Describing damage resistance

[Nevvur]

I consider it fair play and good DMing to describe damage resistance after a PC hits a creature resistant to the attack's damage type. Lately I've been feeling like my descriptions are kinda lame, mostly after hearing similar statements from the mouth of a talented DM (Matt Mercer on Critical Role). "You punch the creature, but you don't feel like the punch goes all the way through," or, "The attack doesn't do as much damage as you expected." It feels vague and flat, but I have trouble imagining more descriptive reactions to resisted damage types.

Two complicating factors... First, it doesn't make sense to use the same description for different creatures. For instance, a Will-o-Wisp resists weapon damage differently than a Grick. Second, PCs don't necessarily have a reference point to realize their attacks are less effective for creatures they've never fought before.

Regardless, the pragmatist in me thinks I might as well just say, "You sense it has resistance to that type of damage," rather than clumsily skirt around the information I'm trying to communicate, and let the players interpret the info with whatever narrative suits their imagination. It'd certainly save me some mental overhead.

How about you? Assuming you telegraph damage resistance, what are some of the more immersive and sensible descriptions you've used for various damage types? If you don't communicate resistance, circumstantially or generally, why?

 

[oreofox]

Depends on what's causing the damage. A weapon? I say something like "You hit the creature with your greataxe, but it feels like the creature shrugged some of it off/absorbed a lot of the blow", or something like that. Slashing and bludgeoning are similar, but with piercing, I'll go with "It doesn't look like your dagger went as deep as the amount of force behind it". With magic damage (fire, cold, force, psychic), it's a bit easier. Fire you can say they look singed.

It's actually kinda tough figuring it out, without going too "immersion breaking" by just saying "the monster seems to only take half of the damage" or it resisted your attack despite saying the PC hit.

 

[Satyrn]

How about you? Assuming you telegraph damage resistance, what are some of the more immersive and sensible descriptions you've used for various damage types? If you don't communicate resistance, circumstantially or generally, why?

I've actually found the most sensible description for me is "The damage is halved by the monster's resistance." I don't even skirt around it, I tell them outright.

As you say, the players can picture it for themselves, plus they don't have to wait for me to come up with some clever description, or fumble over a terrible one.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I read it was better to take Guidance than Resistance

Wait.. what? Oh, wrong thread...

I’ve been known to go to the well of “that hit didn’t do as much damage as you thought it should.” It works fine, but I’m looking forward to hearing some other creative ways to do this so I can mix it up a little. Thanks for asking the question!

 

[Shiroiken]

One of my interesting examples revealed the resistance to the other players. The creature had fire resistance, but the sorceress ignored fire resistance. When she hit it with fire, it seemed surprised by how much it hurt!

 

[iserith]

I generally try to telegraph it before the monster is hit, then after it's hit in a way that lets them know it wasn't affected as much by the damage type in question, then I spit out the damage resistances or immunities into Roll20 chat.

I don't think one needs to get too fancy here.

 

[5ekyu]

I consider it fair play and good DMing to describe damage resistance after a PC hits a creature resistant to the attack's damage type. Lately I've been feeling like my descriptions are kinda lame, mostly after hearing similar statements from the mouth of a talented DM (Matt Mercer on Critical Role). "You punch the creature, but you don't feel like the punch goes all the way through," or, "The attack doesn't do as much damage as you expected." It feels vague and flat, but I have trouble imagining more descriptive reactions to resisted damage types.

Two complicating factors... First, it doesn't make sense to use the same description for different creatures. For instance, a Will-o-Wisp resists weapon damage differently than a Grick. Second, PCs don't necessarily have a reference point to realize their attacks are less effective for creatures they've never fought before.

Regardless, the pragmatist in me thinks I might as well just say, "You sense it has resistance to that type of damage," rather than clumsily skirt around the information I'm trying to communicate, and let the players interpret the info with whatever narrative suits their imagination. It'd certainly save me some mental overhead.

How about you? Assuming you telegraph damage resistance, what are some of the more immersive and sensible descriptions you've used for various damage types? If you don't communicate resistance, circumstantially or generally, why?

As a go to - when in doubt i fall back on the reaction/response of the creature in terms of how a given hit affects it.

If it is resistant - it " barely notices" "pays it no mind" or one of a large number of ways to express "does not care"....

If it is vulnerable - "recoils at the strike" or "shows alarm".

But that said, there are some occasions where that is not akways clear and more "physical" manifestations are needed.

Especially since sometimes the "response" is useful for telling a story point - former masters used necrotic lashes to punish, so the creature has special reaction to necrotic dmg.

 

[Nevvur]

Good thinking, 5ekyu. Moving the narrative from the attack/damage to the target's response to it feels more natural, and is an approach I'll be sure to remember next time it comes up.

 

[iserith]

I think it's a good policy in general to narrate the result of the adventurer's action from the perspective of what impact is has on the environment (including NPCs and monsters) rather than from the perspective of the PC. This helps the DM avoid establishing what the characters think, do, or say. In this case, describing the impact of the attack on the monster given its resistances, immunities, or vulnerabilities is in line with that approach.

But I also think it's important to try to telegraph these resistances and immunities before the PCs engage with the monster if you can. A good way of doing that in my experience is to look at the stat block, then include something in the environment with which the monster interacts that tips off the players. A troll might go out of its way to avoid the burning brazier on its way to engage with the characters, for example, or perhaps the PCs come across some graffiti in the dungeon that shows a crude drawing of a rotting heap of vegetation growing stronger after a stick figure wizard hits it with a lightning bolt. It's not always so easy to come up with this stuff, especially on the fly, but it does help flesh out the environment and sets things up where the players have a chance to make decisions to avoid wasting valuable resources.

 

[Nevvur]

I think it's a good policy in general to narrate the result of the adventurer's action from the perspective of what impact is has on the environment (including NPCs and monsters) rather than from the perspective of the PC. This helps the DM avoid establishing what the characters think, do, or say. In this case, describing the impact of the attack on the monster given its resistances, immunities, or vulnerabilities is in line with that approach.

Right, this is what I think 5ekyu was getting at. I consider myself a competent GM, but there's always an "Aha!" moment lurking around the corner. I'm pretty good about keeping the narrative outside the PCs' heads, but describing resisted damage somehow escaped that policy, and I didn't even realize that was a core part of my 'problem.'

But I also think it's important to try to telegraph these resistances and immunities before the PCs engage with the monster if you can. A good way of doing that in my experience is to look at the stat block, then include something in the environment with which the monster interacts that tips off the players. A troll might go out of its way to avoid the burning brazier on its way to engage with the characters, for example, or perhaps the PCs come across some graffiti in the dungeon that shows a crude drawing of a rotting heap of vegetation growing stronger after a stick figure wizard hits it with a lightning bolt. It's not always so easy to come up with this stuff, especially on the fly, but it does help flesh out the environment and sets things up where the players have a chance to make decisions to avoid wasting valuable resources.

As you wrote, it can be difficult to remember little details like that, but I agree they add a lot to the story when they appear.