Mixing
No more failing on a success
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
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 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 principals, 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 having 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 homebrew saving-throw
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
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 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 principals, 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 having 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 homebrew saving-throw
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
22 mins ago
@DanO'Shea Hm. Maybe I should use a different example.
– Erik
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
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 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 principals, 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 having 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 homebrew saving-throw
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
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 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 principals, 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 having 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 homebrew saving-throw
dnd-5e homebrew saving-throw
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
edited 16 mins ago
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
asked 28 mins ago
Erik
41k11140211
41k11140211
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
22 mins ago
@DanO'Shea Hm. Maybe I should use a different example.
– Erik
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
22 mins ago
@DanO'Shea Hm. Maybe I should use a different example.
– Erik
17 mins ago
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
22 mins ago
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
22 mins ago
@DanO'Shea Hm. Maybe I should use a different example.
– Erik
17 mins ago
@DanO'Shea Hm. Maybe I should use a different example.
– Erik
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
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 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can reliably do more damage than Finger of Death, a spell that is only available from 13th level.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so the difference is actually bigger than the numbers show at first glance.
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 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
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 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
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 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
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 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
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 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
answered 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
answered 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
answered 10 mins ago
kviiri
28.6k6107173
28.6k6107173
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can reliably do more damage than Finger of Death, a spell that is only available from 13th level.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so the difference is actually bigger than the numbers show at first glance.
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 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can reliably do more damage than Finger of Death, a spell that is only available from 13th level.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so the difference is actually bigger than the numbers show at first glance.
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 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can reliably do more damage than Finger of Death, a spell that is only available from 13th level.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so the difference is actually bigger than the numbers show at first glance.
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 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
This would make blasters even weaker on higher levels
A 11th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master can reliably do more damage than Finger of Death, a spell that is only available from 13th level.
On those levels Magic Resistance, Legendary saves, and resistances to damage types are quite common, so the difference is actually bigger than the numbers show at first glance.
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 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
answered 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
answered 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
answered 4 mins ago
András
22.7k882170
22.7k882170
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%2fno-more-failing-on-a-success%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
Is it worth noting that cover doesn't protect against Fireball? Wasn't that covered in a different question somewhere?
– Dan O'Shea
22 mins ago
@DanO'Shea Hm. Maybe I should use a different example.
– Erik
17 mins ago