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

[cmad1977]

I leave the players with zero ambiguity when it comes to what the character knows/sees vs. what the player knows.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The designers just happened to pick Dex because historically it was used in this game system. Resisting against fire in a different game system could use Constitution to tough it out. Some mechanic has to be used. Would you change narrative because you are using a different game system that uses different mechanics? Or is a Fireball in an FRPG a Fireball in an FRPG?

Given that mechanics are fundamentally and inextricably tied to narrative, and that is their entire purpose for existing, I would obviously use different mechanics to reflect a different narrative (and vice versa). Withstanding a magic fireball through natural heat tolerance is different from withstanding a fireball by dodging behind something or dissipating the magical energy through runes woven into your cloak, and the mechanics should reflect that difference if they are to have any meaning whatsoever.

Is the Bear Totem Barbarian toughing it out, or do you put him in the same narrow box of "he dodges the flames", just because it is a Dex save?

If the barbarian just stood there and toughed it out, then he failed to dodge the flames, but his supernatural resilience meant that his injuries were less severe than they otherwise would have been. If he succeeds on his saving throw, then he dodges the flames in the same manner as the ranger did, and his supernatural resilience means that the reduced effect produces wounds of even less severity. If he doesn't even try to dodge the fireball, then he doesn't get to roll the Dex save, because he intentionally chose to forgo it (which is a ridiculous corner-case scenario that the rules don't even address, because it's unlikely that anyone would ever be so foolish).

 

[schnee]

(Party encounters a mid-level Rogue.)

"My Fighter fires an arrow at him."

(Rogue uses Uncanny Dodge for half damage.)
"He holds up his holy symbol and the arrow misses!"

"Huh, I guess he's a Cleric! My Sorcerer fireballs the Rogue looking Cleric then."

(Rogue uses Evasion)
"Ok, he stands still, holds up a holy symbol, prays, and the fire bypasses him."

"Crap! Not a Rogue! OK, my Cleric casts Bestow Curse at his Wisdom."

(Rogue fails his save.)
"OK, the spell goes off. As usual, you have no idea if it works or not."

"Well, uh, I guess we can hope his Wisdom is shot and our spells work now. Sorcerer Fireballs again!"

(Rogue uses Dex Evasion again with no penalty.)
"He prays again, and nothing happens...again."

(Party is frustrated.)
"Crap!"

--

Yeah, this is the absolute best way to game.

 

[The_Gneech]

Yes. I usually say something like "he doesn't appear to be as hurt as you'd expect him to be", which is basically code for "he resisted that attack." I see little reason in hiding that sort of thing from the players.

^This. How many times have have you heard heroes say "That armor's too thick, we're just not getting through!"

-The Gneech

 

[Harzel]

Nah. One violates nothing of the sort. You are getting too caught up in the mechanics, the very thing that I am cautioning against.

The designers just happened to pick Dex because historically it was used in this game system. Resisting against fire in a different game system could use Constitution to tough it out. Some mechanic has to be used. Would you change narrative because you are using a different game system that uses different mechanics? Or is a Fireball in an FRPG a Fireball in an FRPG?

I think that you are really stuck on the concept of "which mechanic is used determines the subset of which narratives to use", so I doubt that we will ever have common ground on this.

So if a PC is trying to move a heavy rock or open a sticky door, how often do you call for a CHA check? I mean always calling for a STR check would be getting too caught up in the mechanics, right?

If in your world DEX represents the ability to contact a god, then I guess that's fine, but otherwise if you want prayer to be a way to avoid a fireball, then the target needs to be making a WIS save as an alternative to the DEX save.

 

[Harzel]

You are making an assumption. That the characters should observe a given effect every single time and that is the DM's responsibility to always tell them about it.

Are you claiming that the DM should always tell the players about resistance, regardless of perception, knowledge, etc.?

That every form of resistance for every monster that has it is immediately noticeable?

That every time a PC hits a foe, that the damage and the degree of damage is also noticeable?


In all types of genres, a character could get thrown across a room and slammed into a wall. Is there always blood coming out of his mouth or some other indication that he "got damaged"? What if it does 2 hit points out of his 300 hit points?

The point I am making is that there is nothing wrong with describing resistance and letting the players know. There is also nothing wrong with requiring a perception roll to notice the difference, or a knowledge check to know that it is a possibility, or even to not in a given encounter let the players know at all, or to give a clue that the creature is actually vulnerable when it is resistant once in a while ("You Fireball the foe, he screams in agony and tries to back away from the flames" an old tactic by this monster). I am not advocating to never give information out about resistance, but I am advocating that it should not always be obvious or even accurate. I am advocating for some mystery in the game, not just the same old ho hum boring hints that tell the players exactly what actions their PCs should or shouldn't do. The mechanics should dictate the results, not necessarily the narrative and especially not necessarily the information that the players get.

This seems like a reasonable stance; the question is where is the appropriate balance point between information availability and mystery. When I restarted playing a year ago, I was firmly attached to keeping as mystery everything that the PCs would not surely know. But now I am pretty much wanting my players to know everything that the PCs might know. The main reason is this: informed decision making is interesting, whereas having to make uninformed decisions is just frustrated flailing around. And for me, the value of that far outweighs the possible increased 'realism' of maintaining mysteries. And the huge amount of stuff that the PCs simply haven't encountered yet means there is still plenty of mystery left in the world. And if nothing else, the dice will ensure that most courses of action will not have a certain outcome.

Throw a curve ball into your game. Break out of your comfort zone of DMing.

For me, giving my players more information is moving out of my comfort zone. Might you be in the same boat?

 

[KarinsDad]

So if a PC is trying to move a heavy rock or open a sticky door, how often do you call for a CHA check? I mean always calling for a STR check would be getting too caught up in the mechanics, right?

PHB page 175, variant rule: Skills with Different Abilities

A Wizard wants to move a rock, I might give him an INT check and he figures out how to use a lever. He wants to open a sticky door, he could use INT to figure out to tie a rock to a rope and swing it like a wrecking ball. The Cleric could use WIS to figure out the same thing because it's pretty much common sense to use a machine when you don't have the strength to do something manually.

Not every check has to be an intuitively obvious choice of ability to use.


This has on occasion been pushed by some of my players with high DEX and low STR score PCs that want to use some type of parkour to climb.


Not every game result has to be narratively explained based on what mechanics are in play, and not every task has to use the same game mechanics.

 

[KarinsDad]

For me, giving my players more information is moving out of my comfort zone. Might you be in the same boat?

Perhaps. Course, I have been a player for the last few months instead of a DM, so I don't have to think about it at the moment.

 

[irish44]

As a DM, do you hint that an attack doesn't do full damage against a creature with damage resistance?

I have been, but they discussed it on the Cannon Fodder podcast (Glass Cannon podcast after show), and now I'm second guessing.

Greetings friends!

Short answer is yes!

Longer answer is I try give them the information via a narrative and not come right out and say it but yeah I do let them know.

YMMV.

Cheers!

 

[Harzel]

PHB page 175, variant rule: Skills with Different Abilities

A Wizard wants to move a rock, I might give him an INT check and he figures out how to use a lever. He wants to open a sticky door, he could use INT to figure out to tie a rock to a rope and swing it like a wrecking ball. The Cleric could use WIS to figure out the same thing because it's pretty much common sense to use a machine when you don't have the strength to do something manually.

It is something of an aside, but what is the conversation here? Does it start like this?

Player(Wizard): I try to move the rock.
DM: Make an INT check.

If so, for me that is problematic in a different way.

Not every check has to be an intuitively obvious choice of ability to use.

Um, yes and no? The player should describe a goal and an approach. If the DM thinks that the success of the approach is uncertain, then the DM calls for a check based on the ability (and possibly skill) she judges most important in determining success of the given approach. I would say that the ability(skill) is usually obvious from the approach, but there are certainly exceptions.

This has on occasion been pushed by some of my players with high DEX and low STR score PCs that want to use some type of parkour to climb.

That seems just fine (as long as parkour is appropriate to the circumstance, which it often isn't even though people desperately want it to be).

Not every game result has to be narratively explained based on what mechanics are in play, and not every task has to use the same game mechanics.

I agree with the second part, provided that by "task" you mean "objective" or "goal". There can be different approaches to achieving the same goal. However, a particular approach will generally have a particular mechanic associated with it. And in your examples you do seem to be following a methodology that associates narrative and mechanic "appropriately".

But then in the first part of that summary statement, you turn around and say you are ok with dissociating the narrative from the mechanic.

I think perhaps dragging in skill checks as examples was a poor choice on my part because they generally start with a narrative element - the player's action declaration, whereas a saving throw starts with a mechanical element.

IIUC, your basic point is that one can imagine more ways to mitigate damage from a fireball than just jumping out of the way (or the other things that are generally seen as DEX related). I agree with that, but I just don't see much value in having those as possible narrative elements without appropriate mechanics. And I see narrative that is dissociated from mechanics as a big drawback. I mean, narrative is constrained by mechanics all over the place. In fact, it seems like one of the 'pillars' of DMing is weaving a narrative that is consistent with the mechanics (even though not totally determined by them).

But now (because I love arguing with myself), let me guess that your point would be that your narration is consistent with the mechanics because the only thing that gets recorded in the mechanical game state is that the target took 1/2 damage (or whatever); the fact that it was a DEX save actually has no mechanical consequences.* Thinking about this, the only similar situation that comes to mind immediately is damage type - damage type might affect the amount of damage taken, but once that is determined, the type of damage usually makes no difference in the mechanical game state. Despite this, I would never narrate acid damage as something that looked like bludgeoning damage. Would you?

OTOH, maybe you have a different reason for thinking that a somewhat dissociated narrative is ok, so I'll stop putting words in your mouth. And I apologize for the fact that 'dissociated' has a pejorative connotation - I'm not trying to be snarky.

* This is beginning to remind me of those diagrams, the name for which I cannot remember, about how things bounce back and forth between fiction and game state. And how abstruse the discussions around them became such that they ended up being useless even though at the beginning it seemed like a useful idea. But I digress.