures the avoidance capability of skilled adventurers. There's some evidence for that in the text.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Yes, I let them know what they would know in character. "The sword doesn't seem to cut as deep as it should" would be a clearly observable thing to a trained warrior. Heck, it'd be observable to most people who use cutlery.

I'm not a big fan of giving players out of character knowledge, but damage resistance is almost always something you'll notice in character, because you can see its effects.