When your players deal a type of damage against an opponent that is resistant or immune to that damage type, what do you tell your players happens?
For immunities, I tell my players "It doesn't look like it had any effect" and for resistance I tell them "It doesn't look like it did as much as you would have expected it to do."
But my players keep trying the same thing so... I'm not sure if saying "They're immune/resistant to [damage]." is too explicit or if there's a more clever way to do it.
I focus less on what the visual impact of the player's action is, and more on what the targeted creature's reaction is.
I tend not to say "It doesn't look like your attack was as effective as you thought it would be" because that can be interpreted by the player as "I didn't roll well enough" or "Well, they must have a lot more base HP than I thought 'cause that move usually cripples people quickly". Most people get it right away, but not everyone. 🤷♂️
What I prefer to say is something like "The target is unfazed by your attack" or something similar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Are they newer players, or unfamiliar with resistant/immune? Could be you need to explain the concept to them.
Or it could be they understand and don’t care, as least in the case of resistance. If they’ve only got fire spells prepared, not much they can do no matter how fire resistant the enemy is.
I did, “As his blade passes through the creature you notice that the creature’s flesh closes up behind the blade as it passes through leaving a scar, almost as if it healed instantly. The creature winces in pain and attacks.”
They got the message that it was resistant to non magical weapon attacks.
IF they're less experienced players and don't get the hint, just go for "you've attacked this creature enough that you realize it takes no (or 50%) damage from this type of attack."
I focus less on what the visual impact of the player's action is, and more on what the targeted creature's reaction is.
I tend not to say "It doesn't look like your attack was as effective as you thought it would be" because that can be interpreted by the player as "I didn't roll well enough" or "Well, they must have a lot more base HP than I thought 'cause that move usually cripples people quickly". Most people get it right away, but not everyone. 🤷♂️
What I prefer to say is something like "The target is unfazed by your attack" or something similar.
I find that saying that the target is unfazed is more likely to be interpreted as not rolling well enough or having more HP. Saying that it isn't as effective as you thought it would be is almost always interpreted as resistance in my experience.
All good ideas. There is nothing wrong with saying it has resistance or immunity, but you can do it in a more flavorful way. You can also hint that the roll was good enough to bypass AC or that the monster failed their saving throw in your description. As Sigred said, don't be afraid to explain how the creature reacts (or doesn't react, just as effective) to the attack.
"Your Fire Bolt hits the Succubus directly in the chest, but as the flash of flame dissipates you see that the burns from your spell are superficial at best. It turns to you and scoffs. 'Fire?' it snarls. 'You'll need to do better than that.'"
"Your Fireball explodes among the group of Imps. You hear them cackling with mirth before the flames even fade. You then see them dancing around gleefully, blackened by soot but otherwise none the worse for wear."
Do your best to make it fun and descriptive, but it can be hard to think of things on the fly, so if you can't just say something like "Your attack certainly connected, but it didn't seem to faze/damage the target very much/at all." This simple statement shows them their attack successfully hit, but didn't deal damage as it should. As Lunali said this may be confused with the target having a lot of HP, but the context of what they're fighting (if they understand what they're fighting, at least) should point them in the direction.
Just try not to make it ambiguous as to whether or not their attack actually landed. As others stated, if they're new you may need to explain what resistance/immunity is, and they should pick up these clues after they understand.
As Maestrino said, if all else fails, tell the player what their characters think. Perhaps the lamest way of doing it, but saying "Based on the results of that attack, you think fire doesn't have much of an effect on these creatures" should get it across. I would wait until the 2nd or 3rd time they try the same damage type against the enemy before doing this approach, though.
My opinion is that if you think the players literally do not understand what immunities and resistances are, it is perfectly reasonable to step out of character for one second to explain that the enemy took no damage/less damage due to one of these factors -- either in the moment or after the session is over. If they do know what those things are and simply aren't "getting the hint," I think your manner of handling it is fine and would cause most players to figure it out pretty quickly. In that case I don't think it is strictly necessary for the characters to always instantly notice and understand that an enemy has an immunity or resistance, because it is realistic that in some occasions a person would figure this out sooner than other times based upon how the individual enemy reacted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When your players deal a type of damage against an opponent that is resistant or immune to that damage type, what do you tell your players happens?
For immunities, I tell my players "It doesn't look like it had any effect" and for resistance I tell them "It doesn't look like it did as much as you would have expected it to do."
But my players keep trying the same thing so... I'm not sure if saying "They're immune/resistant to [damage]." is too explicit or if there's a more clever way to do it.
I just say, "It doesn't seem like that attack did as much damage as you would have expected it to," and they get the hint right away.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I focus less on what the visual impact of the player's action is, and more on what the targeted creature's reaction is.
I tend not to say "It doesn't look like your attack was as effective as you thought it would be" because that can be interpreted by the player as "I didn't roll well enough" or "Well, they must have a lot more base HP than I thought 'cause that move usually cripples people quickly". Most people get it right away, but not everyone. 🤷♂️
What I prefer to say is something like "The target is unfazed by your attack" or something similar.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Are they newer players, or unfamiliar with resistant/immune? Could be you need to explain the concept to them.
Or it could be they understand and don’t care, as least in the case of resistance. If they’ve only got fire spells prepared, not much they can do no matter how fire resistant the enemy is.
I did, “As his blade passes through the creature you notice that the creature’s flesh closes up behind the blade as it passes through leaving a scar, almost as if it healed instantly. The creature winces in pain and attacks.”
They got the message that it was resistant to non magical weapon attacks.
Professional computer geek
IF they're less experienced players and don't get the hint, just go for "you've attacked this creature enough that you realize it takes no (or 50%) damage from this type of attack."
I find that saying that the target is unfazed is more likely to be interpreted as not rolling well enough or having more HP. Saying that it isn't as effective as you thought it would be is almost always interpreted as resistance in my experience.
All good ideas. There is nothing wrong with saying it has resistance or immunity, but you can do it in a more flavorful way. You can also hint that the roll was good enough to bypass AC or that the monster failed their saving throw in your description. As Sigred said, don't be afraid to explain how the creature reacts (or doesn't react, just as effective) to the attack.
"Your Fire Bolt hits the Succubus directly in the chest, but as the flash of flame dissipates you see that the burns from your spell are superficial at best. It turns to you and scoffs. 'Fire?' it snarls. 'You'll need to do better than that.'"
"Your Fireball explodes among the group of Imps. You hear them cackling with mirth before the flames even fade. You then see them dancing around gleefully, blackened by soot but otherwise none the worse for wear."
Do your best to make it fun and descriptive, but it can be hard to think of things on the fly, so if you can't just say something like "Your attack certainly connected, but it didn't seem to faze/damage the target very much/at all." This simple statement shows them their attack successfully hit, but didn't deal damage as it should. As Lunali said this may be confused with the target having a lot of HP, but the context of what they're fighting (if they understand what they're fighting, at least) should point them in the direction.
Just try not to make it ambiguous as to whether or not their attack actually landed. As others stated, if they're new you may need to explain what resistance/immunity is, and they should pick up these clues after they understand.
As Maestrino said, if all else fails, tell the player what their characters think. Perhaps the lamest way of doing it, but saying "Based on the results of that attack, you think fire doesn't have much of an effect on these creatures" should get it across. I would wait until the 2nd or 3rd time they try the same damage type against the enemy before doing this approach, though.
My opinion is that if you think the players literally do not understand what immunities and resistances are, it is perfectly reasonable to step out of character for one second to explain that the enemy took no damage/less damage due to one of these factors -- either in the moment or after the session is over. If they do know what those things are and simply aren't "getting the hint," I think your manner of handling it is fine and would cause most players to figure it out pretty quickly. In that case I don't think it is strictly necessary for the characters to always instantly notice and understand that an enemy has an immunity or resistance, because it is realistic that in some occasions a person would figure this out sooner than other times based upon how the individual enemy reacted.