How do you tell a player the monster he is attacking has resistance

[ShirAhn]

Hi guys,

So I guess the title says it all however let me sketch the situation. One of my players uses his bow to attack a monster with piercing resistance. So he does half damage, I don't just go out and tell him the monster has resistance to his attack. Right now I use something "you feel like your damage didn't do as much as you expected". I was wondering how you guys handle this. I want to try to keep the immersion level as high as possible.

[hymer]

I'd tailor it to the specific monster. Say it was piercing resistant because it's basically a skeleton, I'd describe the effect: "You hit squarely in the chest area, and had it been a zombie, you would have torn a large chunk of meat out of the creature. Instead, the arrow splinters a single rib, and the skeleton keeps going."

[the secret fire]

Have the PC roll an investigate check. I'd suggest a DC of 13. If they pass the check, they notice that their blade is turning on the creature's hide, or whatever, and that they had better think of an alternate form of attack. If they miss the check, they notice nothing.

Same could go for an arcana check to notice that a creature has resistance to a certain magical damage type.

[ShirAhn]

Both are great pieces of advice! I think I will use both thank you.

One other questions, does "find traps" work on magical traps(wards)?

[the secret fire]

One other questions, does "find traps" work on magical traps(wards)?

I'm fairly certain that the answer is no - you need arcana for that.

[hymer]

Both are great pieces of advice! I think I will use both thank you.

One other questions, does "find traps" work on magical traps(wards)?

I agree. The Find Traps spell doesn't do much of anything, really.

[JellyPooga]

One other questions, does "find traps" work on magical traps(wards)?

If you mean the spell Find Traps, it explicitly calls out Alarm and Glyph of Warding as valid "traps" the spell finds.

If you're talking about using the Perception or Investigation skill to find traps, take a look at DMG pg.121 for details.

Perception is your "go to" skill for any trap that leaves any kind of physical evidence; scorch marks from a Burning Hands trap, for example, or that has a physical trigger, sich as the Fire-Breathing Statue on pg.122.

Arcana can be used to detect or disarm any magical trap in addition to the usual Perception (or whatever other skills the trap menntions), by default, but it's also worth bearing in mind that the DMG explicitly calls out "clever play and good planning" as trumping any dice rolls.

So, to find a magical trap, the most surefire way is to play smart. Next on the list is the Find Traps spell; all you need to do is cast it in range. Either a Perception or an Arcana check has about an equal chance of finding a given magical trap, but it depends on the trap in question; for Perception, there needs to be something that your regular senses can find (unless the character has supernatural senses active, in which case he might be able to use Perception to see an invisible rune, for example). Arcana to detect/disarm is a little more tricky and up to the GM to decide if it's possible; by default the answer should be yes, but as always it's circumstantial. E.g. Knowing that those runes on the door are a magical trap is great, but if the runes are on the other side of the door, there's no way Arcana will reveal that trap from where you're standing; you don't even know they're there.

[hymer]

@ JellyPooga: You're right, of course, but I disagree with this bit:


Next on the list is the Find Traps spell; all you need to do is cast it in range.

If you're already sure enough that there is a trap somewhere that you'll expend a spell slot on it, then Find Traps may confirm your suspicion. But it won't tell you where the trap is or how to deal with it. And it only vaguely gives a sense of the kind of danger the trap poses (alarm or damage or constraint, I suppose).
The spell is almost laughably niche.

[JellyPooga]

If you're already sure enough that there is a trap somewhere that you'll expend a spell slot on it, then Find Traps may confirm your suspicion. But it won't tell you where the trap is or how to deal with it. And it only vaguely gives a sense of the kind of danger the trap poses (alarm or damage or constraint, I suppose).
The spell is almost laughably niche.

I agree that for a 2nd level spell that you can't even use as a ritual, Find Traps isn't worth the parchment it's inscribed on, let alone the rare inks. If it worked like Detect Thoughts where on the first round it revealed the presence of traps and on subsequent rounds revealed more info, or even just slapping an hour-long duration on it would make it useful. As it is, though, I'd take it as a Cantrip I guess?

Having said that, if you're searching a room or corridor for traps, Find Traps is at least useful for verifying whether it's worth taking the time to do so. In a time-critical mission, I could see myself grabbing a wand or a bunch of scrolls, so I could blast through areas without having to worry about some trap ruining my day.

[Sir cryosin]

Describe to him that his arrows are not sinking into the monster but he's getting a lot of glancing blows that or the arrows seem to shatter on impact just other small little details describe how the arrows are reacting to the monster.

[Zanthy1]

I give little to no inclination that their damage didn't go through in full. I do have a DC I set at about 15 for them to notice anything specifically odd about the attack, the creature, or whatever, but I do not prompt this. If the players want to do it I am ready, but otherwise they get nothing.

Side note however, I play with a bunch of book reading nerds who know all the stats pretty much, so oftentimes they'll see my monster and already know all its resistances beforehand. But just in case they miss something, I do not correct them. I enjoy watching them struggle for a bit.

[ShirAhn]

I give little to no inclination that their damage didn't go through in full. I do have a DC I set at about 15 for them to notice anything specifically odd about the attack, the creature, or whatever, but I do not prompt this. If the players want to do it I am ready, but otherwise they get nothing.

Side note however, I play with a bunch of book reading nerds who know all the stats pretty much, so oftentimes they'll see my monster and already know all its resistances beforehand. But just in case they miss something, I do not correct them. I enjoy watching them struggle for a bit.

Right, my party is all new to the game, none have allot of experience and I am the only one who sorta knows the rules a little bit.

[Cybren]

"The monster has resistance". I mean, you asked "how do you tell them they have resistance?" Being coy about it seems circuitous, and the only function is aesthetic as it's not exactly painting a vivid verbal image.

It's valid to not tell the players that monsters they hit have a particular weakness or resistance, but if you specifically want to communicate something, make sure you communicate it. Say "it doesn't seem very effective", describe the attack not working as well as it should, and make sure to finish it with explicitly pointing out resistance.

[dickerson76]

It falls under the Golden Rule.

How do you handle it from the other way? If a player starts the combat by drinking a potion, do you expect him to tell you what it is? If he doesn't and it's a potion of invulnerability, do you expect him to give you clues that the monster damage is not doing as much as they expect?

The level of information you divulge or withhold sets the example for the player to follow.

I wouldn't worry about immersion too much. You are already passing back meta-info with attack rolls and damage rolls. It's easy to slip in a not-so-subtle "16 damage divided by 2 means he takes 8" and then describe how the arrowhead didn't penetrate the creature's hide and quickly gets brushed off.

[IShouldntBehere]

It falls under the Golden Rule.

How do you handle it from the other way? If a player starts the combat by drinking a potion, do you expect him to tell you what it is? If he doesn't and it's a potion of invulnerability, do you expect him to give you clues that the monster damage is not doing as much as they expect?.

Gamestate information cannot be hidden from the DM, regardless of how much game state information they give it out. If you try and keep information on what the players are doing secret they can't resolve state of the game world. Imagine you use that potion of invulnerability, but you're actually in the ancient temple of the long lost super-potion tribe. The temple has a magic field that adds additional effects to potions based on their type (Invulnerability Potions also give you the ability to see Invisible Creatures as well in this case. )

The DM has open-access to all information in-game and meta, otherwise there is no way for them to properly do their job. The DM isn't "The Monsters" in the same way the players are the PCs, and their means of accessing the game world & the game state are different.


Regardless I'm in the description camp. Resistances stem from some property of the monster and more often than not, those properties give some kind of sensory feedback when you interact with them. Against resistance

"Your swing feels a lot stiffer as you connect, it really feels like you can't make a full impact"
"Before you make contact, your sword feels almost like it is passing through jelly your strike feels slow, and ineffective"
"You strike true! As your spear pierces the flesh of the creature it is something like pushing it through gravel, your tip has barely made it in 1/2 way before you cant' follow through anymore."

Which usually gets the picture across pretty clear. Now if the creature's resistance spawns from a really subtle magic effect that may go unannounced or if the resistance is some strictly meta effect like some kind of "Legendary Damage Resistance" just meant to inflate the monsters health pool, rather than reflect some actual property they have beyond "Important and Special".

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, it can be as simple as halving the damage when you say how much damage it took, along with a little flavor.

For instance, when attacking a demon who's resistant to non-magical damage:

"Yes! 14 damage!"

"Your sword sinks into its flesh, but only seems to bite so deep. It takes 7 points of damage."

[jaappleton]

Honestly, it can be as simple as halving the damage when you say how much damage it took, along with a little flavor.

For instance, when attacking a demon who's resistant to non-magical damage:

"Yes! 14 damage!"

"Your sword sinks into its flesh, but only seems to bite so deep. It takes 7 points of damage."

I do nearly the same thing.

"As you drive your axe into its flesh, you notice that your blows don't seem to harm it as much as they normally would. It's taken damage, but not as much as you'd expect."

I never say the number inflicted, though.

[RickAllison]

This example is for immunity, but a similar evaluation can be done for resistance. Think about WHY the creature isn't affected.

Both lycanthropes and iron golems are immune to ordinary weapons, unless it is silvered or adamantine respectively. The way I have always seen it is that an iron golem is actually turning the weapons away, they are literally bouncing off its carapace. Meanwhile, a werewolf can be stabbed just as easily as an ordinary person. However, nonsilver (and nonmagical) weapon wounds heal back quickly as the blade is withdrawn.

The same thing applies to resistance. A gaseous entity like a Shadow may see parts of its essence distorted by mundane weapons, but only magic actually rips the portions away. A demon could simply appear to have older cuts healing already.

[Joe the Rat]

I'd tailor it to the specific monster. Say it was piercing resistant because it's basically a skeleton, I'd describe the effect: "You hit squarely in the chest area, and had it been a zombie, you would have torn a large chunk of meat out of the creature. Instead, the arrow splinters a single rib, and the skeleton keeps going."
Sometimes I do this, other times I will turn it around. I will call out the damage types that aren't being resisted as "seeming more effective." This is especially true for creatures they've never encountered before, don't have comparable anatomies (oozes), and/or haven't yet hit with a non-resistant attack.

Immunities, however, always get called out. Either the attack does nothing (bouncing off harmlessly, absorbed by the target), or I describe the wound as healing instantly/bloodlessly (Lycanthropes).

[raspin]

With words to the effect of "you hit the creature but seem to do more/less damage than you would have expected". That tells them something is odd and they can put it together themselves from there.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I fluff it based on the specific monster, the resistance, and attack type. And I'll tack on "it didn't seem to have done as much damage as you expected it to do" at the end. If the players want to try knowledge checks after that about the monster I'm happy to let them.

[GlenSmash!]

Honestly, it can be as simple as halving the damage when you say how much damage it took, along with a little flavor.

For instance, when attacking a demon who's resistant to non-magical damage:

"Yes! 14 damage!"

"Your sword sinks into its flesh, but only seems to bite so deep. It takes 7 points of damage."

This is how I do it. I have found Just saying the numbers has no negative impact on my games and it speeds up combat.

[Dizlag]

As a newer DM, just keep it as simple as possible. I know someone suggested have your players make a roll to see it. I don't recommend more rolls to the game. Just simple describe to them the shot, the swing, or the spell not quite having as much of an effect you thought it would have.

For incorporeal undead like the specter, I described it as them feeling a little bit of resistance at first then no resistance as the creature fades into its incorporealness (is that a word? =).

The descriptions above are great and as was mentioned, you can toss a little bit of metadata (the damage taken) into the description if you'd like. It's all about how immersed you'd like to be.

Just remember, your telling a cooperative story with your friends and to make it fun!

Enjoy!

Dizlag

[IShouldntBehere]

As a newer DM, just keep it as simple as possible. I know someone suggested have your players make a roll to see it. I don't recommend more rolls to the game. Just simple describe to them the shot, the swing, or the spell not quite having as much of an effect you thought it would have.

For incorporeal undead like the specter, I described it as them feeling a little bit of resistance at first then no resistance as the creature fades into its incorporealness (is that a word? =).

The descriptions above are great and as was mentioned, you can toss a little bit of metadata (the damage taken) into the description if you'd like. It's all about how immersed you'd like to be.

Just remember, your telling a cooperative story with your friends and to make it fun!

Enjoy!

Dizlag

A roll is still useful because it can let you know on-sight that the creature has resistance, rather than having to find out through making attacks. It also might reveal how to overcome the resistance, which isn't always obvious.

[the secret fire]

As a newer DM, just keep it as simple as possible. I know someone suggested have your players make a roll to see it. I don't recommend more rolls to the game.

That's exactly what the investigate skill is for, though. To each his own, but I find that making skills (especially "non-combat skills" like investigate) more useful tends to improve the game. I see no particular reason to assume that the raging meathead barbarian just automatically notices details about the world around him.

And no...don't have your players make the roll and tell them it's an investigate check because then they'll know something is up. That's just basic DMing. Make the roll, yourself, for all relevant characters, and proceed from there based on the results.

[raspin]

In edition to my previous reply "as your mace hits the creature its skin sizzles like bacon being fried" I used recently to describe radiant damage hurting a homebrew zombie. Other weapons did not cause the bacon thing so they got the idea. No need to roll to spot the obvious.

[mephnick]

That's exactly what the investigate skill is for, though. To each his own, but I find that making skills (especially "non-combat skills" like investigate) more useful tends to improve the game. I see no particular reason to assume that the raging meathead barbarian just automatically notices details about the world around him.

On the other hand, I see no reason why a seasoned warrior wouldn't immediately realize that his blows aren't having the intended effect. People who fight realize that kind of stuff regardless of an "investigation skill".

[IShouldntBehere]

On the other hand, I see no reason why a seasoned warrior wouldn't immediately realize that his blows aren't having the intended effect. People who fight realize that kind of stuff regardless of an "investigation skill".

I'd go further and say not even a matter of fighting. I wager an untrained peasant could tell the difference because these things come from real properties of the monster and have a real presence in the game universe. I don't need to be a trained block puller to feel the difference between pulling a block on even ground and pulling when it's half-buried in wet sand.

I mean sure maybe it's the sort of thing that falls under the skill, but usually the effects would be so pronounced such that the DC would be like -5. It would take a pretty big dullard with pretty dull senses to feel something was happening.

[the secret fire]

On the other hand, I see no reason why a seasoned warrior wouldn't immediately realize that his blows aren't having the intended effect. People who fight realize that kind of stuff regardless of an "investigation skill".

Has your seasoned warrior fought this kind or monster before, or anything with that specific sort of resistance, for that matter? If yes, grant advantage on the roll. If not, why should he just automatically notice? I'm not going to go into gory details, but suffice it to say, I've had people try to kill me on several occasions. I can tell you from experience that there is quite a lot one does not notice once the adrenaline starts flowing.

Resistance has no necessarily obvious effect, and at any rate, hit points are an abstraction, anyway. Telling your players "It took 7 damage"?! Gah...that sounds like an immersion-breaking drag to me. The fog of war is real, and to a large extent it exists in the mind of each individual combatant.

[MaxWilson]

If you're already sure enough that there is a trap somewhere that you'll expend a spell slot on it, then Find Traps may confirm your suspicion. But it won't tell you where the trap is or how to deal with it. And it only vaguely gives a sense of the kind of danger the trap poses (alarm or damage or constraint, I suppose).
The spell is almost laughably niche.

It's better (still not great, but better) in an open world sandbox where maybe there are things that you can't deal with. In that case, the spell functions as a binary detector of "Don't Mess With This Stuff".

For example, if there's a locked door in an archmage's tower and you're thinking about breaking in and stealing whatever you can, Find Traps: Yes means "don't ever try" and Find Traps: No means "party on but don't get caught." In this scenario, you don't even care about the details of the trap ("anyone who enters without saying the password will trigger a ward with each step they take; each ward inflicts 10d10 force damage, casts Hold Person, and summons a Fire Elemental to kill you, but can be dispelled with a 9th level Dispel Magic spell") because you can't deal with it anyway.

In short, Find Traps is designed for the type of campaign where traps are done realistically (deadly things which kill you with gratuitous overkill). It's not really useful against "fun" traps which are designed to entertain players with a puzzle, a carrot, and a stick.

[the secret fire]

In short, Find Traps is designed for the type of campaign where traps are done realistically (deadly things which kill you with gratuitous overkill). It's not really useful against "fun" traps which are designed to entertain players with a puzzle, a carrot, and a stick.

I think I would like your campaign worlds, Max.

[Cybren]

I think I would like your campaign worlds, Max.

You could save so much money, too, by just having a 1d2 damage spike trap in your lair to dissuade people from going in

[MaxWilson]

I think I would like your campaign worlds, Max.

You should know that I have both kinds of traps in my setting:

(1) Deadly traps, created by engineers and/or wizards. These traps are designed to protect a resource and/or inflict damage to an enemy.

(2) "Fun" traps, created by trap gremlins. These traps are designed to amuse the gremlins by tempting and/or tormenting those exposed to them. Trap gremlins are amused by the exact same kind of player suffering that amuses the DM. Trap gremlins die instantly horribly and violently if someone defeats their trap (thus, you get kill XP for defeating a trap, and maybe you hear a "gack!" from somewhere nearby right before the gremlin explodes in a burst of ectoplasm).

Trap gremlins are attracted to food left out after midnight, and the more expensive the food, the more powerful the gremlins who appear and thus the deadlier the traps. Some suspect it may be part of their reproductive cycle. In any case, a cheap and easy way of protecting a resource or location is to attract a bunch of powerful trap gremlins and let them do the hard work for you--but they'll never do as good of a job as an engineer or wizard would, because their priorities are different.

[the secret fire]

I don't know if your trap gremlins are a joke or not, but they're pretty great, either way.

[Grixis]

You should definitely be able to tell the player once that player rolls damage of a type to which the monster is resistant. My DM says, "your attack doesn't seem quite as effective as you thought it would be."

You don't need high knowledge or perception to see that your sword isn't cutting Monster A's doing the same way it cuts Monster B's.

[the secret fire]

I rather like the idea that a rock-stupid fighter might someday suffer some tactical disadvantage for being rock-stupid.

Int-based skills: what are they good for? Am I right, people? **applause**

[Vogonjeltz]

Hi guys,

So I guess the title says it all however let me sketch the situation. One of my players uses his bow to attack a monster with piercing resistance. So he does half damage, I don't just go out and tell him the monster has resistance to his attack. Right now I use something "you feel like your damage didn't do as much as you expected". I was wondering how you guys handle this. I want to try to keep the immersion level as high as possible.

Consider the context of the monster and its type of resistance as well as the concept that Hit Points represent more than mere physical damage.

In the particular case, you might indicate that the monster barely has to exert itself to deflect the attack, or that the arrow splinters off the tough hide even though it was a direct hit.

Providing a narrative of what went wrong with the attack (because of the monsters defensive capabilities) can draw the player in more so not only do you get them away from thinking in purely game mechanical terms, but so they can also have their characters make informed in-game decisions based on observed events.

If the monster has outright immunity (and it should have an obvious effect) I might go so far as to say that the monster seems to completely ignore the attacks.

You could outright say that the monster has resistence, but I'd recommend trying to keep immersion when there's a reasonable alternative as in this case.

[mephnick]

I rather like the idea that a rock-stupid fighter might someday suffer some tactical disadvantage for being rock-stupid.

The disadvantage is that he doesn't know why it's not having the usual effect. Not that he doesn't notice it not having the usual effect.

Of course I went back and saw this:


I'm not going to go into gory details, but suffice it to say, I've had people try to kill me on several occasions. I can tell you from experience that there is quite a lot one does not notice once the adrenaline starts flowing.

And now I can't take this conversation seriously.

[Regitnui]

The disadvantage is that he doesn't know why it's not having the usual effect. Not that he doesn't notice it not having the usual effect.

Of course I went back and saw this:



And now I can't take this conversation seriously.

Why not? In real life combat, you can't see the hit point numbers rising off your enemy like final fantasy.

[hymer]

Why not?

I think mephnick is objecting to the secret fire claiming s/he is a secret agent robot cyborg ninja assassin from outer space.

[the secret fire]

I think mephnick is objecting to the secret fire claiming s/he is a secret agent robot cyborg ninja assassin from outer space.

Lol. In this era of perpetual warfare, having seen combat is depressingly not as much of an outlier as one might think, especially for my generation (I am in my late 30s). Fully 2.2% of the American population (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-percentage-of-americans-have-served-in-the-military/) are veterans of one or both Gulf wars. I am in that group, nothing more.

[Regitnui]

Lol. In this era of perpetual warfare, having seen combat is depressingly not as much of an outlier as one might think, especially for my generation (I am in my late 30s). Fully 2.2% of the American population (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-percentage-of-americans-have-served-in-the-military/) are veterans of one or both Gulf wars. I am in that group, nothing more.

And with the number of guns available to people who frankly should not have them in the US and beyond, violent situations are likely to become more common than the average D&D session even in 'peaceful' areas.

[RickAllison]

And with the number of guns available to people who frankly should not have them in the US and beyond, violent situations are likely to become more common than the average D&D session even in 'peaceful' areas.

Eh, it depends far more on societal norms and structure than availability of guns. My community is one such where people walk into our hardware store with a handgun on their belt and no one bats an eyelash, yet it was incredibly traumatic when five years ago a man killed his sons and tried to kill his wife. Violent crimes were simply something that never occurs here (other than an occasional bar brawl, but even those are rare). Despite having a high rate of guns per capita, crimes with them are incredibly rare.

But I think by this point we are verging on violating the rules on controversial subjects, so we should probably stop the discussion before the mods have to!

[IShouldntBehere]

I rather like the idea that a rock-stupid fighter might someday suffer some tactical disadvantage for being rock-stupid.

Int-based skills: what are they good for? Am I right, people? **applause**

Except by default the game doesn't even really provide for dumb as-rocks characters. In point buy & standard array the lowest is 8 (-1) which honestly below average, but not a total moron.

Even then where stupidity is going to cost you in battle it isn't going to be in telling the difference between something your blade slices into easily and something that's like trying slice mount of wet gravel. It's going to be in gross misjudgments like "I don't care if this thing is resistant to swords. I'm a total ****ing badass, I'll slice it in two despite that and enjoy it more for the challenge! Just you watch!"

[the secret fire]

Except by default the game doesn't even really provide for dumb as-rocks characters. In point buy & standard array the lowest is 8 (-1) which honestly below average, but not a total moron.

If one's intelligence score is basically his IQ divided by ten (which is the rough rule of thumb I've always used), an 80 IQ is more than one standard deviation below the average. I think you may overestimate somewhat the functional intelligence of a person with an 80 IQ. At any rate, intelligence is roughly a measure of processing speed, among other things - how quickly one puts together information in order to come to sensible conclusions.

Shouldn't a person with a slower mind struggle to interpret what is going on in the heat of battle compared to a very bright person? Shouldn't being smart offer at least a potential advantage in combat, even for the grunt?

[IShouldntBehere]

If one's intelligence score is basically his IQ divided by ten (which is the rough rule of thumb I've always used), an 80 IQ is more than one standard deviation below the average. I think you may overestimate somewhat the functional intelligence of a person with an 80 IQ. At any rate, intelligence is roughly a measure of processing speed, among other things - how quickly one puts together information in order to come to sensible conclusions.

This is not a metric I've ever heard and one I wouldn't adhere to, but that's neither here nor there.



Shouldn't a person with a slower mind struggle to interpret what is going on in the heat of battle compared to a very bright person? Shouldn't being smart offer at least a potential advantage in combat, even for the grunt?

Sure. However what I'm saying is that the specific nature of Damage Resistance would not be an element of battle that benefits greatly from intelligence since it relates so dramatically and so directly to the tactile feedback you get from your weapon. Losing 1/2 or more of your momentum or impact is just an extremely dramatic and extremely direct effect. You can feel that down to your bones. It's obvious and one wouldn't ask for a check to notice other obvious things, like the sun.

Perhaps for things like Magic & Ranged attacks there's a bit more room for it to be less than obvious since there the clues on DR in those cases are going to be more about visual effects, experience and context than it is "Oh boy. This thing feels like a pile of rocks". However for melee weapons most forms of DR are just going to give too much tactile feedback to be missed.

[RickAllison]

To me, the ability to detect that certain attacks will be diminished using intelligence is what happens before combat. The intelligent fighter will figure out that the treant is resistant to bludgeoning and piercing damage (but not slashing) beforehand. The unintelligent fighter is the one who might try to smash the treant with his magic maul and then figure the creature is resistant to magic bludgeoning damage.

For a comparison, look at Final Fantasy XIIi and its companion AI. One can make the closest equivalent to a successful Int check (Libra) and the companions will know how to avoid its strengths and exploit its weaknesses. Alternatively, you can let the AI struggle-bus it out on its own. Then, it has to keep trying new things and only finding out strengths and weaknesses through trial-and-error.

This is especially fun for creatures that are resistant only to certain kinds of weapons. They may assume that the resistance applies to all weapons equally, while the intelligent fighter picks the right weapon at the start.

[the secret fire]

Sure. However what I'm saying is that the specific nature of Damage Resistance would not be an element of battle that benefits greatly from intelligence since it relates so dramatically and so directly to the tactile feedback you get from your weapon. Losing 1/2 or more of your momentum or impact is just an extremely dramatic and extremely direct effect. You can feel that down to your bones. It's obvious and one wouldn't ask for a check to notice other obvious things, like the sun.

There is nothing in the rules delineating the "special effect" (to borrow terminology from the HERO system) of any given type of resistance as it applies to any given creature. You are making assumptions about the fluff which are not an actual part of the mechanics. Having an "extra tough hide" or whatnot is only one of a wide variety of possible explanations for damage resistance.

This is a point where the fluff and the crunch sort of bleed into one another, and the DM has to make a judgment call. I agree with you that if one's sword is simply clanging off of a creature's hide that even the dumbest of grunts can figure out pretty quickly that it has resistance, but this is only one case out of many.

[IShouldntBehere]

There is nothing in the rules delineating the "special effect" (to borrow terminology from the HERO system) of any given type of resistance as it applies to any given creature. You are making assumptions about the fluff which are not an actual part of the mechanics. Having an "extra tough hide" or whatnot is only one of a wide variety of possible explanations for damage resistance.

This is a point where the fluff and the crunch sort of bleed into one another, and the DM has to make a judgment call. I agree with you that if one's sword is simply clanging off of a creature's hide that even the dumbest of grunts can figure out pretty quickly that it has resistance, but this is only one case out of many.

I would argue that if you take a look at the table of the standard set of D&D monsters, their resistances generally seem to stem from some tangible trait of theirs.Sure, the game doesn't explicitly tell you what attacking Demilich feels like but it's floating, magically reinforced skull studded with gems. You try and cut a surface like that and you are going feel your blade turn.

The game doesn't tell what hitting and Ice Mephit feels like but it's made of ice, it's brittle. When you hit that bludgeoning weakness of course it's going shatter and give way like glass.

I think that outside of ghosts and things, most damage reduction isn't subtle. When I look at the monsters read their fluff and then fit that into the general game world I get a clear picture of abilities that you could feel. Sure that's an assumption on my part but I think it's pretty safe one.

I think for most monsters with DR if you ask:
"OK. What in-universe trait of the monster is being represented by mechanic "Damage Resistance"?How does it interact with the character's physical experience?"

Answers that give tactile feedback will generally require a lot less contrivance and fit more readily into the most resonant tropes about fantasy monsters.

[RickAllison]

I would argue that if you take a look at the table of the standard set of D&D monsters, their resistances generally seem to stem from some tangible trait of theirs.Sure, the game doesn't explicitly tell you what attacking Demilich feels like but it's floating, magically reinforced skull studded with gems. You try and cut a surface like that and you are going feel your blade turn.

The game doesn't tell what hitting and Ice Mephit feels like but it's made of ice, it's brittle. When you hit that bludgeoning weakness of course it's going shatter and give way like glass.

I think that outside of ghosts and things, most damage reduction isn't subtle. When I look at the monsters read their fluff and then fit that into the general game world I get a clear picture of abilities that you could feel. Sure that's an assumption on my part but I think it's pretty safe one.

I think for most monsters with DR if you ask:
"OK. What in-universe trait of the monster is being represented by mechanic "Damage Resistance"?How does it interact with the character's physical experience?"

Answers that give tactile feedback will generally require a lot less contrivance and fit more readily into the most resonant tropes about fantasy monsters.

I kind of feel like we should make a separate thread to try and compile this sort of thing. Not because it isn't relevant here, but because that seems like a cool subject that deserves its own thread.

[Slipperychicken]

My DM usually says something like:

"You know how much that attack/spell should have hurt him, and the target was not hurt as much as he should have been, despite having landed a solid hit. This form of attack may not be very effective"

"It feels like the monster's hide is perfectly suited to weathering your attack; it feels like that attack didn't hurt him as much it should have. A magical attack might do better."

"It feels like your weapon is moving through water rather than anything solid. Though enough blows may fell it, the specter is obviously not as susceptible to normal physical harm."
"Your spell splashes off the monster like water off a rock. It feels like you could pelt firebolts at him all day and not even singe its fur"


Basically it's a combination of feeling and intuition. Anyone who has training or experience with combat, even an idiot, knows when something isn't getting as hurt as it should be.

[Regitnui]

Honestly, there is no one way to show resistance or vulnerability. "Your mace smacks into the side of the ooze with a wet splat, then keeps going as the ooze sucks it in" and "your sword rattles harmlessly off the skeleton's ribcage" are both tailored to the monster. Short of making little signs in that pixelated font the DS uses and holding up "It's super-effective" and "It's not very effective" respectively, you're not going to find an easy one-flavour-fits-all solution for describing all possible interactions between monster and monster-killing tool.

Though I'd second the creation of some kind of categorized list for different types of monster. Like "The demon grins as your sword cuts its flesh" or "there is no reaction as your arrows pepper the golem with a sound not unlike rain on a tin roof".

[Sigreid]

"You land a solid blow, but your sword doesn't bite as deeply as you would have expected."
"Your hammer blow feels like striking an anvil. You're opponent is driven back half a step but seems unimpressed."

[Goober4473]

I prefer to give the players as much information as possible. The way I narrate damage resistance may vary, but the end result is always, "the monster resists the damage." So for instance, an exchange may look like this:

Player: "I deal 8 piercing damage."
Me: "Your arrow passes through the skeleton's bones, rattling its cage a bit. It resists your damage and takes only 4 points of damage."

Here is an excerpt from my house rules document:


You automatically learn certain information about any creature you can perceive:

You know its initiative value (and order in the initiative).
When it is attacked, you learn it’s Armor Class.
When it makes an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check, you learn its bonus.
When it rolls damage, you know what dice it is rolling and what additional damage it is adding.
When it takes damage, you know how much it actually took, and as such whether it is resistant or vulnerable to that type of damage.
While it is bloodied (at or below half hit points), you know it’s current hit points.

[the secret fire]

I find it interesting that so many DMs seem to just feed their players unnecessary information for free. A large part of my method as a DM is keeping the players on their toes (re-skinning and/or altering monsters being one of my staples) and putting pressure on all of their stats/abilities at different points in the story. I find that forcing the PCs to face and occasionally suffer for their weaknesses, mechanical and otherwise, makes the whole narrative richer. Without failure, success is hollow. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the player's personality almost inevitably supercedes the PC's, regardless of the character's various mental ability scores, the only way I've found to properly and reliably simulate mental weakness in a character is to do so mechanically.

It seems that people often want to sort of ignore the mental stats and the Int skills as really important and/or limiting factors in the game. I personally think this is misguided, but to each his own. I tend to parcel out information as strictly as I can, and bring the mental skills into play pretty often. It's all just a matter of taste, I suppose.

[Goober4473]

I find it interesting that so many DMs seem to just feed their players unnecessary information for free.

I want my players to make meaningful choices, and I find that giving them more information allows for that better. I think mystery and discovery and other such things can be included without Gotchas that are only challenging because the players don't have some piece of information. I'll tell my players armor class and damage resistance and even hit points, but they still have to deal with situations more complex than "kill the monsters in the room," and that's where I keep a close watch over the information given out.

It's definitely a matter of style, but I ran games withholding all of this info for over a decade and I find this way to be much more engaging. It does require good players that you trust, though. But when you have players like that, giving them the information and letting them play it how their characters would works great.

[mephnick]

It seems that people often want to sort of ignore the mental stats and the Int skills as really important and/or limiting factors in the game. I personally think this is misguided, but to each his own. I tend to parcel out information as strictly as I can, and bring the mental skills into play pretty often. It's all just a matter of taste, I suppose.

I use the mental stats quite often and have house-ruled knowledge checks for monsters, but I just don't find withholding the information in this specific circumstance a benefit to the game.

Telling your players that their attacks aren't having the usual effect should trigger problem solving, not avoid it. Gating the information behind another roll would lead to less interesting fights as a bad knowledge/investigation roll may lead to no information to act on in the first place.

[the secret fire]

I use the mental stats quite often and have house-ruled knowledge checks for monsters, but I just don't find withholding the information in this specific circumstance a benefit to the game.

Telling your players that their attacks aren't having the usual effect should trigger problem solving, not avoid it. Gating the information behind another roll would lead to less interesting fights as a bad knowledge/investigation roll may lead to no information to act on in the first place.

I should be clear that I would allow such an investigation roll after each round of attacking. So even the lunkheads will figure it out eventually, but if the DC is 13 as I suggested and they're rocking an 8 Int, it might take them a few turns. They end up having a mechanical disadvantage that fits who they are as characters and one which scales smoothly with their intelligence, or lack thereof.

I can see how it would seem unfair and/or unfun to have the whole thing depend on a single knowledge check, like some kind of preemptive Int-based save-or-suck for the fighters. Nah...that would not be a whole lot of fun.

[Dizlag]

In my experience, more rolls means slower combat and that's why I wouldn't have them make a separate roll for knowing if their attack has had a certain effect. All skills and attacks are simply knowledge checks at their core. If they want to spend their action observing the effects of everyone else's attacks, then great ... make your investigation check. I would simply see how well they succeeded on their attack and give them knowledge from it. If they just hit the AC of the creature, then maybe they don't notice the damage reduction. If they hit by 5+ or 2+, then give them some flavor text as listed above. Great descriptions, btw!

Anyways, again ... needless rolls make combat take longer, interrupt the flow of the story and the narrative in my experience. I've got a kid at my table that wants to make a roll for every decision he makes. Arrgh! Just tell me what your character does and if there's a chance that failure will really matter, then yes. By all means make a roll. Rolling dice, just to roll dice, in my opinion is so not the spirit of the game. It's a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game. =)

Dizlag

[the secret fire]

Anyways, again ... needless rolls make combat take longer, interrupt the flow of the story and the narrative in my experience. I've got a kid at my table that wants to make a roll for every decision he makes. Arrgh! Just tell me what your character does and if there's a chance that failure will really matter, then yes. By all means make a roll. Rolling dice, just to roll dice, in my opinion is so not the spirit of the game. It's a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game.

You seem to be conflating two separate things. Decision making is a player's output; knowledge is his input. The player who wants to "roll for every decision he makes" is simply daft because the act of decision making should not have anything to do with dice rolling. The information that goes into decision making, on the other hand, should have a lot to do with the character in question's level of knowledge and general mental fitness (Int or Wis, usually). Knowledge, as they say, is power. Handing out power in the form of free knowledge to the dumb and/or ignorant (characters, I mean, not players) is an excellent way of punishing the smart and/or educated. Why would one want to do that?

5e combat goes plenty fast. Adding a mechanic that one can "break out of" with a single successful roll is no different than casting a save-or-suck spell at a given character or party. It doesn't slow combat down in any appreciable way.

edit: I'll add that I think this in many ways hearkens back to one of the classic problems of D&D, and of roleplaying games, in general - namely, the fact that many players like to build "mechanically dumb" characters without actually roleplaying the dim-wittedness represented on the character sheet, or suffering any meaningful consequences for it. This is not meant to be a criticism of such sentiments, or at least not entirely so. Role playing someone much less intelligent than oneself is a bizarre and possibly prurient cognitive exercise, in part because the unintelligent are heavily stigmatized in our culture.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Here is an excerpt from my house rules document:

I like this approach. I'm going to steal this if you don't mind. It seems like a wonderful way to speed up combat and remove a lot of pointless back and forth questions.

Full immersion is reserved for other systems that more heavily focus on, and reward, role playing.

[Dizlag]

You seem to be conflating two separate things. Decision making is a player's output; knowledge is his input. The player who wants to "roll for every decision he makes" is simply daft because the act of decision making should not have anything to do with dice rolling. The information that goes into decision making, on the other hand, should have a lot to do with the character in question's level of knowledge and general mental fitness (Int or Wis, usually). Knowledge, as they say, is power. Handing out power in the form of free knowledge to the dumb and/or ignorant (characters, I mean, not players) is an excellent way of punishing the smart and/or educated. Why would one want to do that?

Oh, I completely agree that you shouldn't punish players/characters that have invested time and experience points into areas to make their character shine. Its definitely on the DM to be sensitive to that fact and know the characters' strengths and weaknesses. For instance, in the example the OP mentioned about damage resistance. If there was a character with the alertness feat, I would let them know what other characters' damage is doing including theirs as well. Rewarding them for spending the level up on the feat.


5e combat goes plenty fast. Adding a mechanic that one can "break out of" with a single successful roll is no different than casting a save-or-suck spell at a given character or party. It doesn't slow combat down in any appreciable way.

I've experienced pretty slow combat during the Adventurer's League nights as both a player and a DM. Adding yet another die roll will slow things down. Building in flavor text and knowledge into a roll that they already have to make (an attack roll) will help with the flow. I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just experienced something different and I don't think your method would help much with an AL table. I know on those nights I want to stick to the rules as much as possible and adding complexity / another mechanic wouldn't be good. I would discourage new DMs to add more mechanics as well and just try to make more out of the mechanics that are given.


edit: I'll add that I think this in many ways hearkens back to one of the classic problems of D&D, and of roleplaying games, in general - namely, the fact that many players like to build "mechanically dumb" characters without actually roleplaying the dim-wittedness represented on the character sheet, or suffering any meaningful consequences for it. This is not meant to be a criticism of such sentiments, or at least not entirely so. Role playing someone much less intelligent than oneself is a bizarre and possibly prurient cognitive exercise, in part because the unintelligent are heavily stigmatized in our culture.

I've been playing this awesome game since the early 80s and still forget to roleplay aspects of my character that I know are there. I do try to roleplay that dump-stat when I remember, even if its Dex or Str or Con. I agree that it is tough to dumb yourself down as a player to play that dumb fighter, but kind of have to be a bit smart about it and think outside the box too. In combat, that dumb fighter might be the most physically capable on the battlefield, but might not know when to flank an opponent (lack of Wisdom) or when to use a club vs skeletons (lack of Intelligence) and instead use his big ass sword.

As you said, most players won't do stuff like this or even remember or think to play their character this way. The optimal build and optimal strategy overrides this most of the time in my experience lately. Which has been at the Adventurer's League where new players to this system are joining daily. I try to set an example as a player and DM to help those newbies to the game, and if they like it and are having fun then my job it done. Having fun is all that truly matters. =)

Dizlag

[RickAllison]

Oh, I completely agree that you shouldn't punish players/characters that have invested time and experience points into areas to make their character shine. Its definitely on the DM to be sensitive to that fact and know the characters' strengths and weaknesses. For instance, in the example the OP mentioned about damage resistance. If there was a character with the alertness feat, I would let them know what other characters' damage is doing including theirs as well. Rewarding them for spending the level up on the feat.



I've experienced pretty slow combat during the Adventurer's League nights as both a player and a DM. Adding yet another die roll will slow things down. Building in flavor text and knowledge into a roll that they already have to make (an attack roll) will help with the flow. I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just experienced something different and I don't think your method would help much with an AL table. I know on those nights I want to stick to the rules as much as possible and adding complexity / another mechanic wouldn't be good. I would discourage new DMs to add more mechanics as well and just try to make more out of the mechanics that are given.



I've been playing this awesome game since the early 80s and still forget to roleplay aspects of my character that I know are there. I do try to roleplay that dump-stat when I remember, even if its Dex or Str or Con. I agree that it is tough to dumb yourself down as a player to play that dumb fighter, but kind of have to be a bit smart about it and think outside the box too. In combat, that dumb fighter might be the most physically capable on the battlefield, but might not know when to flank an opponent (lack of Wisdom) or when to use a club vs skeletons (lack of Intelligence) and instead use his big ass sword.

As you said, most players won't do stuff like this or even remember or think to play their character this way. The optimal build and optimal strategy overrides this most of the time in my experience lately. Which has been at the Adventurer's League where new players to this system are joining daily. I try to set an example as a player and DM to help those newbies to the game, and if they like it and are having fun then my job it done. Having fun is all that truly matters. =)

Dizlag

Part of the difficulty I have with RPing low Int or Wis is the boundary of the two when one is high and he other is not. I had a warrior monk (high Wis, low Int) who repeatedly did reckless things. I played it off as having the capability to think those situations through, but his brain didn't work fast enough before he would just leap into the fray.

Of course now I play a wizard/cleric, so that problem does not exist at all!

[Easy_Lee]

Honestly, there is no one way to show resistance or vulnerability. "Your mace smacks into the side of the ooze with a wet splat, then keeps going as the ooze sucks it in" and "your sword rattles harmlessly off the skeleton's ribcage" are both tailored to the monster. Short of making little signs in that pixelated font the DS uses and holding up "It's super-effective" and "It's not very effective" respectively, you're not going to find an easy one-flavour-fits-all solution for describing all possible interactions between monster and monster-killing tool.

Though I'd second the creation of some kind of categorized list for different types of monster. Like "The demon grins as your sword cuts its flesh" or "there is no reaction as your arrows pepper the golem with a sound not unlike rain on a tin roof".

I was going to suggest super effective vs not very effective. It works, and should be easy enough to visualize.

[Dizlag]

Part of the difficulty I have with RPing low Int or Wis is the boundary of the two when one is high and he other is not. I had a warrior monk (high Wis, low Int) who repeatedly did reckless things. I played it off as having the capability to think those situations through, but his brain didn't work fast enough before he would just leap into the fray.

Of course now I play a wizard/cleric, so that problem does not exist at all!

LOL! Well done, well done!

With regards to the High Int/Low Wis or vise versa, I break it down as Intelligence is what the character knows and Wisdom is the ability to put that knowledge to use. I like how you played the warrior monk with High Wis and Low Int. I had a shaman in a Hackmaster game with short-term memory loss as a flaw, effectively I played him with a very low Int because we couldn't remember anything. So, when the players discussed strategy and a battle plan, I, as a player, would just doodle and ignore them only getting bits and pieces of the plan because it would what my character would remember anyways. He had pretty good strategy with a higher wisdom and the instinctual nature of that stat, but couldn't remember how that strategy meshed with what the others were doing due to short-term memory loss. hehehe

Now, a High Int/Low Wis ... hmmm. Maybe use those flanking tactics or types of weapons at the wrong time. He knows the strategies because he's studied them in the classroom and library, but never been field tested in a battle with the adrenaline running high. With a lower wisdom or willpower, if you will, maybe his discipline in combat is lacking and will freak out / retreat at the first sight of blood or something. His intelligence would be telling him something like "we have the tactics to win this battle as I have studied, but there are SO many orcs! Retreat!!" =)

Dizlag

[RickAllison]

LOL! Well done, well done!

With regards to the High Int/Low Wis or vise versa, I break it down as Intelligence is what the character knows and Wisdom is the ability to put that knowledge to use. I like how you played the warrior monk with High Wis and Low Int. I had a shaman in a Hackmaster game with short-term memory loss as a flaw, effectively I played him with a very low Int because we couldn't remember anything. So, when the players discussed strategy and a battle plan, I, as a player, would just doodle and ignore them only getting bits and pieces of the plan because it would what my character would remember anyways. He had pretty good strategy with a higher wisdom and the instinctual nature of that stat, but couldn't remember how that strategy meshed with what the others were doing due to short-term memory loss. hehehe

Now, a High Int/Low Wis ... hmmm. Maybe use those flanking tactics or types of weapons at the wrong time. He knows the strategies because he's studied them in the classroom and library, but never been field tested in a battle with the adrenaline running high. With a lower wisdom or willpower, if you will, maybe his discipline in combat is lacking and will freak out / retreat at the first sight of blood or something. His intelligence would be telling him something like "we have the tactics to win this battle as I have studied, but there are SO many orcs! Retreat!!" =)

Dizlag

"Sir, I used the flanking maneuvers perfectly as shown at university. This would have allowed us to bypass the front ranks and fall upon their archers."

"You tried flanking into an acid pit."

"I did not foresee the pit would pose the problem it did."

I kinda like it. It kinda seems like the person who you want at your planning meets because he is intelligent enough to come up with all kinds of strategies... So long as someone reminds him of factors he hadn't accounted for due to his low Wisdom.

Then keep them far away from the battle once it has started...

[Goober4473]

I like this approach. I'm going to steal this if you don't mind. It seems like a wonderful way to speed up combat and remove a lot of pointless back and forth questions.

Full immersion is reserved for other systems that more heavily focus on, and reward, role playing.

I've honestly found it does nothing to the immersion either. All of the numbers are just abstractions, and your PCs have no reason not to be able to tell things like how good something's defenses are, how tired it looks, or how fast it's acting. So it just speeds things up and lets the players make more interesting choices.

I also recommend giving out the DC to saves/checks, so you don't have to go around the table asking for results.

[Sigreid]

Part of the difficulty I have with RPing low Int or Wis is the boundary of the two when one is high and he other is not. I had a warrior monk (high Wis, low Int) who repeatedly did reckless things. I played it off as having the capability to think those situations through, but his brain didn't work fast enough before he would just leap into the fray.

Of course now I play a wizard/cleric, so that problem does not exist at all!

In one of the AD&D books, I think the DMG, it had the line "Intelligence and wisdom are often strangers." I tend to play int as computing, understanding what you read, are told, or can study. Wisdom is in the moment understanding of what is happening right now. The world, and your place in it at this moment.

[tsotate]

Not telling the players the resistances also means that every hit by the magic initiate Paladin casting booming blade with his elemental weapon has to be broken down like "14 magical bludgeoning, 8 thunder, 3 acid, 19 radiant". It's much less fiddly to just say "44 damage. Should I bother breaking that down by type?"