I'm thinking about running a campaign with all the monster stats out in the open. Initiative, AC, HP, Actions, everything. This may or may not be a good idea, but how do you think that would change the game? I'd still keep a screen to hide notes and secret rolls, but everything else is fair game for players to see. I haven't tried this with players yet, as I want to get a better sense of how this might change the game before I offer it. The DMG just says "Most DMs track damage in secret so that their players don’t know how many hit points a monster has remaining. Whether you choose to be secretive or not is up to you."
I like the faster way the game runs when I'm not the only one that has to keep track of monster stats. When combat is faster, all the players stay more engaged and have more fun.
On the other hand, there are a couple spells, like sleep or power word kill, where knowing exact enemy HP makes them way more effective by taking all the risk out of casting them. There's also monsters with unique kill conditions, like the troll. Revealing how to kill them takes some of the puzzle aspect out of the game. However, I could just hold that part of the information back, or use different monsters.
It also means I can't fudge the dice or declare a monster dead when there's still HP on the board. I also can't help my players by having the monsters act suboptimally. (That's still fudging, I think, but it feels more acceptable than changing a die roll.)
I personally don't share any of it, because all of my players are new they may not know what to make of all the data, and they have shared that they like the surprise of everything. This also doesn't allow you to mess with their stats as much unless you make a whole new block to share with them. I like to change CRs and data for specific monsters to let them fight them early on, or take a goblin stat block and apply it to something else to give that monster a more level appropriate stat block.
You may choose to have a pirate fight, but swashbucklers as a CR3 are too tough so you re-purpose a bandit stat block for them. Or you use a bit of both to find a happy medium. Sharing the block makes you need to create a quick block which you probably did anyway.
I guess that's my two cents which when I look at it seems like I added nothing new, except some extra work, which isn't much.
In combat, I give players information that they could reasonably figure out from events in combat - AC and resistances - and I give them general indicators as to the creatures' health ( injured, bloodied, severely injured, etc. ), but nothing they couldn't figure out on their own.
If you want to speed up combat in this fashion, there's a couple of ideas from Matt Colville I like - one which I've tried, and one I haven't.
Videos below, but the TL;DR version is
a) have one player run all the "grunt" creatures optimally as the "monster wrangler" while you control all the special and interesting monsters ( the Orcs, vs. The Orc Shaman, or the Ogre chieftain ), and
b) Have the players track the amount of damage they inflict ( they're likely doing it anyways ), but the DM keeps the total amount of HP the creature has secret: "OK, and after that crushing hammer blow by Elric Stormhammer, that's how many HP damage total? ... Oh yeah, that's enough, Elric , how to you want to do this?" For vulnerabilities and resistances the DM just adjusts the total HP of the creature: "you did 28 points of fire damage with that Fireball?" - scribbles in another 14 HP to the monsters total
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I follow a similar approach to Vedexent and Jusblazm, preferring to give as little meta information as I can to players. That includes any stats, initiative order etc.
It's the same reason I don't use a grid map and minis. I've found that tactical information pushes encounters closer to RTS than RPG, which might be what you're going for, by my group much prefers a narrative approach to encounters, and to keep immersion high by being as unaware as their characters are about what they're facing.
You've also mentioned that you're wanting to speed up encounters to keep it flowing. But I've found that more information actually bogs it down, because players get almost 'too' tactical. Simple encounters have taken an absolute age as players decide exactly the best way to attack, based on how much HP they have, where they are in initiative order, distances, etc. The DM can mitigate this by imposing time limits or having the enemies do unexpected things, but it still slows it right down.
But ultimately, the main reason for me, is that if I do everything out in the open, the moment I don't, they players will wonder why. They will have to assume its because I'm fudging something or making changes, which is probably exactly what I'm doing. If all my encounters are open book, the moment an encounter isn't, I suspect players will call foul play.
Like Jusblazm write giving the stats to the players means you cant make small changes to make the encounter easier/harder or more exciting, you might lock yourself down to what is printed in the monster manual.
I also think the player characters will loose the chance of learning from encounters with new kind of monsters. The first time they meet a hobgoblin they might not know they only have 11 hp, but once they cut down one with few hits they will know, and next time they might know that a sleep against this foe has great effect.
With knowledge of all stats the combat might move out of any roleplaying feeling and you get more a boardgame feel where decisions are based on player information rather than "Character information".
If I already know what kind of monsters my group will meet I sometimes fill out the encounter sheets:
More or less, I think having the numbers in the open encourages min-maxing. You'll have one of two results; either your players will slow combat down to read every little exploit they can find one the sheet rather than risk their firs attack having resistance or some such, or they'll blaze through everything with the spells and attacks they know will work and not be properly challenged.
I don't give my players any information on the creatures, however I do not care if the players figure it out or have previous knowledge from DMing or other games in general.
The information on monsters is a base line to make the game run quickly, the with holding of information is for surprise, anticipation, and other story telling mechanics. However, in the end, many players will be able to figure out that a 14 "bounces off the hide of the monster chipping at the carapace but doesn't seem to break through." where as a 15 "just barely pierces the creatures thick skin, a trickle of blood seeps out". With that kind of story telling and information after a few rounds of combat, with many players, will end up being something like; "Nope, I don't hit" rather than "Does a 12 hit?" or "Yea, I do 15 damage to it", completely skipping over the "I rolled a 22 to hit".
If you feel being transparent like that is something that will work well at your table, by all means go for it, that approach has worked for many DMs. There are, as well, many of us who still like to pretend we can hide the world from our players behind the screen, and will do that until the day we die. There is no right or wrong in this instance, especially if you consider some of the original DMs would do so from behind a body length screen to completely remove themselves as to become nothing more than a disembodied voice.
Agreed. Trust the players with the metadata - it will make your life easier.
Most things can be determined pretty quickly. After a couple of rounds, the players should know the monster's AC and rough HP. If they cast an elemental spell it is pretty obvious that creatures with resistance take less damage than expected.
Also, there is ingame justification for this. Adventurers talk to each other. They share stories over campfires and around inn tables. Even if a particular PC has never met a troll, it is reasonable that they would know to use fire or acid.
One decent middle ground approach would be to reveal game stats as soon as the characters might be roughly aware of them. So give your players the monster's AC after the first attack against it, saving throw mods after the players see the monster attempt a save, HP after it takes any damage, monster powers after they get used, etc. If they want more information, maybe require a perception or insight check and a bonus action?
I wouldn't share stats for many reasons, but mainly because I like to "rebalance" encounters on the fly, usually by raising or lowering a monster's hitpoint max (within the limits of the monster's HD).
I agree with the advice to share any information about enemies that the PCs could reasonably discern in combat. I also wouldn't attempt to obscure any information about certain iconicmonsters (trolls, vampires) that almost everyone knows out-of-game.
However, I don't think it's wise to have your players track monster HP or to run monsters in combat. One reason is because this makes adjusting combat on-the-fly more difficult. Another reason is that you're placing an unnecessary burden on your players. But the best reason is that it removes the control you have over how combat encounters play out.
However, I don't think it's wise to have your players track monster HP.
Don't know about your group, but mine already tracks the amount of damage they do to creatures. They don't know how many it has, but I do - so when I ask them, and they say X, I know whether or not it's over Y ( the monster's total ).
Since that's already happening, I'm not sure I see value in me tracking it separately.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The point I believe jreggers is trying to get at is not having the players track the monster's actual HP and their actions. Many experienced players will figure out that kobolds generally have x amount of HP, or that Revenant has an AC of X, and the Purple Wurm has a to hit bonus of X. However, letting them take control of the monster and track their HP in the stead of the DM is, in my agreement with jreggers, not something that should happen.
I still maintain that it doesn't matter whether we think that players should or should not track how much damage they've done to "Purple Wurm #3", we can't stop them.
When Player #2 roll 5HP slashing damage with a long sword, how do you tell Player #3 not to jot that down?
Are you forbidding them from keeping a running total?
Do you not trust your players?
If they're doing that anyway, is there any added value of you tracking the damage separately?
They're not gaining any information they don't already have.
They know they've done 67 HP damage total to "Purple Wurm #3". They do not know that "Purple Wurm #3" has a total of 239HP.
Only I do.
When I ask Player #3, "What's the total damage that you've inflicted?", and I get "67" as a response, I can reply "OK, it's starting to look a bit beaten up".
If/when I get an answer of "243 HP", I can respond with "How do you want to do this"?
It's not "giving the players extra information", and it's not "adding an unnecessary burden on your players" ( since they're doing it already - at least mine are).
Obviously, it's up to every DM if they want to do that or not - but I don't see any added cost to the players they're not already assuming, and I don't see any extra information they're gaining through this, and I don't see any value in work at the table being duplicated ( other than possibly for reasons of trust, where you think your players will lie, but that's a totally different kettle of fish).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Point 1: If they're doing that anyway, is there any added value of you tracking the damage separately?
Point 2: They do not know that "Purple Wurm #3" has a total of 239HP. Only I do.
This right here is what we're in agreement on and arguing about simultaneously :) It seems to be a mix up somewhere so firstly: You're on the same page as jreggers and myself.
The argument, is to not let the players do point 2, that is your information and yours alone to track. There are some DMs who are of a mind to let the players do that tracking as well as the monster's actions.
Point 1 is assumed, at least by me, to be happening anyway. Whether I ask them for the information or not is irrelevant, since I have a custom initiative chart and handling the damage done, on my side, is relatively easy anyhow.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Yeah, DMThac0 hit the nail on the head. I just meant that you shouldn't let your players know a monster's HP total, or exactly how many HP a monster has left. I allow, even encourage, my players to track how much damage they've dealt. I also tend to track the damage dealt in a visible place (even if my players are doing so), but that's largely because I don't find it to be time-consuming, and I want to make sure no damage gets missed.
However, I would never allow my players to run monsters in combat (grunts or otherwise), as I think that sacrifices far too much control over how an encounter plays out.
For what it's worth, the moment my players start tallying up creatures HP, and (crucially) start making decisions in-character based on those meta-numbers, that's the moment the kobolds suddenly have more hit points than the Monster Manual states.
I provide plenty of narrative on what the state of creatures are during battle, so players don't really need to keep a running total. I'd rather my players be focussing on their characters actions, based on the intensity of the situation, rather than the maths.
I appreciate that can be tricky in big battles with heaps going on, but I never want to rely on players to provide information that I should know, such as current hit point totals.
I also wouldn´t share any monster stat information that the characters couldn´t possibly know. Though I am generous with descriptive flavour, trying to give them hints in battle as to what does what or not. Also I think there is a Fighter/Battlemaster ability that does actually make the DM give up some monster stat information (comparatively from character perspective), which would vote for NOT giving up such information for free, or else you make the ability worthless.
- Kyle, who wouldn´t want to take the fun out of it -
I think giving the stats word for word completely detracts from the game. With this approach you might as well just be playing a board game. If this is your intention or this is what the players prefer that... then sure I guess... But at one point you might as well just play one of the DnD Board Games (ie Wrath of Ashardalon etc...).
Ideally you make players work for additional info. Making insight checks, perception, history. Give them cues that they can figure out that the creature has resistance.
This is of course my opinion. If you find yourself bogged down with trash mobs, then half way through a one sided fight just declare through narrative that the party does away with the rest of the goblins or whatever and move on. Ideally the encounter is built in such a way that you don't have a plethora of pointless of grinding fights that the player don't really care about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm thinking about running a campaign with all the monster stats out in the open. Initiative, AC, HP, Actions, everything. This may or may not be a good idea, but how do you think that would change the game? I'd still keep a screen to hide notes and secret rolls, but everything else is fair game for players to see. I haven't tried this with players yet, as I want to get a better sense of how this might change the game before I offer it. The DMG just says "Most DMs track damage in secret so that their players don’t know how many hit points a monster has remaining. Whether you choose to be secretive or not is up to you."
I like the faster way the game runs when I'm not the only one that has to keep track of monster stats. When combat is faster, all the players stay more engaged and have more fun.
On the other hand, there are a couple spells, like sleep or power word kill, where knowing exact enemy HP makes them way more effective by taking all the risk out of casting them. There's also monsters with unique kill conditions, like the troll. Revealing how to kill them takes some of the puzzle aspect out of the game. However, I could just hold that part of the information back, or use different monsters.
It also means I can't fudge the dice or declare a monster dead when there's still HP on the board. I also can't help my players by having the monsters act suboptimally. (That's still fudging, I think, but it feels more acceptable than changing a die roll.)
What other pros and cons are there?
I personally don't share any of it, because all of my players are new they may not know what to make of all the data, and they have shared that they like the surprise of everything. This also doesn't allow you to mess with their stats as much unless you make a whole new block to share with them. I like to change CRs and data for specific monsters to let them fight them early on, or take a goblin stat block and apply it to something else to give that monster a more level appropriate stat block.
You may choose to have a pirate fight, but swashbucklers as a CR3 are too tough so you re-purpose a bandit stat block for them. Or you use a bit of both to find a happy medium. Sharing the block makes you need to create a quick block which you probably did anyway.
I guess that's my two cents which when I look at it seems like I added nothing new, except some extra work, which isn't much.
A Graduation to be Remembered | A Village Bathed in Crimson
In combat, I give players information that they could reasonably figure out from events in combat - AC and resistances - and I give them general indicators as to the creatures' health ( injured, bloodied, severely injured, etc. ), but nothing they couldn't figure out on their own.
If you want to speed up combat in this fashion, there's a couple of ideas from Matt Colville I like - one which I've tried, and one I haven't.
Videos below, but the TL;DR version is
a) have one player run all the "grunt" creatures optimally as the "monster wrangler" while you control all the special and interesting monsters ( the Orcs, vs. The Orc Shaman, or the Ogre chieftain ), and
b) Have the players track the amount of damage they inflict ( they're likely doing it anyways ), but the DM keeps the total amount of HP the creature has secret: "OK, and after that crushing hammer blow by Elric Stormhammer, that's how many HP damage total? ... Oh yeah, that's enough, Elric , how to you want to do this?" For vulnerabilities and resistances the DM just adjusts the total HP of the creature: "you did 28 points of fire damage with that Fireball?" - scribbles in another 14 HP to the monsters total
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I follow a similar approach to Vedexent and Jusblazm, preferring to give as little meta information as I can to players. That includes any stats, initiative order etc.
It's the same reason I don't use a grid map and minis. I've found that tactical information pushes encounters closer to RTS than RPG, which might be what you're going for, by my group much prefers a narrative approach to encounters, and to keep immersion high by being as unaware as their characters are about what they're facing.
You've also mentioned that you're wanting to speed up encounters to keep it flowing. But I've found that more information actually bogs it down, because players get almost 'too' tactical. Simple encounters have taken an absolute age as players decide exactly the best way to attack, based on how much HP they have, where they are in initiative order, distances, etc. The DM can mitigate this by imposing time limits or having the enemies do unexpected things, but it still slows it right down.
But ultimately, the main reason for me, is that if I do everything out in the open, the moment I don't, they players will wonder why. They will have to assume its because I'm fudging something or making changes, which is probably exactly what I'm doing. If all my encounters are open book, the moment an encounter isn't, I suspect players will call foul play.
Like Jusblazm write giving the stats to the players means you cant make small changes to make the encounter easier/harder or more exciting, you might lock yourself down to what is printed in the monster manual.
I also think the player characters will loose the chance of learning from encounters with new kind of monsters. The first time they meet a hobgoblin they might not know they only have 11 hp, but once they cut down one with few hits they will know, and next time they might know that a sleep against this foe has great effect.
With knowledge of all stats the combat might move out of any roleplaying feeling and you get more a boardgame feel where decisions are based on player information rather than "Character information".
If I already know what kind of monsters my group will meet I sometimes fill out the encounter sheets:
http://critgames.com/rpg/dnd-5e-encounter-sheet/
Makes it faster to lookup than going through the Monster Manual.
The suggestions from Vedexent post also seems great if you have a big complex fight with "boring" monsters and the more fun.
More or less, I think having the numbers in the open encourages min-maxing. You'll have one of two results; either your players will slow combat down to read every little exploit they can find one the sheet rather than risk their firs attack having resistance or some such, or they'll blaze through everything with the spells and attacks they know will work and not be properly challenged.
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
I don't give my players any information on the creatures, however I do not care if the players figure it out or have previous knowledge from DMing or other games in general.
The information on monsters is a base line to make the game run quickly, the with holding of information is for surprise, anticipation, and other story telling mechanics. However, in the end, many players will be able to figure out that a 14 "bounces off the hide of the monster chipping at the carapace but doesn't seem to break through." where as a 15 "just barely pierces the creatures thick skin, a trickle of blood seeps out". With that kind of story telling and information after a few rounds of combat, with many players, will end up being something like; "Nope, I don't hit" rather than "Does a 12 hit?" or "Yea, I do 15 damage to it", completely skipping over the "I rolled a 22 to hit".
If you feel being transparent like that is something that will work well at your table, by all means go for it, that approach has worked for many DMs. There are, as well, many of us who still like to pretend we can hide the world from our players behind the screen, and will do that until the day we die. There is no right or wrong in this instance, especially if you consider some of the original DMs would do so from behind a body length screen to completely remove themselves as to become nothing more than a disembodied voice.
Agreed. Trust the players with the metadata - it will make your life easier.
Most things can be determined pretty quickly. After a couple of rounds, the players should know the monster's AC and rough HP. If they cast an elemental spell it is pretty obvious that creatures with resistance take less damage than expected.
Also, there is ingame justification for this. Adventurers talk to each other. They share stories over campfires and around inn tables. Even if a particular PC has never met a troll, it is reasonable that they would know to use fire or acid.
One decent middle ground approach would be to reveal game stats as soon as the characters might be roughly aware of them. So give your players the monster's AC after the first attack against it, saving throw mods after the players see the monster attempt a save, HP after it takes any damage, monster powers after they get used, etc. If they want more information, maybe require a perception or insight check and a bonus action?
I wouldn't share stats for many reasons, but mainly because I like to "rebalance" encounters on the fly, usually by raising or lowering a monster's hitpoint max (within the limits of the monster's HD).
I agree with the advice to share any information about enemies that the PCs could reasonably discern in combat. I also wouldn't attempt to obscure any information about certain iconicmonsters (trolls, vampires) that almost everyone knows out-of-game.
However, I don't think it's wise to have your players track monster HP or to run monsters in combat. One reason is because this makes adjusting combat on-the-fly more difficult. Another reason is that you're placing an unnecessary burden on your players. But the best reason is that it removes the control you have over how combat encounters play out.
Don't know about your group, but mine already tracks the amount of damage they do to creatures. They don't know how many it has, but I do - so when I ask them, and they say X, I know whether or not it's over Y ( the monster's total ).
Since that's already happening, I'm not sure I see value in me tracking it separately.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The point I believe jreggers is trying to get at is not having the players track the monster's actual HP and their actions. Many experienced players will figure out that kobolds generally have x amount of HP, or that Revenant has an AC of X, and the Purple Wurm has a to hit bonus of X. However, letting them take control of the monster and track their HP in the stead of the DM is, in my agreement with jreggers, not something that should happen.
I still maintain that it doesn't matter whether we think that players should or should not track how much damage they've done to "Purple Wurm #3", we can't stop them.
When Player #2 roll 5HP slashing damage with a long sword, how do you tell Player #3 not to jot that down?
Are you forbidding them from keeping a running total?
Do you not trust your players?
If they're doing that anyway, is there any added value of you tracking the damage separately?
They're not gaining any information they don't already have.
They know they've done 67 HP damage total to "Purple Wurm #3". They do not know that "Purple Wurm #3" has a total of 239HP.
Only I do.
When I ask Player #3, "What's the total damage that you've inflicted?", and I get "67" as a response, I can reply "OK, it's starting to look a bit beaten up".
If/when I get an answer of "243 HP", I can respond with "How do you want to do this"?
It's not "giving the players extra information", and it's not "adding an unnecessary burden on your players" ( since they're doing it already - at least mine are).
Obviously, it's up to every DM if they want to do that or not - but I don't see any added cost to the players they're not already assuming, and I don't see any extra information they're gaining through this, and I don't see any value in work at the table being duplicated ( other than possibly for reasons of trust, where you think your players will lie, but that's a totally different kettle of fish).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
This right here is what we're in agreement on and arguing about simultaneously :) It seems to be a mix up somewhere so firstly: You're on the same page as jreggers and myself.
The argument, is to not let the players do point 2, that is your information and yours alone to track. There are some DMs who are of a mind to let the players do that tracking as well as the monster's actions.
Point 1 is assumed, at least by me, to be happening anyway. Whether I ask them for the information or not is irrelevant, since I have a custom initiative chart and handling the damage done, on my side, is relatively easy anyhow.
*chuckles*
If I had a nickel for every "argument" I got into where it turned out we were actually arguing the same point from different angles.... :D
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Yeah, DMThac0 hit the nail on the head. I just meant that you shouldn't let your players know a monster's HP total, or exactly how many HP a monster has left. I allow, even encourage, my players to track how much damage they've dealt. I also tend to track the damage dealt in a visible place (even if my players are doing so), but that's largely because I don't find it to be time-consuming, and I want to make sure no damage gets missed.
However, I would never allow my players to run monsters in combat (grunts or otherwise), as I think that sacrifices far too much control over how an encounter plays out.
For what it's worth, the moment my players start tallying up creatures HP, and (crucially) start making decisions in-character based on those meta-numbers, that's the moment the kobolds suddenly have more hit points than the Monster Manual states.
I provide plenty of narrative on what the state of creatures are during battle, so players don't really need to keep a running total. I'd rather my players be focussing on their characters actions, based on the intensity of the situation, rather than the maths.
I appreciate that can be tricky in big battles with heaps going on, but I never want to rely on players to provide information that I should know, such as current hit point totals.
I also wouldn´t share any monster stat information that the characters couldn´t possibly know. Though I am generous with descriptive flavour, trying to give them hints in battle as to what does what or not. Also I think there is a Fighter/Battlemaster ability that does actually make the DM give up some monster stat information (comparatively from character perspective), which would vote for NOT giving up such information for free, or else you make the ability worthless.
- Kyle, who wouldn´t want to take the fun out of it -
I think giving the stats word for word completely detracts from the game. With this approach you might as well just be playing a board game. If this is your intention or this is what the players prefer that... then sure I guess... But at one point you might as well just play one of the DnD Board Games (ie Wrath of Ashardalon etc...).
Ideally you make players work for additional info. Making insight checks, perception, history. Give them cues that they can figure out that the creature has resistance.
This is of course my opinion. If you find yourself bogged down with trash mobs, then half way through a one sided fight just declare through narrative that the party does away with the rest of the goblins or whatever and move on. Ideally the encounter is built in such a way that you don't have a plethora of pointless of grinding fights that the player don't really care about.