Damage Descriptors Support

i would like to see this ability but i would not like it to be auto applied to spells/weps as if you are familiar with cnc the reason why there are no listed damage types is because its up to the CK and the player to determine how they are using their weapon and such. So the ability to add damage types and resistance would be nice but the ability to add it to spells, items and such ourselves i think fits the spirit of the system better.

Damage types absolutely need to be added. There is no point from a VTT perspective having something vulnerable to resistant to a type of damage (i.e. bludgeoning or fire) when the ruleset fights against the CK in utilizing this benefit or weakness. After the player has rolled damage and knows the amount, it's clumsy to go and do a manual adjustment. This also breaks the 4th wall where now the player knows aha... there's something here to take advantage of, or to change my approach to minimize the negative - when the character wouldn't necessarily know. Face-to-face across a physical table, the CK can handle this invisibly behind his/her screens... on a VTT the guts of the ruleset need to support the CK, not fight his efforts to run a smooth session.
Also, TLG isn't providing this ruleset in a vacuum; they have other rulesets for similar games (we all know which those are, no need to mention specifically) that already do this and do it well; so you're potentially pushing people away from your product if they want this feature. Heck, make it a settings toggle - best of both worlds.

I absolutely agree with this. I'm currently dealing with this same issue in another ruleset. I can't tell you how cumbersome it was to go in and manually subtract damage from the attack because the baddie is resistant to/takes half damage from pierce and slash.

In a face-to-face environment, this really isn't an issue as I usually know/am friends with the people at my table. However, online gaming doesn't necessarily have that luxury. So if the player sees only a limited amount of damage from their attack, they know that either there is a resistance to the attack at play (in which their character may not know/metagame), or that the CK is lowering the damage, which may (or may not) lead to CK trust issues. If you have specifically made creatures vulnerable to a type of attack, or resistant to a type of attack, and you do not account for that in the ruleset, that is a huge disconnect for me and shows that the ruleset on FG isn't "finished", as it doesn't handle a game rule. If that's the case, there are other OSR style rulesets that are feature rich that I can run the same adventure in. I have been a player in C&C since 2016, and 99% of this has been online. If we start to have CKs that leave the ruleset for "greener pastures", then the ruleset begins to lose market share, and before too long we have a ruleset that doesn't receive updates in a timely fashion when FG updates, etc. I absolutely love C&C. Please make sure that the ruleset handles basic ruleset functions, such as 1/2 damage or resistance to damage types. Otherwise, the annoyance of having to manually do this will drive me away from the ruleset when others that I can run the adventure with handle it well.

I echo JohnD's comment -- "Make it configurable" whether the rules automatically add it or if the CK must manually add it that way everybody gets it the way they like it!

Personally I'd go with automatically-added configuration myself.