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

[schnee]

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?

Well, with the Dex save bonus, it'll be bloody obvious because they dodged out of the way incredibly quickly.

With resistance, an experienced player will see the creature get engulfed in the flames and not look as damaged as it otherwise should.

You seem to be using your argument to say that the DM has no need to narrate what happens in a visceral, observable, and perceivable way. That's your prerogative, but from where I'm sitting, all I see is a DM that reduces the color and vibrancy of the world, and the thrill of a character figuring things out through hard-won experience, in a way that reduces their effectiveness.

Basically, if a being is resistant to fire, and you never give them a hint because *reasons*, the fights will go on longer than they should and they'll suffer more damage, burn more resources (pun intended), etc. and that IS a functional, negative, material penalty because of it.

No creature is resistant to everything. By withholding any hints or information you're hurting players that could switch tactics and win much more quickly.

 

[Geeknamese]

QUOTE=KarinsDad;7183053]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).[/QUOTE]

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.

For someone wielding the snide comments and equipping the condescending tone, you really don't have your ish straight. If the expectation of your simulationist game is that your players shouldn't know the amount of hit points a given monster has, how or why, pray tell, would they suspect anything from 3 solid hits not bloodying a foe?

Do you normally custom tailor your encounters so that monsters are bloodied within 3 solid blows?

If you present them with a creature that doesn't have resistance but just has high hit points and can survive more than 3 solid hits, do they just randomly start changing tactics and damage types assuming resistance? Seems silly and sorta noobish for experienced veteran adventurers.

Does not seem fun at all. Telling immersive stories. Narrating awesome fights. Trying to over analyze the game or treat it like a simulation, man, that's just too much emphasis on the minutiae and loses sight of the bigger picture which is stories, awesomeness,m and fun.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Mercule]

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.

Interesting. Now, the question is: Did I read that and just decide to apply the term "bloodied" or did I actually ignore/forget it because I already knew what I was planning to do? (Or, did I just skim that section?)

 

[dave2008]

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

We typically describe it as "turtling" - quickly covering up/shielding your easily burned bits.

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

Probably

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.

That is fine for some effects, but not as good for a DEX save of a fireball. Divine favor might work, but it gets old really quickly if that is your go to explanation. I don't think we should be constrained by the mechanics to tell our story, but when they are there, they sure can help to tell the story. With the fireball: You could say divine favor shields you partially from the blast, but since it is a DEX save, it seems to me the game is suggesting that something physically is happening. This gives the DM/the player the opportunity to describe the character as doing something to protect them selves. I generally find that players prefer their characters do something awesome than have them saved simply by luck/divine favor, etc.

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.

The highlighted bit seems to suggest you think that this is how the game is intended or "should" be played, and that it is wrong to play it differently. I think you would agree (based on your previous posts in this thread) that this is not the case. This is how you see the game, but it is perfectly fine to play it differently - correct?

 

[CydKnight]

Yes I do. Like others I typically state something like your attack on the creature did not seem to have the effect you would expect.

 

[Miladoon]

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.

 

[KarinsDad]

If the expectation of your simulationist game is that your players shouldn't know the amount of hit points a given monster has, how or why, pray tell, would they suspect anything from 3 solid hits not bloodying a foe?

Do you normally custom tailor your encounters so that monsters are bloodied within 3 solid blows?

If you present them with a creature that doesn't have resistance but just has high hit points and can survive more than 3 solid hits, do they just randomly start changing tactics and damage types assuming resistance? Seems silly and sorta noobish for experienced veteran adventurers.

My players do not necessarily think that. It was an example.

Experienced veteran adventurers, or experienced veteran players?

In our game on Saturday, the enemy leader was about 80 feet away from my PC (the closest) in a semi-dismal cavern. He cast a spell and got away. In our game, any distance over 30 feet requires a perception check to see if you can observe well enough any spell casting. If you do, you get an Arcana check to see if you know exactly what spell is cast. If you don't, you can often see that a foe is casting, but cannot make out the exact words/gestures. My PC missed the perception check by a lot, so the DM vaguely described the situation as the foe cast a spell and then walked into the wall.

Based on the spells that the foe had cast earlier, I as a player knew that the foe had cast a Meld Into Stone spell. But my PC did not know that. So on my turn, my PC rushed over there saying "He went through a secret door".


The point of the story is that players play based on the information that a DM gives them. If a DM just hands out 100% accurate resistance mechanics info every single time as opposed to possible having a knowledge check or a perception check, or possibly even a totally different set of information that leads players to a totally erroneous conclusion, then the players will play the game with the same accurate correct tactics as opposed to sometimes doing something else.

If you always know that the foe is resistant to normal weapons every single time that you first hit a foe with that feature, where is the mystery?

Does not seem fun at all. Telling immersive stories. Narrating awesome fights. Trying to over analyze the game or treat it like a simulation, man, that's just too much emphasis on the minutiae and loses sight of the bigger picture which is stories, awesomeness,m and fun.

You seem to be under the impression that it is one or the other.

 

[KarinsDad]

We typically describe it as "turtling" - quickly covering up/shielding your easily burned bits.

Wouldn't even fire resistant creatures turtle?

The highlighted bit seems to suggest you think that this is how the game is intended or "should" be played, and that it is wrong to play it differently. I think you would agree (based on your previous posts in this thread) that this is not the case. This is how you see the game, but it is perfectly fine to play it differently - correct?

Of course. There is no one way to enjoy the game. But, I do not think that PCs should know anything about the mechanics, just about cause and effect in the game world.

It just seems extremely repetitive to explain the fireball as "jumped out of the way" or "turtled successfully" every single time. It seems like there is no mystery in the game if the players always know that it is 100% obvious from the first hit that a foe is resistant to physical damage.

It's a fricking Giant Crab. How often has your PCs fought against a Giant Crab? Why does the Fighter running up and hitting once give the Fighter any more information than it has a hard exoskeleton? The Fighter shouldn't know the difference between a hard exoskeleton that mechanically gives a high AC and one that gives resistance. Maybe after 5 or so rounds of fighting it, a pattern emerges. But I am suggesting that just flat out autotelling the players (either narratively or directly) doesn't allow for mystery. It flat out tells the players what tactics do or do not work best.


Just because you have or have not played the game this same way for 30 years doesn't mean that their aren't new ways to play that might not be as explicitly obvious to the players as to what is going on.

 

[Dan Chernozub]

I do describe results of attack, players learn the effects of the weapons/spells that they are familiar with and can compare the usual results for the dice roll that they see and given description. Sometimes they make mistakes in reading this, but ... why wouldn't the characters do that too?

 

[Satyrn]

The former is totally cool in my book. The latter is pushing things into dangerous territory.

I play with a beer and pretzels sort of group. The only dangerous territory is the bathroom.