Consequences of having half damage on attacks that tie AC as house rule?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Typically if an attack roll equals the AC of a target then the attack does normal damage. I quite like the idea of making it a glancing blow, dealing half damage instead, this would help clue the PCs into what the AC of the target roughly is.



My only worry would be that this might create balance issues. I will make sure that the rule is the same for when monsters attack, so it is a general rule "ties do half damage." What would the consequences of this house-rule be?










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Would it go both ways? I.e. would a monster attack hitting the PC's armor class exactly only do half damage?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Yes, it would, but for balance reasons. Given the PCs can't see the monster's rolls I doubt it would give them much insight into the monsters power though so I didn't mention it. I will edit my question though to make that clearer.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    1 hour ago










  • @Sdjz hadn't thought about that. If the players are fighting a monster that takes a crit to hit I have probably designed that encounter pretty badly and will be heading to a tpk though lol. I think critical hits count as more specific and specific beats general so I would have the criticals work as normal probably.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago














up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Typically if an attack roll equals the AC of a target then the attack does normal damage. I quite like the idea of making it a glancing blow, dealing half damage instead, this would help clue the PCs into what the AC of the target roughly is.



My only worry would be that this might create balance issues. I will make sure that the rule is the same for when monsters attack, so it is a general rule "ties do half damage." What would the consequences of this house-rule be?










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Would it go both ways? I.e. would a monster attack hitting the PC's armor class exactly only do half damage?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Yes, it would, but for balance reasons. Given the PCs can't see the monster's rolls I doubt it would give them much insight into the monsters power though so I didn't mention it. I will edit my question though to make that clearer.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    1 hour ago










  • @Sdjz hadn't thought about that. If the players are fighting a monster that takes a crit to hit I have probably designed that encounter pretty badly and will be heading to a tpk though lol. I think critical hits count as more specific and specific beats general so I would have the criticals work as normal probably.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago












up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











Typically if an attack roll equals the AC of a target then the attack does normal damage. I quite like the idea of making it a glancing blow, dealing half damage instead, this would help clue the PCs into what the AC of the target roughly is.



My only worry would be that this might create balance issues. I will make sure that the rule is the same for when monsters attack, so it is a general rule "ties do half damage." What would the consequences of this house-rule be?










share|improve this question















Typically if an attack roll equals the AC of a target then the attack does normal damage. I quite like the idea of making it a glancing blow, dealing half damage instead, this would help clue the PCs into what the AC of the target roughly is.



My only worry would be that this might create balance issues. I will make sure that the rule is the same for when monsters attack, so it is a general rule "ties do half damage." What would the consequences of this house-rule be?







dnd-5e house-rules






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 12 mins ago









Pyrotechnical

12.5k248119




12.5k248119










asked 1 hour ago









MooseBoost

1779




1779







  • 1




    Would it go both ways? I.e. would a monster attack hitting the PC's armor class exactly only do half damage?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Yes, it would, but for balance reasons. Given the PCs can't see the monster's rolls I doubt it would give them much insight into the monsters power though so I didn't mention it. I will edit my question though to make that clearer.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    1 hour ago










  • @Sdjz hadn't thought about that. If the players are fighting a monster that takes a crit to hit I have probably designed that encounter pretty badly and will be heading to a tpk though lol. I think critical hits count as more specific and specific beats general so I would have the criticals work as normal probably.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago












  • 1




    Would it go both ways? I.e. would a monster attack hitting the PC's armor class exactly only do half damage?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Yes, it would, but for balance reasons. Given the PCs can't see the monster's rolls I doubt it would give them much insight into the monsters power though so I didn't mention it. I will edit my question though to make that clearer.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    1 hour ago










  • @Sdjz hadn't thought about that. If the players are fighting a monster that takes a crit to hit I have probably designed that encounter pretty badly and will be heading to a tpk though lol. I think critical hits count as more specific and specific beats general so I would have the criticals work as normal probably.
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago







1




1




Would it go both ways? I.e. would a monster attack hitting the PC's armor class exactly only do half damage?
– nitsua60♦
1 hour ago




Would it go both ways? I.e. would a monster attack hitting the PC's armor class exactly only do half damage?
– nitsua60♦
1 hour ago




1




1




Yes, it would, but for balance reasons. Given the PCs can't see the monster's rolls I doubt it would give them much insight into the monsters power though so I didn't mention it. I will edit my question though to make that clearer.
– MooseBoost
1 hour ago




Yes, it would, but for balance reasons. Given the PCs can't see the monster's rolls I doubt it would give them much insight into the monsters power though so I didn't mention it. I will edit my question though to make that clearer.
– MooseBoost
1 hour ago












Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
– Sdjz
1 hour ago




Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
– Sdjz
1 hour ago












@Sdjz hadn't thought about that. If the players are fighting a monster that takes a crit to hit I have probably designed that encounter pretty badly and will be heading to a tpk though lol. I think critical hits count as more specific and specific beats general so I would have the criticals work as normal probably.
– MooseBoost
1 hour ago




@Sdjz hadn't thought about that. If the players are fighting a monster that takes a crit to hit I have probably designed that encounter pretty badly and will be heading to a tpk though lol. I think critical hits count as more specific and specific beats general so I would have the criticals work as normal probably.
– MooseBoost
1 hour ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
11
down vote













Minimal.



I go by a rule of thumb that ~things~ hit/land/happen about 2/3 of the time in 5e. Really tough encounters you may make contact less than half the time, easy ones you're making contact 4 in 5 hits.



So let's assume for argument's sake that "contact"--successful attack or failed save--happens 65% of the time, and does an average of X damage. Your expected damage per attack under the existing rules is then $$0.65 times X$$



Your house rule takes one of those results and halves the damage: expected damage is now $$0.6 times X + 0.05 times (X/2)$$



or $$0.625 times X$$



That difference--0.025 X--is minimal. If your attacks are doing 20 damage per hit (tier 3 by this point, unless consuming resources to bump it up) it's a difference of 1hp.



It's fine.



But if you're worried about "balance," you can just make the half-damage apply both at AC and AC-1. Then you've not changed the long-term numbers at all.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Oh that AC and AC-1 is a really good idea, thanks!
    – MooseBoost
    1 hour ago










  • The change in expected basic damage output is pretty minimal. Are there potentially more significant consequences when you consider abilities which may activate on hits (for instance, when using the Sword of Wounding)?
    – Carcer
    46 mins ago

















up vote
5
down vote













I personally use this as a mechanic, on both sides, having the players give and receive glancing blows.

I don't think its unbalanced as long as you make everyone (players and opponents) play by the same rules, especially since the chance of having an attack match the AC is less likely than either a hit or a miss.

Try it out, you might find it doesn't ever happen.

As a side note I enjoy the added flavour it gives to combat and, as you said, can give hints to enemy AC as well as how their attacks fair against the PC's AC.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    AC Change



    Minimal effect. It makes combat a bit more survivable, by making attacks that hit slightly less harmful; damage will drop by about 2.5%. This will sometimes frustrate your players but they'll benefit from it more than they'll lose, for an overall (minor) PC power increase.



    Save DC Change



    Big change - you've effectively made saving throws DC +1 for damaging effects, making damage spells notably more powerful. Fireball and similar spells are really going to benefit.

    But there are some real questions about how this will interact with non-damage spells; you'll want to figure that out.





    share



























      up vote
      -2
      down vote













      A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.

















      • That was my gut instinct. I was wondering if it may break the more tanky type monsters though. E.g. imagine a monster has 18AC, a PC with +0 to hit would only hit 3/20ths of the time. Making the monster take half damage on an 18 would effectively make this 2.5/20ths of the time. a reduction in damage of 16% (effectively the same as a d8 becoming a d6).
        – MooseBoost
        1 hour ago










      • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
        – T.J.L.
        1 hour ago










      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "122"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133508%2fconsequences-of-having-half-damage-on-attacks-that-tie-ac-as-house-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      11
      down vote













      Minimal.



      I go by a rule of thumb that ~things~ hit/land/happen about 2/3 of the time in 5e. Really tough encounters you may make contact less than half the time, easy ones you're making contact 4 in 5 hits.



      So let's assume for argument's sake that "contact"--successful attack or failed save--happens 65% of the time, and does an average of X damage. Your expected damage per attack under the existing rules is then $$0.65 times X$$



      Your house rule takes one of those results and halves the damage: expected damage is now $$0.6 times X + 0.05 times (X/2)$$



      or $$0.625 times X$$



      That difference--0.025 X--is minimal. If your attacks are doing 20 damage per hit (tier 3 by this point, unless consuming resources to bump it up) it's a difference of 1hp.



      It's fine.



      But if you're worried about "balance," you can just make the half-damage apply both at AC and AC-1. Then you've not changed the long-term numbers at all.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 1




        Oh that AC and AC-1 is a really good idea, thanks!
        – MooseBoost
        1 hour ago










      • The change in expected basic damage output is pretty minimal. Are there potentially more significant consequences when you consider abilities which may activate on hits (for instance, when using the Sword of Wounding)?
        – Carcer
        46 mins ago














      up vote
      11
      down vote













      Minimal.



      I go by a rule of thumb that ~things~ hit/land/happen about 2/3 of the time in 5e. Really tough encounters you may make contact less than half the time, easy ones you're making contact 4 in 5 hits.



      So let's assume for argument's sake that "contact"--successful attack or failed save--happens 65% of the time, and does an average of X damage. Your expected damage per attack under the existing rules is then $$0.65 times X$$



      Your house rule takes one of those results and halves the damage: expected damage is now $$0.6 times X + 0.05 times (X/2)$$



      or $$0.625 times X$$



      That difference--0.025 X--is minimal. If your attacks are doing 20 damage per hit (tier 3 by this point, unless consuming resources to bump it up) it's a difference of 1hp.



      It's fine.



      But if you're worried about "balance," you can just make the half-damage apply both at AC and AC-1. Then you've not changed the long-term numbers at all.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 1




        Oh that AC and AC-1 is a really good idea, thanks!
        – MooseBoost
        1 hour ago










      • The change in expected basic damage output is pretty minimal. Are there potentially more significant consequences when you consider abilities which may activate on hits (for instance, when using the Sword of Wounding)?
        – Carcer
        46 mins ago












      up vote
      11
      down vote










      up vote
      11
      down vote









      Minimal.



      I go by a rule of thumb that ~things~ hit/land/happen about 2/3 of the time in 5e. Really tough encounters you may make contact less than half the time, easy ones you're making contact 4 in 5 hits.



      So let's assume for argument's sake that "contact"--successful attack or failed save--happens 65% of the time, and does an average of X damage. Your expected damage per attack under the existing rules is then $$0.65 times X$$



      Your house rule takes one of those results and halves the damage: expected damage is now $$0.6 times X + 0.05 times (X/2)$$



      or $$0.625 times X$$



      That difference--0.025 X--is minimal. If your attacks are doing 20 damage per hit (tier 3 by this point, unless consuming resources to bump it up) it's a difference of 1hp.



      It's fine.



      But if you're worried about "balance," you can just make the half-damage apply both at AC and AC-1. Then you've not changed the long-term numbers at all.






      share|improve this answer












      Minimal.



      I go by a rule of thumb that ~things~ hit/land/happen about 2/3 of the time in 5e. Really tough encounters you may make contact less than half the time, easy ones you're making contact 4 in 5 hits.



      So let's assume for argument's sake that "contact"--successful attack or failed save--happens 65% of the time, and does an average of X damage. Your expected damage per attack under the existing rules is then $$0.65 times X$$



      Your house rule takes one of those results and halves the damage: expected damage is now $$0.6 times X + 0.05 times (X/2)$$



      or $$0.625 times X$$



      That difference--0.025 X--is minimal. If your attacks are doing 20 damage per hit (tier 3 by this point, unless consuming resources to bump it up) it's a difference of 1hp.



      It's fine.



      But if you're worried about "balance," you can just make the half-damage apply both at AC and AC-1. Then you've not changed the long-term numbers at all.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 1 hour ago









      nitsua60♦

      68.2k11279404




      68.2k11279404







      • 1




        Oh that AC and AC-1 is a really good idea, thanks!
        – MooseBoost
        1 hour ago










      • The change in expected basic damage output is pretty minimal. Are there potentially more significant consequences when you consider abilities which may activate on hits (for instance, when using the Sword of Wounding)?
        – Carcer
        46 mins ago












      • 1




        Oh that AC and AC-1 is a really good idea, thanks!
        – MooseBoost
        1 hour ago










      • The change in expected basic damage output is pretty minimal. Are there potentially more significant consequences when you consider abilities which may activate on hits (for instance, when using the Sword of Wounding)?
        – Carcer
        46 mins ago







      1




      1




      Oh that AC and AC-1 is a really good idea, thanks!
      – MooseBoost
      1 hour ago




      Oh that AC and AC-1 is a really good idea, thanks!
      – MooseBoost
      1 hour ago












      The change in expected basic damage output is pretty minimal. Are there potentially more significant consequences when you consider abilities which may activate on hits (for instance, when using the Sword of Wounding)?
      – Carcer
      46 mins ago




      The change in expected basic damage output is pretty minimal. Are there potentially more significant consequences when you consider abilities which may activate on hits (for instance, when using the Sword of Wounding)?
      – Carcer
      46 mins ago












      up vote
      5
      down vote













      I personally use this as a mechanic, on both sides, having the players give and receive glancing blows.

      I don't think its unbalanced as long as you make everyone (players and opponents) play by the same rules, especially since the chance of having an attack match the AC is less likely than either a hit or a miss.

      Try it out, you might find it doesn't ever happen.

      As a side note I enjoy the added flavour it gives to combat and, as you said, can give hints to enemy AC as well as how their attacks fair against the PC's AC.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        5
        down vote













        I personally use this as a mechanic, on both sides, having the players give and receive glancing blows.

        I don't think its unbalanced as long as you make everyone (players and opponents) play by the same rules, especially since the chance of having an attack match the AC is less likely than either a hit or a miss.

        Try it out, you might find it doesn't ever happen.

        As a side note I enjoy the added flavour it gives to combat and, as you said, can give hints to enemy AC as well as how their attacks fair against the PC's AC.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          I personally use this as a mechanic, on both sides, having the players give and receive glancing blows.

          I don't think its unbalanced as long as you make everyone (players and opponents) play by the same rules, especially since the chance of having an attack match the AC is less likely than either a hit or a miss.

          Try it out, you might find it doesn't ever happen.

          As a side note I enjoy the added flavour it gives to combat and, as you said, can give hints to enemy AC as well as how their attacks fair against the PC's AC.






          share|improve this answer












          I personally use this as a mechanic, on both sides, having the players give and receive glancing blows.

          I don't think its unbalanced as long as you make everyone (players and opponents) play by the same rules, especially since the chance of having an attack match the AC is less likely than either a hit or a miss.

          Try it out, you might find it doesn't ever happen.

          As a side note I enjoy the added flavour it gives to combat and, as you said, can give hints to enemy AC as well as how their attacks fair against the PC's AC.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          JDM7

          4901416




          4901416




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              AC Change



              Minimal effect. It makes combat a bit more survivable, by making attacks that hit slightly less harmful; damage will drop by about 2.5%. This will sometimes frustrate your players but they'll benefit from it more than they'll lose, for an overall (minor) PC power increase.



              Save DC Change



              Big change - you've effectively made saving throws DC +1 for damaging effects, making damage spells notably more powerful. Fireball and similar spells are really going to benefit.

              But there are some real questions about how this will interact with non-damage spells; you'll want to figure that out.





              share
























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                AC Change



                Minimal effect. It makes combat a bit more survivable, by making attacks that hit slightly less harmful; damage will drop by about 2.5%. This will sometimes frustrate your players but they'll benefit from it more than they'll lose, for an overall (minor) PC power increase.



                Save DC Change



                Big change - you've effectively made saving throws DC +1 for damaging effects, making damage spells notably more powerful. Fireball and similar spells are really going to benefit.

                But there are some real questions about how this will interact with non-damage spells; you'll want to figure that out.





                share






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  AC Change



                  Minimal effect. It makes combat a bit more survivable, by making attacks that hit slightly less harmful; damage will drop by about 2.5%. This will sometimes frustrate your players but they'll benefit from it more than they'll lose, for an overall (minor) PC power increase.



                  Save DC Change



                  Big change - you've effectively made saving throws DC +1 for damaging effects, making damage spells notably more powerful. Fireball and similar spells are really going to benefit.

                  But there are some real questions about how this will interact with non-damage spells; you'll want to figure that out.





                  share












                  AC Change



                  Minimal effect. It makes combat a bit more survivable, by making attacks that hit slightly less harmful; damage will drop by about 2.5%. This will sometimes frustrate your players but they'll benefit from it more than they'll lose, for an overall (minor) PC power increase.



                  Save DC Change



                  Big change - you've effectively made saving throws DC +1 for damaging effects, making damage spells notably more powerful. Fireball and similar spells are really going to benefit.

                  But there are some real questions about how this will interact with non-damage spells; you'll want to figure that out.






                  share











                  share


                  share










                  answered 4 mins ago









                  ValhallaGH

                  2,9491121




                  2,9491121




















                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote













                      A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.

















                      • That was my gut instinct. I was wondering if it may break the more tanky type monsters though. E.g. imagine a monster has 18AC, a PC with +0 to hit would only hit 3/20ths of the time. Making the monster take half damage on an 18 would effectively make this 2.5/20ths of the time. a reduction in damage of 16% (effectively the same as a d8 becoming a d6).
                        – MooseBoost
                        1 hour ago










                      • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – T.J.L.
                        1 hour ago














                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote













                      A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.

















                      • That was my gut instinct. I was wondering if it may break the more tanky type monsters though. E.g. imagine a monster has 18AC, a PC with +0 to hit would only hit 3/20ths of the time. Making the monster take half damage on an 18 would effectively make this 2.5/20ths of the time. a reduction in damage of 16% (effectively the same as a d8 becoming a d6).
                        – MooseBoost
                        1 hour ago










                      • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – T.J.L.
                        1 hour ago












                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      -2
                      down vote









                      A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor




                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered 1 hour ago









                      Robert J Grippe

                      7




                      7




                      New contributor




                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      Robert J Grippe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.











                      • That was my gut instinct. I was wondering if it may break the more tanky type monsters though. E.g. imagine a monster has 18AC, a PC with +0 to hit would only hit 3/20ths of the time. Making the monster take half damage on an 18 would effectively make this 2.5/20ths of the time. a reduction in damage of 16% (effectively the same as a d8 becoming a d6).
                        – MooseBoost
                        1 hour ago










                      • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – T.J.L.
                        1 hour ago
















                      • That was my gut instinct. I was wondering if it may break the more tanky type monsters though. E.g. imagine a monster has 18AC, a PC with +0 to hit would only hit 3/20ths of the time. Making the monster take half damage on an 18 would effectively make this 2.5/20ths of the time. a reduction in damage of 16% (effectively the same as a d8 becoming a d6).
                        – MooseBoost
                        1 hour ago










                      • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                        – T.J.L.
                        1 hour ago















                      That was my gut instinct. I was wondering if it may break the more tanky type monsters though. E.g. imagine a monster has 18AC, a PC with +0 to hit would only hit 3/20ths of the time. Making the monster take half damage on an 18 would effectively make this 2.5/20ths of the time. a reduction in damage of 16% (effectively the same as a d8 becoming a d6).
                      – MooseBoost
                      1 hour ago




                      That was my gut instinct. I was wondering if it may break the more tanky type monsters though. E.g. imagine a monster has 18AC, a PC with +0 to hit would only hit 3/20ths of the time. Making the monster take half damage on an 18 would effectively make this 2.5/20ths of the time. a reduction in damage of 16% (effectively the same as a d8 becoming a d6).
                      – MooseBoost
                      1 hour ago












                      This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                      – T.J.L.
                      1 hour ago




                      This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                      – T.J.L.
                      1 hour ago

















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133508%2fconsequences-of-having-half-damage-on-attacks-that-tie-ac-as-house-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Comments

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What does second last employer means? [closed]

                      Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                      One-line joke