dave2008
Legend
Wouldn't even fire resistant creatures turtle?
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.
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.
I agree, but the game mechanics provided a suggestion about how to express 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.
Agreed, I personally am not advocating doing anything the same way every time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited: