Mixing
Consequences of having half damage on attacks that tie AC as house rule?
Clash 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?
dnd-5e house-rules
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
asked 1 hour ago
MooseBoost
1779
add a comment |Â
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?
dnd-5e house-rules
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
asked 1 hour ago
MooseBoost
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
add a comment |Â
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?
dnd-5e house-rules
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
asked 1 hour ago
MooseBoost
1779
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
dnd-5e house-rules
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
asked 1 hour ago
MooseBoost
1779
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
asked 1 hour ago
MooseBoost
1779
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
edited 12 mins ago
Pyrotechnical
12.5k248119
12.5k248119
asked 1 hour ago
MooseBoost
1779
asked 1 hour ago
MooseBoost
1779
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
add a comment |Â
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
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
nitsua60♦
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
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.
answered 1 hour ago
Robert J Grippe
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.
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
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
nitsua60♦
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
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
nitsua60♦
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
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
nitsua60♦
68.2k11279404
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.
answered 1 hour ago
nitsua60♦
68.2k11279404
answered 1 hour ago
nitsua60♦
68.2k11279404
answered 1 hour ago
nitsua60♦
68.2k11279404
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
add a comment |Â
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
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
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.
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
answered 1 hour ago
JDM7
4901416
4901416
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
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.
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
answered 4 mins ago
ValhallaGH
2,9491121
2,9491121
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.
answered 1 hour ago
Robert J Grippe
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.
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.
answered 1 hour ago
Robert J Grippe
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.
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.
answered 1 hour ago
Robert J Grippe
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.
A slightly different result once in twenty rolls? Doesn't really sound game breaking.
answered 1 hour ago
Robert J Grippe
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.
answered 1 hour ago
Robert J Grippe
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.
answered 1 hour ago
Robert J Grippe
7
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
add a comment |Â
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
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%2f133508%2fconsequences-of-having-half-damage-on-attacks-that-tie-ac-as-house-rule%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
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