According to Step 9 of DMG monster creation, one should "assign a vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to a monster only when it’s intuitive. For example, it makes sense for a monster made of molten lava to have immunity to fire damage." Yet there are monsters that give no indication of their immunities. It's easy enough to determine that undead are immune to poison, because the dead don't have blood flow. And yes, fire breating dragons can betray an immunity to fire. But why does a shambling mound resist fire and cold and absorb lightning, three things commonly known to be very anti-plant? Perhaps the fire resistance might be given away by the moistness of the environment it's found in, but there's no way to know that the plant monster is spawned by lightning just by looking at it aside from actually witnessing the lightning. Worst of all, none of these seem to give the monster effective hit points.
As a DM, how can I better telegraph each of the damage types? Is not telegraphing them at all bad game design because it robs players of their turns in an aggravating way?
Edit: My players do not enter a battle knowing the complete stat blocks and lore of each monster they fight. In fact, some of my players consider that to be cheating. I think they should be able to intuit the monster's immunities from their appearance without the need for outside information. (Maybe not the resistances since those are less aggravating.) I can have the shambling mound crackle lightning to convey lightning immunity (just thought of that), though that may be misleading about the damage such a monster can do. And I understand that certain monster types almost always have certain immunities. But how do I convey immunity to something like thunder? Force? Five different damage types that have nothing else to do with the monster?
Most of the old resistances and immunities can be found in the ecology of the Monster from prior editions in either monster manuals, specific sources (ex Draconomicon, Book of Undead, etc…), or Dragon Magazine articles of years gone by. There are several good YouTube channels that have researched the lore of many of these creatures for your listening pleasure.
It's well known that the monster manual doesn't actually use the dmg formula. I generally give characters a check against a relevant skill (usually one of arcana, nature, or religion, sometimes history) to know obscure resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities, and if the PCs really have no way of knowing, adjust difficulty. Puzzle monsters are a tradition in D&D, but you have to set them so the PCs don't die before they have a chance to figure out the puzzle (I mean, you can kill them if they take too long, but avoid bosses that kill everyone in 2-3 rounds unless it's possible to do research ahead of time).
Put it on fire (or even just part of it) , that should get the fire and cold resistance out of the way.
They probably won't even use lightning and some player might now that many plants are highly conductive to electricity, and most should know lightning isn't gonna hit a vunerability.
Monsters resisting or being immune to certain damage types is exciting and fun, and there's not reason that the players need to be aware of them (or even have hints) unless they have special abilities that would let them know (such as a monk does).
Yes they should guess that a Fire Elemental won't burn, and many things are common sense, but discovering that creatures simply don't take damage from certain attacks is cool.
Monsters resisting or being immune to certain damage types is exciting and fun, and there's not reason that the players need to be aware of them (or even have hints) unless they have special abilities that would let them know (such as a monk does).
Yes they should guess that a Fire Elemental won't burn, and many things are common sense, but discovering that creatures simply don't take damage from certain attacks is cool.
Is it fun and cool for the player spending the spell slot? The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing? The intrigue generated by existence of the immunity has to be at least twice as good as the aggravation is bad (because of loss aversion). And that intrigue may have an uphill battle there if the battle is difficult (and I plan on putting this party through the wringer).
It feel that being blindsided by an immunity you couldn't possibly intuit is bad for the game, and that this is why the homebrew rules specifically recommend adding immunities that make sense to an observer.
(and minor nitpick: way of cobalt soul is still unofficial)
Monsters resisting or being immune to certain damage types is exciting and fun, and there's not reason that the players need to be aware of them (or even have hints) unless they have special abilities that would let them know (such as a monk does).
Yes they should guess that a Fire Elemental won't burn, and many things are common sense, but discovering that creatures simply don't take damage from certain attacks is cool.
Is it fun and cool for the player spending the spell slot? The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing? The intrigue generated by existence of the immunity has to be at least twice as good as the aggravation is bad (because of loss aversion). And that intrigue may have an uphill battle there if the battle is difficult (and I plan on putting this party through the wringer).
It feel that being blindsided by an immunity you couldn't possibly intuit is bad for the game, and that this is why the homebrew rules specifically recommend adding immunities that make sense to an observer.
(and minor nitpick: way of cobalt soul is still unofficial)
Mythical creatures and unique monsters that the authors have come up with aren't always going to be intuitive or align with pre-existing expectations.
For example, a player might expect that if they expose a vampire/vampire spawn to sunlight, they will be burned to dust instantaneously based on depictions in pop culture. However this does not make for an interesting encounter. While exposing a vampire to sunlight is detrimental to their ability to act, it wont be the killing blow a player might expect. Its the same for driving a stake through the heart. And RAW, holy symbols dont do anything extra against them.
A player who takes any of the above actions expecting it to stop a vampire where it stands may be disappointed when it doesn't have the desired effect, but now they have learned more about how their enemy works. Sometimes, resources will be wasted in order to gain knowledge. If you want to help your players avoid this fate, you are more than welcome to include details in the lair or external sources (like libraries) which explain or allude to these immunities, but it will ultimately fall on your players' shoulders to choose to seek out such information. A wasted turn doesn't feel good, but neither does being spoon fed the details to winning a fight more easily
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Is it fun and cool for the player spending the spell slot?
Abilities fail for lots of reasons. It's a lot better than being the fighter with a normal against a werewolf, because at least you have a reasonable chance to do something next round.
Monsters resisting or being immune to certain damage types is exciting and fun, and there's not reason that the players need to be aware of them (or even have hints) unless they have special abilities that would let them know (such as a monk does).
Yes they should guess that a Fire Elemental won't burn, and many things are common sense, but discovering that creatures simply don't take damage from certain attacks is cool.
Is it fun and cool for the player spending the spell slot? The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing? The intrigue generated by existence of the immunity has to be at least twice as good as the aggravation is bad (because of loss aversion). And that intrigue may have an uphill battle there if the battle is difficult (and I plan on putting this party through the wringer).
It feel that being blindsided by an immunity you couldn't possibly intuit is bad for the game, and that this is why the homebrew rules specifically recommend adding immunities that make sense to an observer.
(and minor nitpick: way of cobalt soul is still unofficial)
I think that if you take the philosophy that "every turn a character must do something successfully" then you should dispense with immunities and resistances altogether. If they have to be telegraphed so that they never have any effect, then I don't see why you'd play with them at all.
Sometimes it's good for players to bring out what they think will be a big move only to see it fail. It ups tension, consumes resources and throws up alternative challenges. Nobody's saying that a polar bear should randomly be immune to acid or anything like that, but there's no reason for PCs to have wide-ranging knowledge of monster vulnerabilities and immunities.
The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing?
Good Lord. Are there 14 people in your party?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing?
Good Lord. Are there 14 people in your party?
I've run into fights that were that slow with smaller party sizes, but that's usually because there's a large number of enemies, in which case you likely aren't using very complicated monsters (though in one game I'm in at the moment, the wizard is stuck at "well, we're fighting devils so Fireball is worthless, and my spell book isn't that big, guess Magic Missile it is")
The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing?
Good Lord. Are there 14 people in your party?
I've run into fights that were that slow with smaller party sizes, but that's usually because there's a large number of enemies, in which case you likely aren't using very complicated monsters (though in one game I'm in at the moment, the wizard is stuck at "well, we're fighting devils so Fireball is worthless, and my spell book isn't that big, guess Magic Missile it is")
But 30 minutes between turns implies a LOT of players or a LOT of monsters being handled individually.
The "amount to nothing" of a legendary resistance isn't too different to the creature just making its saving throw, or your spell attack roll missing the AC.
But 30 minutes between turns implies a LOT of players or a LOT of monsters being handled individually.
Or a LOT of Analysis Paralysis
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing?
Good Lord. Are there 14 people in your party?
I've run into fights that were that slow with smaller party sizes, but that's usually because there's a large number of enemies, in which case you likely aren't using very complicated monsters (though in one game I'm in at the moment, the wizard is stuck at "well, we're fighting devils so Fireball is worthless, and my spell book isn't that big, guess Magic Missile it is")
But 30 minutes between turns implies a LOT of players or a LOT of monsters being handled individually.
The "amount to nothing" of a legendary resistance isn't too different to the creature just making its saving throw, or your spell attack roll missing the AC.
Yes, in both the campaigns I'm a player in, there are too many players and even a few NPCs on our side, so a two round battle is easily over an hour, even against a single enemy.
Regarding the comparison to legendary resistances and missed spell attacks, if a creature has to burn a legendary resistance to counter your effect, that's undeniable progress as it puts pressure on the enemy to use the remaining LRs sparingly. If a spell misses or is saved against, I get that the effect should fail. But it's just not the same when a spell fails due to an immunity. A former just seems like a spot of bad luck to me at most, but the latter just makes me feel like an idiot whether I should have known or not (especially if it happens twice in battle). It's like the game itself is saying, "You fool! Everyone knows the infamous (insert monster here) is immune to (insert first spell) and (insert second spell)!"
The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing?
Good Lord. Are there 14 people in your party?
I've run into fights that were that slow with smaller party sizes, but that's usually because there's a large number of enemies, in which case you likely aren't using very complicated monsters (though in one game I'm in at the moment, the wizard is stuck at "well, we're fighting devils so Fireball is worthless, and my spell book isn't that big, guess Magic Missile it is")
But 30 minutes between turns implies a LOT of players or a LOT of monsters being handled individually.
The "amount to nothing" of a legendary resistance isn't too different to the creature just making its saving throw, or your spell attack roll missing the AC.
Yes, in both the campaigns I'm a player in, there are too many players and even a few NPCs on our side, so a two round battle is easily over an hour, even against a single enemy.
Regarding the comparison to legendary resistances and missed spell attacks, if a creature has to burn a legendary resistance to counter your effect, that's undeniable progress as it puts pressure on the enemy to use the remaining LRs sparingly. If a spell misses or is saved against, I get that the effect should fail. But it's just not the same when a spell fails due to an immunity. A former just seems like a spot of bad luck to me at most, but the latter just makes me feel like an idiot whether I should have known or not (especially if it happens twice in battle). It's like the game itself is saying, "You fool! Everyone knows the infamous (insert monster here) is immune to (insert first spell) and (insert second spell)!"
Except everyone doesnt necessarily know a monster is immune to certain damage. That knowledge is only as common as you (the DM) choose to make it.
Just like with legendary resistance, burning a spell to learn a creature's immunities is undeniable progress in the knowledge of your players and their ability to counter similar threats in the future. The only way that knowledge becomes a waste is if it never comes up again for the rest of your campaign, which is up to you in how you design encounters.
I guarantee that for a party playing through Curse of Strahd, taking steps to early on to learn the damage resistances and immunities as well as conditional effects for a vampire (whether it be through independent research or fighting vampire spawn) will be very useful later on in the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
According to Step 9 of DMG monster creation, one should "assign a vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to a monster only when it’s intuitive. For example, it makes sense for a monster made of molten lava to have immunity to fire damage." Yet there are monsters that give no indication of their immunities. It's easy enough to determine that undead are immune to poison, because the dead don't have blood flow. And yes, fire breating dragons can betray an immunity to fire. But why does a shambling mound resist fire and cold and absorb lightning, three things commonly known to be very anti-plant? Perhaps the fire resistance might be given away by the moistness of the environment it's found in, but there's no way to know that the plant monster is spawned by lightning just by looking at it aside from actually witnessing the lightning. Worst of all, none of these seem to give the monster effective hit points.
As a DM, how can I better telegraph each of the damage types? Is not telegraphing them at all bad game design because it robs players of their turns in an aggravating way?
Edit: My players do not enter a battle knowing the complete stat blocks and lore of each monster they fight. In fact, some of my players consider that to be cheating. I think they should be able to intuit the monster's immunities from their appearance without the need for outside information. (Maybe not the resistances since those are less aggravating.) I can have the shambling mound crackle lightning to convey lightning immunity (just thought of that), though that may be misleading about the damage such a monster can do. And I understand that certain monster types almost always have certain immunities. But how do I convey immunity to something like thunder? Force? Five different damage types that have nothing else to do with the monster?
Most of the old resistances and immunities can be found in the ecology of the Monster from prior editions in either monster manuals, specific sources (ex Draconomicon, Book of Undead, etc…), or Dragon Magazine articles of years gone by. There are several good YouTube channels that have researched the lore of many of these creatures for your listening pleasure.
Some of it is even in the current ecology.
For Shambling Mound, there is a bolded section name "Spawned by Lightning" which might be why it is immune to lightning damage.
It's well known that the monster manual doesn't actually use the dmg formula. I generally give characters a check against a relevant skill (usually one of arcana, nature, or religion, sometimes history) to know obscure resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities, and if the PCs really have no way of knowing, adjust difficulty. Puzzle monsters are a tradition in D&D, but you have to set them so the PCs don't die before they have a chance to figure out the puzzle (I mean, you can kill them if they take too long, but avoid bosses that kill everyone in 2-3 rounds unless it's possible to do research ahead of time).
Put it on fire (or even just part of it) , that should get the fire and cold resistance out of the way.
They probably won't even use lightning and some player might now that many plants are highly conductive to electricity, and most should know lightning isn't gonna hit a vunerability.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
Monsters resisting or being immune to certain damage types is exciting and fun, and there's not reason that the players need to be aware of them (or even have hints) unless they have special abilities that would let them know (such as a monk does).
Yes they should guess that a Fire Elemental won't burn, and many things are common sense, but discovering that creatures simply don't take damage from certain attacks is cool.
Is it fun and cool for the player spending the spell slot? The player who spent the past 30 minutes waiting for their turn only for it to amount to nothing? The intrigue generated by existence of the immunity has to be at least twice as good as the aggravation is bad (because of loss aversion). And that intrigue may have an uphill battle there if the battle is difficult (and I plan on putting this party through the wringer).
It feel that being blindsided by an immunity you couldn't possibly intuit is bad for the game, and that this is why the homebrew rules specifically recommend adding immunities that make sense to an observer.
(and minor nitpick: way of cobalt soul is still unofficial)
Mythical creatures and unique monsters that the authors have come up with aren't always going to be intuitive or align with pre-existing expectations.
For example, a player might expect that if they expose a vampire/vampire spawn to sunlight, they will be burned to dust instantaneously based on depictions in pop culture. However this does not make for an interesting encounter. While exposing a vampire to sunlight is detrimental to their ability to act, it wont be the killing blow a player might expect. Its the same for driving a stake through the heart. And RAW, holy symbols dont do anything extra against them.
A player who takes any of the above actions expecting it to stop a vampire where it stands may be disappointed when it doesn't have the desired effect, but now they have learned more about how their enemy works. Sometimes, resources will be wasted in order to gain knowledge. If you want to help your players avoid this fate, you are more than welcome to include details in the lair or external sources (like libraries) which explain or allude to these immunities, but it will ultimately fall on your players' shoulders to choose to seek out such information. A wasted turn doesn't feel good, but neither does being spoon fed the details to winning a fight more easily
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Abilities fail for lots of reasons. It's a lot better than being the fighter with a normal against a werewolf, because at least you have a reasonable chance to do something next round.
I think that if you take the philosophy that "every turn a character must do something successfully" then you should dispense with immunities and resistances altogether. If they have to be telegraphed so that they never have any effect, then I don't see why you'd play with them at all.
Sometimes it's good for players to bring out what they think will be a big move only to see it fail. It ups tension, consumes resources and throws up alternative challenges. Nobody's saying that a polar bear should randomly be immune to acid or anything like that, but there's no reason for PCs to have wide-ranging knowledge of monster vulnerabilities and immunities.
Good Lord. Are there 14 people in your party?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've run into fights that were that slow with smaller party sizes, but that's usually because there's a large number of enemies, in which case you likely aren't using very complicated monsters (though in one game I'm in at the moment, the wizard is stuck at "well, we're fighting devils so Fireball is worthless, and my spell book isn't that big, guess Magic Missile it is")
But 30 minutes between turns implies a LOT of players or a LOT of monsters being handled individually.
The "amount to nothing" of a legendary resistance isn't too different to the creature just making its saving throw, or your spell attack roll missing the AC.
Or a LOT of Analysis Paralysis
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, in both the campaigns I'm a player in, there are too many players and even a few NPCs on our side, so a two round battle is easily over an hour, even against a single enemy.
Regarding the comparison to legendary resistances and missed spell attacks, if a creature has to burn a legendary resistance to counter your effect, that's undeniable progress as it puts pressure on the enemy to use the remaining LRs sparingly. If a spell misses or is saved against, I get that the effect should fail. But it's just not the same when a spell fails due to an immunity. A former just seems like a spot of bad luck to me at most, but the latter just makes me feel like an idiot whether I should have known or not (especially if it happens twice in battle). It's like the game itself is saying, "You fool! Everyone knows the infamous (insert monster here) is immune to (insert first spell) and (insert second spell)!"
Except everyone doesnt necessarily know a monster is immune to certain damage. That knowledge is only as common as you (the DM) choose to make it.
Just like with legendary resistance, burning a spell to learn a creature's immunities is undeniable progress in the knowledge of your players and their ability to counter similar threats in the future. The only way that knowledge becomes a waste is if it never comes up again for the rest of your campaign, which is up to you in how you design encounters.
I guarantee that for a party playing through Curse of Strahd, taking steps to early on to learn the damage resistances and immunities as well as conditional effects for a vampire (whether it be through independent research or fighting vampire spawn) will be very useful later on in the campaign.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!