What would the consequence of having half damage on ties be as a 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. Same with saving throws if a PC or monster ties with the saving throw DC normally that would be no damage, but half damage would again help clue players in to how powerful a monster's spells or saving throws are.



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?



Thanks!










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♦
    33 mins 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
    30 mins ago










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    23 mins 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
    19 mins 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. Same with saving throws if a PC or monster ties with the saving throw DC normally that would be no damage, but half damage would again help clue players in to how powerful a monster's spells or saving throws are.



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?



Thanks!










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♦
    33 mins 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
    30 mins ago










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    23 mins 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
    19 mins 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. Same with saving throws if a PC or monster ties with the saving throw DC normally that would be no damage, but half damage would again help clue players in to how powerful a monster's spells or saving throws are.



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?



Thanks!










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. Same with saving throws if a PC or monster ties with the saving throw DC normally that would be no damage, but half damage would again help clue players in to how powerful a monster's spells or saving throws are.



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?



Thanks!







dnd-5e house-rules






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 29 mins ago

























asked 42 mins ago









MooseBoost

1778




1778







  • 1




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










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    23 mins 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
    19 mins 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♦
    33 mins 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
    30 mins ago










  • Would damage also be halved if the attack is a critical that happens to match the target's AC?
    – Sdjz
    23 mins 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
    19 mins 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♦
33 mins ago




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












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




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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
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




















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

















up vote
4
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
    -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
      26 mins ago










    • I don't think that Crr
      – Robert J Grippe
      14 mins 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.
      11 mins 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%2fwhat-would-the-consequence-of-having-half-damage-on-ties-be-as-a-house-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    7
    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




















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














    up vote
    7
    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




















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












    up vote
    7
    down vote










    up vote
    7
    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 28 mins ago









    nitsua60♦

    68.1k11279403




    68.1k11279403











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
















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















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




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












    up vote
    4
    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
      4
      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
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        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 29 mins ago









        JDM7

        4801416




        4801416




















            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
              26 mins ago










            • I don't think that Crr
              – Robert J Grippe
              14 mins 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.
              11 mins 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
              26 mins ago










            • I don't think that Crr
              – Robert J Grippe
              14 mins 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.
              11 mins 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 31 mins ago









            Robert J Grippe

            1




            1




            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
              26 mins ago










            • I don't think that Crr
              – Robert J Grippe
              14 mins 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.
              11 mins 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
              26 mins ago










            • I don't think that Crr
              – Robert J Grippe
              14 mins 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.
              11 mins 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
            26 mins 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
            26 mins ago












            I don't think that Crr
            – Robert J Grippe
            14 mins ago




            I don't think that Crr
            – Robert J Grippe
            14 mins 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.
            11 mins 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.
            11 mins 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%2fwhat-would-the-consequence-of-having-half-damage-on-ties-be-as-a-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