Mixing
Is this houserule preventing effects from dropping creatures to below 1 HP if they make their save exploitable or broken?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
I'm playing with the idea of adding a new house-rule to my sandbox-style game.
The rule is as follows:
If you succeed on a saving throw against an effect, that effect cannot make you drop below 1 hp.
I am hoping this will eliminate situations where an injured player rolls a 20 against a Dragon's breath weapon and then just goes down anyway because the half-damage eliminates them. In more extreme situations, it makes it so you don't instantly die with no chance if you anger a creature too powerful to defeat because the half damage might instantly kill you.
I also hope it encourages tactics both for monsters and players when dealing with a group of weaker enemies. According to the design principles, a large group of weaker creatures should remain a credible threat, but when a lightning bolt 100% takes out a whole line of them, regardless of their rolls or their cover (which is supposed to protect you from just that spell) that just isn't true anymore. With this rule, Goblins behind cover or who have advantage on the roll actually have a chance of surviving (with 1 hp, but at least they'll remain a threat). It will make these spells potent but not certain death.
However, I'd like to hear if anyone has tried this rule before, or sees any situations where this would be exploitable, broken, or "not fun".
dnd-5e house-rules saving-throw hit-points
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
I'm playing with the idea of adding a new house-rule to my sandbox-style game.
The rule is as follows:
If you succeed on a saving throw against an effect, that effect cannot make you drop below 1 hp.
I am hoping this will eliminate situations where an injured player rolls a 20 against a Dragon's breath weapon and then just goes down anyway because the half-damage eliminates them. In more extreme situations, it makes it so you don't instantly die with no chance if you anger a creature too powerful to defeat because the half damage might instantly kill you.
I also hope it encourages tactics both for monsters and players when dealing with a group of weaker enemies. According to the design principles, a large group of weaker creatures should remain a credible threat, but when a lightning bolt 100% takes out a whole line of them, regardless of their rolls or their cover (which is supposed to protect you from just that spell) that just isn't true anymore. With this rule, Goblins behind cover or who have advantage on the roll actually have a chance of surviving (with 1 hp, but at least they'll remain a threat). It will make these spells potent but not certain death.
However, I'd like to hear if anyone has tried this rule before, or sees any situations where this would be exploitable, broken, or "not fun".
dnd-5e house-rules saving-throw hit-points
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
1
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
yesterday
6
How would this rule work for someone currently at 1 HP that makes their save? Would they take no damage?
– Rubiksmoose
22 hours ago
4
What problem are you trying to solve using this new rule? Can this problem be solved using existing rules?
– enkryptor
21 hours ago
1
Why this is a problem? Seems pretty normal to me. Do players complain?
– enkryptor
19 hours ago
4
The game rules work as intended. If you want to change them for some reason, perhaps you should talk to the players first. There might be an XY problem, or maybe there is no real problem at all. "me being annoyed when planning interesting encounters" — maybe you should ask a separate question about the problem situation, something like "how to make this encounter not to be prone to aoe spells". This might be a problem of the encounter design itself, not the rules.
– enkryptor
18 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
I'm playing with the idea of adding a new house-rule to my sandbox-style game.
The rule is as follows:
If you succeed on a saving throw against an effect, that effect cannot make you drop below 1 hp.
I am hoping this will eliminate situations where an injured player rolls a 20 against a Dragon's breath weapon and then just goes down anyway because the half-damage eliminates them. In more extreme situations, it makes it so you don't instantly die with no chance if you anger a creature too powerful to defeat because the half damage might instantly kill you.
I also hope it encourages tactics both for monsters and players when dealing with a group of weaker enemies. According to the design principles, a large group of weaker creatures should remain a credible threat, but when a lightning bolt 100% takes out a whole line of them, regardless of their rolls or their cover (which is supposed to protect you from just that spell) that just isn't true anymore. With this rule, Goblins behind cover or who have advantage on the roll actually have a chance of surviving (with 1 hp, but at least they'll remain a threat). It will make these spells potent but not certain death.
However, I'd like to hear if anyone has tried this rule before, or sees any situations where this would be exploitable, broken, or "not fun".
dnd-5e house-rules saving-throw hit-points
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
I'm playing with the idea of adding a new house-rule to my sandbox-style game.
The rule is as follows:
If you succeed on a saving throw against an effect, that effect cannot make you drop below 1 hp.
I am hoping this will eliminate situations where an injured player rolls a 20 against a Dragon's breath weapon and then just goes down anyway because the half-damage eliminates them. In more extreme situations, it makes it so you don't instantly die with no chance if you anger a creature too powerful to defeat because the half damage might instantly kill you.
I also hope it encourages tactics both for monsters and players when dealing with a group of weaker enemies. According to the design principles, a large group of weaker creatures should remain a credible threat, but when a lightning bolt 100% takes out a whole line of them, regardless of their rolls or their cover (which is supposed to protect you from just that spell) that just isn't true anymore. With this rule, Goblins behind cover or who have advantage on the roll actually have a chance of surviving (with 1 hp, but at least they'll remain a threat). It will make these spells potent but not certain death.
However, I'd like to hear if anyone has tried this rule before, or sees any situations where this would be exploitable, broken, or "not fun".
dnd-5e house-rules saving-throw hit-points
dnd-5e house-rules saving-throw hit-points
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
edited 19 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
37.8k5189291
37.8k5189291
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
asked yesterday
Erik
41.1k11141213
41.1k11141213
1
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
yesterday
6
How would this rule work for someone currently at 1 HP that makes their save? Would they take no damage?
– Rubiksmoose
22 hours ago
4
What problem are you trying to solve using this new rule? Can this problem be solved using existing rules?
– enkryptor
21 hours ago
1
Why this is a problem? Seems pretty normal to me. Do players complain?
– enkryptor
19 hours ago
4
The game rules work as intended. If you want to change them for some reason, perhaps you should talk to the players first. There might be an XY problem, or maybe there is no real problem at all. "me being annoyed when planning interesting encounters" — maybe you should ask a separate question about the problem situation, something like "how to make this encounter not to be prone to aoe spells". This might be a problem of the encounter design itself, not the rules.
– enkryptor
18 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
yesterday
6
How would this rule work for someone currently at 1 HP that makes their save? Would they take no damage?
– Rubiksmoose
22 hours ago
4
What problem are you trying to solve using this new rule? Can this problem be solved using existing rules?
– enkryptor
21 hours ago
1
Why this is a problem? Seems pretty normal to me. Do players complain?
– enkryptor
19 hours ago
4
The game rules work as intended. If you want to change them for some reason, perhaps you should talk to the players first. There might be an XY problem, or maybe there is no real problem at all. "me being annoyed when planning interesting encounters" — maybe you should ask a separate question about the problem situation, something like "how to make this encounter not to be prone to aoe spells". This might be a problem of the encounter design itself, not the rules.
– enkryptor
18 hours ago
1
1
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
yesterday
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
yesterday
6
6
How would this rule work for someone currently at 1 HP that makes their save? Would they take no damage?
– Rubiksmoose
22 hours ago
How would this rule work for someone currently at 1 HP that makes their save? Would they take no damage?
– Rubiksmoose
22 hours ago
4
4
What problem are you trying to solve using this new rule? Can this problem be solved using existing rules?
– enkryptor
21 hours ago
What problem are you trying to solve using this new rule? Can this problem be solved using existing rules?
– enkryptor
21 hours ago
1
1
Why this is a problem? Seems pretty normal to me. Do players complain?
– enkryptor
19 hours ago
Why this is a problem? Seems pretty normal to me. Do players complain?
– enkryptor
19 hours ago
4
4
The game rules work as intended. If you want to change them for some reason, perhaps you should talk to the players first. There might be an XY problem, or maybe there is no real problem at all. "me being annoyed when planning interesting encounters" — maybe you should ask a separate question about the problem situation, something like "how to make this encounter not to be prone to aoe spells". This might be a problem of the encounter design itself, not the rules.
– enkryptor
18 hours ago
The game rules work as intended. If you want to change them for some reason, perhaps you should talk to the players first. There might be an XY problem, or maybe there is no real problem at all. "me being annoyed when planning interesting encounters" — maybe you should ask a separate question about the problem situation, something like "how to make this encounter not to be prone to aoe spells". This might be a problem of the encounter design itself, not the rules.
– enkryptor
18 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
53
down vote
This is going to be a poor idea
As other answers point out, this is going to make save-targetting spells significantly weaker, but there's also another problem you might not have thought about.
Being at 1 HP is more dangerous than being downed against big threats
This is going to leave a lot of players in combat running around with exactly 1 HP, which is prime instant-death territory. Most monsters are perfectly okay with letting a character make death saving throws to stabilize themselves, but they're not quite so okay with being stabbed in the back. (citation needed)
Example:
Bob the Dragon does his breath attack on Billy. Billy has a max HP of 35. The dragon deals 60 damage, but Billy succeeded on his save, so he only takes 30. That's still enough to down Billy who already took a beating from a Goblin earlier, but instead of going down, he's now at 1 HP.
That won't do, so the next turn Bob swipes at him and gets a crit. He deals 38 damage in one hit, enough to instantly kill Billy.
This will be even more obvious at lower levels, where succeeding your save against a spell might leave you standing at 1 HP next to an ogre who can one-shot kill you now even without a crit.
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
3
How is being downed better than 1hp?
– Mazura
19 hours ago
8
@Mazura Because when down, you're not typically a target because you're not a threat. This gives you time and chances be stabilized (hopefully when the threat is neutralized or farther away). You're a lot more likely to be targeted and potentially 1-hit killed at 1hp than you are at 0hp.
– Mwr247
19 hours ago
1
@Mwr247 If the enemy is behaving like that, can't you fall down and play dead and not be targeted?
– Mark Wells
13 hours ago
1
@MarkWells yes you can (roll a deception check)
– RedTera
10 hours ago
I think that this answer could be improved by incorporating @Mwr247's comment above to explain in more detail why being downed is better than 1 HP. I also think it might be really good to talk about the fact that as currently written 1HP characters who make a save take no damage at all which is 1) really weird considering that at any other HP they would take damage and 2) essentially makes any strong AOE a save or die spell with instadeath.
– Rubiksmoose
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
26
down vote
It'll significantly weaken save-targeting spells
The difference between zero hit points and one hit point is huge, far greater than the difference between one and two hit points. For every monster that survives with one hit point, your PCs need to hit it with a normal attack (or gamble again with a save-able spell) to kill it, and before one of your PCs succeeds, the enemies will fight back with full-powered attacks. You'll be facing longer combats, especially when fighting monsters who have poor HP but high AC (at low levels, hobgoblins are a typical example).
It's noteworthy that this change introduces new weirdness of its own: characters weakened to 1 hp not dying to a repeated casting of a powerful area spell is, in my opinion, worse than cover or Advantage not mattering.
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
Honestly, I think you might want to stress your second paragraph a bit more. The fact that this rule would make players at 1 HP invincible against AOEs if they keep making their saves is a really big deal IMO.
– Rubiksmoose
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can do more damage every round than a 13th level wizard once per day with Finger of Death.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so blasters are even further behind as they seem by the numbers.
What blasters have left is being effective against larger groups of weaker monsters, and your house rule would take even that away from them.
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I would suggest modifying the rule to, let's say: No damage if save exceeds DC + 5.
Otherwise, I see 2 problems:
Shield Master feat becomes less powerful. With it, you can use a reaction to negate damage from dex save where you would have received only half damage.- These spells would have a very different impact on whether the character has 1 or many HPs.
Alternatively, you could say that the damage on save must exceed characters constitution + remaining hp to get them to 0hp.
For example, our character has 4hp and +3 con bonus and gets hit with a spell for 10 total damage. He succeeds the save so he should only receive 5 damage. It is more than our remaining hp but less than remaining hp + con bonus (4+3=7) so character remains alive with 1hp. On the next hit, he again succeeds and again gets hit with 10/2 damage. This time, remaining hp + con bonus is 4, which is less than 5 so the character does fall unconscious.
This approach would be less OP, but zombies with undead resilience would feel cheated :D
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This seems considerably more complex than my original idea. And it's not going to help very often.
– Erik
yesterday
1
I think the first line of this is a good idea provided it's restricted to occurring only when you're at 1 HP as it's pretty straightforward to implement. I concur with Erik that you might be making things very complicated with the second proposal.
– Pyrotechnical
yesterday
1
Andris, have you tried this or are you brainstorming here?
– KorvinStarmast
23 hours ago
@KorvinStarmast Brainstorming mostly. It's hard enough to kill my party without these house rules :D. Also, I agree with everyone that the second approach is too complex.
– Andris Bremanis
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In addition to what others have said, I can see this being "unfun" because it takes away from the classes that get Evasion. This rule would give everyone a weird form of that class feature.
It is stronger than Evasion because:
- It applies against every type of saving throw.
- It doesn't use up a class feature.
It is weaker than Evasion because:
- Failed saves still cause full damage.
- Successful saves still cause a reduction in HP (unless at 1 HP already).
Also, it would also cause any spells that improve saving throws much more powerful.
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
53
down vote
This is going to be a poor idea
As other answers point out, this is going to make save-targetting spells significantly weaker, but there's also another problem you might not have thought about.
Being at 1 HP is more dangerous than being downed against big threats
This is going to leave a lot of players in combat running around with exactly 1 HP, which is prime instant-death territory. Most monsters are perfectly okay with letting a character make death saving throws to stabilize themselves, but they're not quite so okay with being stabbed in the back. (citation needed)
Example:
Bob the Dragon does his breath attack on Billy. Billy has a max HP of 35. The dragon deals 60 damage, but Billy succeeded on his save, so he only takes 30. That's still enough to down Billy who already took a beating from a Goblin earlier, but instead of going down, he's now at 1 HP.
That won't do, so the next turn Bob swipes at him and gets a crit. He deals 38 damage in one hit, enough to instantly kill Billy.
This will be even more obvious at lower levels, where succeeding your save against a spell might leave you standing at 1 HP next to an ogre who can one-shot kill you now even without a crit.
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
3
How is being downed better than 1hp?
– Mazura
19 hours ago
8
@Mazura Because when down, you're not typically a target because you're not a threat. This gives you time and chances be stabilized (hopefully when the threat is neutralized or farther away). You're a lot more likely to be targeted and potentially 1-hit killed at 1hp than you are at 0hp.
– Mwr247
19 hours ago
1
@Mwr247 If the enemy is behaving like that, can't you fall down and play dead and not be targeted?
– Mark Wells
13 hours ago
1
@MarkWells yes you can (roll a deception check)
– RedTera
10 hours ago
I think that this answer could be improved by incorporating @Mwr247's comment above to explain in more detail why being downed is better than 1 HP. I also think it might be really good to talk about the fact that as currently written 1HP characters who make a save take no damage at all which is 1) really weird considering that at any other HP they would take damage and 2) essentially makes any strong AOE a save or die spell with instadeath.
– Rubiksmoose
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
53
down vote
This is going to be a poor idea
As other answers point out, this is going to make save-targetting spells significantly weaker, but there's also another problem you might not have thought about.
Being at 1 HP is more dangerous than being downed against big threats
This is going to leave a lot of players in combat running around with exactly 1 HP, which is prime instant-death territory. Most monsters are perfectly okay with letting a character make death saving throws to stabilize themselves, but they're not quite so okay with being stabbed in the back. (citation needed)
Example:
Bob the Dragon does his breath attack on Billy. Billy has a max HP of 35. The dragon deals 60 damage, but Billy succeeded on his save, so he only takes 30. That's still enough to down Billy who already took a beating from a Goblin earlier, but instead of going down, he's now at 1 HP.
That won't do, so the next turn Bob swipes at him and gets a crit. He deals 38 damage in one hit, enough to instantly kill Billy.
This will be even more obvious at lower levels, where succeeding your save against a spell might leave you standing at 1 HP next to an ogre who can one-shot kill you now even without a crit.
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
3
How is being downed better than 1hp?
– Mazura
19 hours ago
8
@Mazura Because when down, you're not typically a target because you're not a threat. This gives you time and chances be stabilized (hopefully when the threat is neutralized or farther away). You're a lot more likely to be targeted and potentially 1-hit killed at 1hp than you are at 0hp.
– Mwr247
19 hours ago
1
@Mwr247 If the enemy is behaving like that, can't you fall down and play dead and not be targeted?
– Mark Wells
13 hours ago
1
@MarkWells yes you can (roll a deception check)
– RedTera
10 hours ago
I think that this answer could be improved by incorporating @Mwr247's comment above to explain in more detail why being downed is better than 1 HP. I also think it might be really good to talk about the fact that as currently written 1HP characters who make a save take no damage at all which is 1) really weird considering that at any other HP they would take damage and 2) essentially makes any strong AOE a save or die spell with instadeath.
– Rubiksmoose
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
53
down vote
up vote
53
down vote
This is going to be a poor idea
As other answers point out, this is going to make save-targetting spells significantly weaker, but there's also another problem you might not have thought about.
Being at 1 HP is more dangerous than being downed against big threats
This is going to leave a lot of players in combat running around with exactly 1 HP, which is prime instant-death territory. Most monsters are perfectly okay with letting a character make death saving throws to stabilize themselves, but they're not quite so okay with being stabbed in the back. (citation needed)
Example:
Bob the Dragon does his breath attack on Billy. Billy has a max HP of 35. The dragon deals 60 damage, but Billy succeeded on his save, so he only takes 30. That's still enough to down Billy who already took a beating from a Goblin earlier, but instead of going down, he's now at 1 HP.
That won't do, so the next turn Bob swipes at him and gets a crit. He deals 38 damage in one hit, enough to instantly kill Billy.
This will be even more obvious at lower levels, where succeeding your save against a spell might leave you standing at 1 HP next to an ogre who can one-shot kill you now even without a crit.
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
This is going to be a poor idea
As other answers point out, this is going to make save-targetting spells significantly weaker, but there's also another problem you might not have thought about.
Being at 1 HP is more dangerous than being downed against big threats
This is going to leave a lot of players in combat running around with exactly 1 HP, which is prime instant-death territory. Most monsters are perfectly okay with letting a character make death saving throws to stabilize themselves, but they're not quite so okay with being stabbed in the back. (citation needed)
Example:
Bob the Dragon does his breath attack on Billy. Billy has a max HP of 35. The dragon deals 60 damage, but Billy succeeded on his save, so he only takes 30. That's still enough to down Billy who already took a beating from a Goblin earlier, but instead of going down, he's now at 1 HP.
That won't do, so the next turn Bob swipes at him and gets a crit. He deals 38 damage in one hit, enough to instantly kill Billy.
This will be even more obvious at lower levels, where succeeding your save against a spell might leave you standing at 1 HP next to an ogre who can one-shot kill you now even without a crit.
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
edited 22 hours ago
Cyberspark
43428
43428
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
answered yesterday
Theik
7,6012951
7,6012951
3
How is being downed better than 1hp?
– Mazura
19 hours ago
8
@Mazura Because when down, you're not typically a target because you're not a threat. This gives you time and chances be stabilized (hopefully when the threat is neutralized or farther away). You're a lot more likely to be targeted and potentially 1-hit killed at 1hp than you are at 0hp.
– Mwr247
19 hours ago
1
@Mwr247 If the enemy is behaving like that, can't you fall down and play dead and not be targeted?
– Mark Wells
13 hours ago
1
@MarkWells yes you can (roll a deception check)
– RedTera
10 hours ago
I think that this answer could be improved by incorporating @Mwr247's comment above to explain in more detail why being downed is better than 1 HP. I also think it might be really good to talk about the fact that as currently written 1HP characters who make a save take no damage at all which is 1) really weird considering that at any other HP they would take damage and 2) essentially makes any strong AOE a save or die spell with instadeath.
– Rubiksmoose
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3
How is being downed better than 1hp?
– Mazura
19 hours ago
8
@Mazura Because when down, you're not typically a target because you're not a threat. This gives you time and chances be stabilized (hopefully when the threat is neutralized or farther away). You're a lot more likely to be targeted and potentially 1-hit killed at 1hp than you are at 0hp.
– Mwr247
19 hours ago
1
@Mwr247 If the enemy is behaving like that, can't you fall down and play dead and not be targeted?
– Mark Wells
13 hours ago
1
@MarkWells yes you can (roll a deception check)
– RedTera
10 hours ago
I think that this answer could be improved by incorporating @Mwr247's comment above to explain in more detail why being downed is better than 1 HP. I also think it might be really good to talk about the fact that as currently written 1HP characters who make a save take no damage at all which is 1) really weird considering that at any other HP they would take damage and 2) essentially makes any strong AOE a save or die spell with instadeath.
– Rubiksmoose
23 mins ago
3
3
How is being downed better than 1hp?
– Mazura
19 hours ago
How is being downed better than 1hp?
– Mazura
19 hours ago
8
8
@Mazura Because when down, you're not typically a target because you're not a threat. This gives you time and chances be stabilized (hopefully when the threat is neutralized or farther away). You're a lot more likely to be targeted and potentially 1-hit killed at 1hp than you are at 0hp.
– Mwr247
19 hours ago
@Mazura Because when down, you're not typically a target because you're not a threat. This gives you time and chances be stabilized (hopefully when the threat is neutralized or farther away). You're a lot more likely to be targeted and potentially 1-hit killed at 1hp than you are at 0hp.
– Mwr247
19 hours ago
1
1
@Mwr247 If the enemy is behaving like that, can't you fall down and play dead and not be targeted?
– Mark Wells
13 hours ago
@Mwr247 If the enemy is behaving like that, can't you fall down and play dead and not be targeted?
– Mark Wells
13 hours ago
1
1
@MarkWells yes you can (roll a deception check)
– RedTera
10 hours ago
@MarkWells yes you can (roll a deception check)
– RedTera
10 hours ago
I think that this answer could be improved by incorporating @Mwr247's comment above to explain in more detail why being downed is better than 1 HP. I also think it might be really good to talk about the fact that as currently written 1HP characters who make a save take no damage at all which is 1) really weird considering that at any other HP they would take damage and 2) essentially makes any strong AOE a save or die spell with instadeath.
– Rubiksmoose
23 mins ago
I think that this answer could be improved by incorporating @Mwr247's comment above to explain in more detail why being downed is better than 1 HP. I also think it might be really good to talk about the fact that as currently written 1HP characters who make a save take no damage at all which is 1) really weird considering that at any other HP they would take damage and 2) essentially makes any strong AOE a save or die spell with instadeath.
– Rubiksmoose
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
26
down vote
It'll significantly weaken save-targeting spells
The difference between zero hit points and one hit point is huge, far greater than the difference between one and two hit points. For every monster that survives with one hit point, your PCs need to hit it with a normal attack (or gamble again with a save-able spell) to kill it, and before one of your PCs succeeds, the enemies will fight back with full-powered attacks. You'll be facing longer combats, especially when fighting monsters who have poor HP but high AC (at low levels, hobgoblins are a typical example).
It's noteworthy that this change introduces new weirdness of its own: characters weakened to 1 hp not dying to a repeated casting of a powerful area spell is, in my opinion, worse than cover or Advantage not mattering.
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
Honestly, I think you might want to stress your second paragraph a bit more. The fact that this rule would make players at 1 HP invincible against AOEs if they keep making their saves is a really big deal IMO.
– Rubiksmoose
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
26
down vote
It'll significantly weaken save-targeting spells
The difference between zero hit points and one hit point is huge, far greater than the difference between one and two hit points. For every monster that survives with one hit point, your PCs need to hit it with a normal attack (or gamble again with a save-able spell) to kill it, and before one of your PCs succeeds, the enemies will fight back with full-powered attacks. You'll be facing longer combats, especially when fighting monsters who have poor HP but high AC (at low levels, hobgoblins are a typical example).
It's noteworthy that this change introduces new weirdness of its own: characters weakened to 1 hp not dying to a repeated casting of a powerful area spell is, in my opinion, worse than cover or Advantage not mattering.
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
Honestly, I think you might want to stress your second paragraph a bit more. The fact that this rule would make players at 1 HP invincible against AOEs if they keep making their saves is a really big deal IMO.
– Rubiksmoose
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
26
down vote
up vote
26
down vote
It'll significantly weaken save-targeting spells
The difference between zero hit points and one hit point is huge, far greater than the difference between one and two hit points. For every monster that survives with one hit point, your PCs need to hit it with a normal attack (or gamble again with a save-able spell) to kill it, and before one of your PCs succeeds, the enemies will fight back with full-powered attacks. You'll be facing longer combats, especially when fighting monsters who have poor HP but high AC (at low levels, hobgoblins are a typical example).
It's noteworthy that this change introduces new weirdness of its own: characters weakened to 1 hp not dying to a repeated casting of a powerful area spell is, in my opinion, worse than cover or Advantage not mattering.
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
It'll significantly weaken save-targeting spells
The difference between zero hit points and one hit point is huge, far greater than the difference between one and two hit points. For every monster that survives with one hit point, your PCs need to hit it with a normal attack (or gamble again with a save-able spell) to kill it, and before one of your PCs succeeds, the enemies will fight back with full-powered attacks. You'll be facing longer combats, especially when fighting monsters who have poor HP but high AC (at low levels, hobgoblins are a typical example).
It's noteworthy that this change introduces new weirdness of its own: characters weakened to 1 hp not dying to a repeated casting of a powerful area spell is, in my opinion, worse than cover or Advantage not mattering.
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
answered yesterday
kviiri
28.8k6108174
28.8k6108174
Honestly, I think you might want to stress your second paragraph a bit more. The fact that this rule would make players at 1 HP invincible against AOEs if they keep making their saves is a really big deal IMO.
– Rubiksmoose
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Honestly, I think you might want to stress your second paragraph a bit more. The fact that this rule would make players at 1 HP invincible against AOEs if they keep making their saves is a really big deal IMO.
– Rubiksmoose
30 mins ago
Honestly, I think you might want to stress your second paragraph a bit more. The fact that this rule would make players at 1 HP invincible against AOEs if they keep making their saves is a really big deal IMO.
– Rubiksmoose
30 mins ago
Honestly, I think you might want to stress your second paragraph a bit more. The fact that this rule would make players at 1 HP invincible against AOEs if they keep making their saves is a really big deal IMO.
– Rubiksmoose
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can do more damage every round than a 13th level wizard once per day with Finger of Death.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so blasters are even further behind as they seem by the numbers.
What blasters have left is being effective against larger groups of weaker monsters, and your house rule would take even that away from them.
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can do more damage every round than a 13th level wizard once per day with Finger of Death.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so blasters are even further behind as they seem by the numbers.
What blasters have left is being effective against larger groups of weaker monsters, and your house rule would take even that away from them.
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can do more damage every round than a 13th level wizard once per day with Finger of Death.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so blasters are even further behind as they seem by the numbers.
What blasters have left is being effective against larger groups of weaker monsters, and your house rule would take even that away from them.
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can do more damage every round than a 13th level wizard once per day with Finger of Death.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so blasters are even further behind as they seem by the numbers.
What blasters have left is being effective against larger groups of weaker monsters, and your house rule would take even that away from them.
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
edited 23 hours ago
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
András
22.9k883171
22.9k883171
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I would suggest modifying the rule to, let's say: No damage if save exceeds DC + 5.
Otherwise, I see 2 problems:
Shield Master feat becomes less powerful. With it, you can use a reaction to negate damage from dex save where you would have received only half damage.- These spells would have a very different impact on whether the character has 1 or many HPs.
Alternatively, you could say that the damage on save must exceed characters constitution + remaining hp to get them to 0hp.
For example, our character has 4hp and +3 con bonus and gets hit with a spell for 10 total damage. He succeeds the save so he should only receive 5 damage. It is more than our remaining hp but less than remaining hp + con bonus (4+3=7) so character remains alive with 1hp. On the next hit, he again succeeds and again gets hit with 10/2 damage. This time, remaining hp + con bonus is 4, which is less than 5 so the character does fall unconscious.
This approach would be less OP, but zombies with undead resilience would feel cheated :D
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This seems considerably more complex than my original idea. And it's not going to help very often.
– Erik
yesterday
1
I think the first line of this is a good idea provided it's restricted to occurring only when you're at 1 HP as it's pretty straightforward to implement. I concur with Erik that you might be making things very complicated with the second proposal.
– Pyrotechnical
yesterday
1
Andris, have you tried this or are you brainstorming here?
– KorvinStarmast
23 hours ago
@KorvinStarmast Brainstorming mostly. It's hard enough to kill my party without these house rules :D. Also, I agree with everyone that the second approach is too complex.
– Andris Bremanis
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I would suggest modifying the rule to, let's say: No damage if save exceeds DC + 5.
Otherwise, I see 2 problems:
Shield Master feat becomes less powerful. With it, you can use a reaction to negate damage from dex save where you would have received only half damage.- These spells would have a very different impact on whether the character has 1 or many HPs.
Alternatively, you could say that the damage on save must exceed characters constitution + remaining hp to get them to 0hp.
For example, our character has 4hp and +3 con bonus and gets hit with a spell for 10 total damage. He succeeds the save so he should only receive 5 damage. It is more than our remaining hp but less than remaining hp + con bonus (4+3=7) so character remains alive with 1hp. On the next hit, he again succeeds and again gets hit with 10/2 damage. This time, remaining hp + con bonus is 4, which is less than 5 so the character does fall unconscious.
This approach would be less OP, but zombies with undead resilience would feel cheated :D
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This seems considerably more complex than my original idea. And it's not going to help very often.
– Erik
yesterday
1
I think the first line of this is a good idea provided it's restricted to occurring only when you're at 1 HP as it's pretty straightforward to implement. I concur with Erik that you might be making things very complicated with the second proposal.
– Pyrotechnical
yesterday
1
Andris, have you tried this or are you brainstorming here?
– KorvinStarmast
23 hours ago
@KorvinStarmast Brainstorming mostly. It's hard enough to kill my party without these house rules :D. Also, I agree with everyone that the second approach is too complex.
– Andris Bremanis
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I would suggest modifying the rule to, let's say: No damage if save exceeds DC + 5.
Otherwise, I see 2 problems:
Shield Master feat becomes less powerful. With it, you can use a reaction to negate damage from dex save where you would have received only half damage.- These spells would have a very different impact on whether the character has 1 or many HPs.
Alternatively, you could say that the damage on save must exceed characters constitution + remaining hp to get them to 0hp.
For example, our character has 4hp and +3 con bonus and gets hit with a spell for 10 total damage. He succeeds the save so he should only receive 5 damage. It is more than our remaining hp but less than remaining hp + con bonus (4+3=7) so character remains alive with 1hp. On the next hit, he again succeeds and again gets hit with 10/2 damage. This time, remaining hp + con bonus is 4, which is less than 5 so the character does fall unconscious.
This approach would be less OP, but zombies with undead resilience would feel cheated :D
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I would suggest modifying the rule to, let's say: No damage if save exceeds DC + 5.
Otherwise, I see 2 problems:
Shield Master feat becomes less powerful. With it, you can use a reaction to negate damage from dex save where you would have received only half damage.- These spells would have a very different impact on whether the character has 1 or many HPs.
Alternatively, you could say that the damage on save must exceed characters constitution + remaining hp to get them to 0hp.
For example, our character has 4hp and +3 con bonus and gets hit with a spell for 10 total damage. He succeeds the save so he should only receive 5 damage. It is more than our remaining hp but less than remaining hp + con bonus (4+3=7) so character remains alive with 1hp. On the next hit, he again succeeds and again gets hit with 10/2 damage. This time, remaining hp + con bonus is 4, which is less than 5 so the character does fall unconscious.
This approach would be less OP, but zombies with undead resilience would feel cheated :D
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
edited yesterday
András
22.9k883171
22.9k883171
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
answered yesterday
Andris Bremanis
171
171
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Andris Bremanis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This seems considerably more complex than my original idea. And it's not going to help very often.
– Erik
yesterday
1
I think the first line of this is a good idea provided it's restricted to occurring only when you're at 1 HP as it's pretty straightforward to implement. I concur with Erik that you might be making things very complicated with the second proposal.
– Pyrotechnical
yesterday
1
Andris, have you tried this or are you brainstorming here?
– KorvinStarmast
23 hours ago
@KorvinStarmast Brainstorming mostly. It's hard enough to kill my party without these house rules :D. Also, I agree with everyone that the second approach is too complex.
– Andris Bremanis
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
This seems considerably more complex than my original idea. And it's not going to help very often.
– Erik
yesterday
1
I think the first line of this is a good idea provided it's restricted to occurring only when you're at 1 HP as it's pretty straightforward to implement. I concur with Erik that you might be making things very complicated with the second proposal.
– Pyrotechnical
yesterday
1
Andris, have you tried this or are you brainstorming here?
– KorvinStarmast
23 hours ago
@KorvinStarmast Brainstorming mostly. It's hard enough to kill my party without these house rules :D. Also, I agree with everyone that the second approach is too complex.
– Andris Bremanis
5 hours ago
1
1
This seems considerably more complex than my original idea. And it's not going to help very often.
– Erik
yesterday
This seems considerably more complex than my original idea. And it's not going to help very often.
– Erik
yesterday
1
1
I think the first line of this is a good idea provided it's restricted to occurring only when you're at 1 HP as it's pretty straightforward to implement. I concur with Erik that you might be making things very complicated with the second proposal.
– Pyrotechnical
yesterday
I think the first line of this is a good idea provided it's restricted to occurring only when you're at 1 HP as it's pretty straightforward to implement. I concur with Erik that you might be making things very complicated with the second proposal.
– Pyrotechnical
yesterday
1
1
Andris, have you tried this or are you brainstorming here?
– KorvinStarmast
23 hours ago
Andris, have you tried this or are you brainstorming here?
– KorvinStarmast
23 hours ago
@KorvinStarmast Brainstorming mostly. It's hard enough to kill my party without these house rules :D. Also, I agree with everyone that the second approach is too complex.
– Andris Bremanis
5 hours ago
@KorvinStarmast Brainstorming mostly. It's hard enough to kill my party without these house rules :D. Also, I agree with everyone that the second approach is too complex.
– Andris Bremanis
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In addition to what others have said, I can see this being "unfun" because it takes away from the classes that get Evasion. This rule would give everyone a weird form of that class feature.
It is stronger than Evasion because:
- It applies against every type of saving throw.
- It doesn't use up a class feature.
It is weaker than Evasion because:
- Failed saves still cause full damage.
- Successful saves still cause a reduction in HP (unless at 1 HP already).
Also, it would also cause any spells that improve saving throws much more powerful.
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In addition to what others have said, I can see this being "unfun" because it takes away from the classes that get Evasion. This rule would give everyone a weird form of that class feature.
It is stronger than Evasion because:
- It applies against every type of saving throw.
- It doesn't use up a class feature.
It is weaker than Evasion because:
- Failed saves still cause full damage.
- Successful saves still cause a reduction in HP (unless at 1 HP already).
Also, it would also cause any spells that improve saving throws much more powerful.
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In addition to what others have said, I can see this being "unfun" because it takes away from the classes that get Evasion. This rule would give everyone a weird form of that class feature.
It is stronger than Evasion because:
- It applies against every type of saving throw.
- It doesn't use up a class feature.
It is weaker than Evasion because:
- Failed saves still cause full damage.
- Successful saves still cause a reduction in HP (unless at 1 HP already).
Also, it would also cause any spells that improve saving throws much more powerful.
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
In addition to what others have said, I can see this being "unfun" because it takes away from the classes that get Evasion. This rule would give everyone a weird form of that class feature.
It is stronger than Evasion because:
- It applies against every type of saving throw.
- It doesn't use up a class feature.
It is weaker than Evasion because:
- Failed saves still cause full damage.
- Successful saves still cause a reduction in HP (unless at 1 HP already).
Also, it would also cause any spells that improve saving throws much more powerful.
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
answered 37 mins ago
wakkowarner321
34128
34128
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132084%2fis-this-houserule-preventing-effects-from-dropping-creatures-to-below-1-hp-if-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
yesterday
6
How would this rule work for someone currently at 1 HP that makes their save? Would they take no damage?
– Rubiksmoose
22 hours ago
4
What problem are you trying to solve using this new rule? Can this problem be solved using existing rules?
– enkryptor
21 hours ago
1
Why this is a problem? Seems pretty normal to me. Do players complain?
– enkryptor
19 hours ago
4
The game rules work as intended. If you want to change them for some reason, perhaps you should talk to the players first. There might be an XY problem, or maybe there is no real problem at all. "me being annoyed when planning interesting encounters" — maybe you should ask a separate question about the problem situation, something like "how to make this encounter not to be prone to aoe spells". This might be a problem of the encounter design itself, not the rules.
– enkryptor
18 hours ago