Hey all, for my next campaign (probably 5-10 sessions), I am considering making a change to how spells that require saving throws work and was curious if others have tried something like this.
Let's start with a situation! A plucky band of level 3 adventurers have reached the end of a bandit lair and have a few more bandits and a bandit leader to fight. The cleric has somehow saved their level 2 spell slot and have Hold Person ready! They cast it on the bandit leader... who saves.
At my tables, this situation is not uncommon, but leads to a poor player experience. They have effectively wasted one of their resources for no gain at all. Saving throws happen and the bad guys want to win and be dramatic as well, but maybe there is a better way to resolve this.
What I propose is something like, "the bandit leader saves, but their movement speed is halved for the rest of the round". That way, even on a failed save there is some brief effect.
Similarly for a spell like Earthbind on a successful save, the creature is still lowered 10-15 feet.
The degree of difficulty here is I'd need to update a lot of spells :) but am interested if others have done something like this and how it worked.
Cheers!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
I've done exactly what you proposed here, and had some half successes for high level spells where the NPC saved. What I did to keep it balanced, was that I only did this for the players highest level spell. So if players only have 1st and 2nd level spells, succeeded saving throws against 1st level spells still fail, but succeeded saving throws against 2nd level spells have some milder effect
That way it seemed to keep it reasonably balanced without the party becoming to OP!
I frequently use the Degrees of Failure in the DMG - Resolution and Consequences. While I don't initially dislike what you are suggesting, I might caution against using this house rule for only the targets of the PC's. It may have the unintended consequence of allowing for spell interactions that weren't intended and present an opportunity for players to game the system.
I might ask two questions before implementing this rule:
Would the players think it fun, or fair, if the monsters were allowed the same abilities or actions?
Would this make a spell more appealing/useful, to the point of excluding other spells/abilities?
Lastly, if you can imagine a way to overwhelm the party with monsters/villians using these rules, your players will eventually come to the same conclusion. I might recommend caution when proceeding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I guess it is up to each table how to do this. Personally, I feel spells are fairly balanced in terms of risk/reward. E.g. you can go for spells that provide half damage on a successful save, or sometimes you go for broke - and getting a stronger effect if the opponent fails the save (Hold Person is a good example - it's a powerful spell for 2nd level). So all in all, the change will likely tip the balance of favour further in the direction of players (since spell casting monsters/opponents is probably not as frequent to gain the same benefits). That's totally ok if that's how your table wants to play - but just be prepared that some encounters will become much easier for the party.
But worth a shot! If you find that you end up having to throw disproportionately strong opponents at your party to counter, you can always run it differently in the next campaign :)
What I do is that I change all saving thow spells so that the player rolls an "attack" against the save. Basically I just reverse the numbers and let the player roll.. I find most of the downer affect of saves is that the player didn't even get to roll.
It's basically a choice between, 'Do I have high enough skill to hit the bad guy?' and 'Do I think the bad guy can dodge this?'
Some of it comes down to what the PCs know about their targets. If they know the target is a caster it might not be a good idea to use WIS/INT save spells against them. If the target is slow or clumsy, then a good choice would be a DEX save spell. As a player I like to figure these things out.
Something not addressed is whether you roll in the open or not. If the players see you roll a 19 or 20 they can accept the result easily. If you are hiding your rolls, there is a chance that they think you're just making it up if the target passes especially if they have high DC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
What I do is that I change all saving thow spells so that the player rolls an "attack" against the save. Basically I just reverse the numbers and let the player roll.. I find most of the downer affect of saves is that the player didn't even get to roll.
What DC do you use? To have the same actual odds you need a DC of 14+save bonus (so at +5 attack/save DC 13, a target with a +0 save is affected 60%).
It seems like casters in the edition are already quite strong. No need to make them stronger, which this absolutely will. Sometimes, things just don't work out. High risk, high reward. It makes it that much sweeter when the attack does land.
And if a fighter spends an action surge and misses their attacks, will they get a consolation prize? Or a raging barbarian who misses their attacks? How about when a cleric tries to turn undead and the undead save? A paladin smites and they roll all 1's -- I can tell you from experience that's pretty unsatisfying. There's any number of limited resource effects and powers in the game. The idea is that they won't all work all the time, that's the whole point of the dice. If it does all work every time, it cheapens it.
Yep you can definitely do it that way and I think it works, but I am a bit more basic. I just change the DC around and get the player to roll.
So, to use your example, instead of the DM rolling for the target to beat a 13 (60% chance of failure), I have the player roll to beat a DC of 9 (60% chance of success). I get the 9 as '22 + their save - the save DC'.
Takes a bit of maths but pretty easy to work out before the encounter.
Please correct me if my maths is off. I've only DMed low levels so far so the numbers are not big. I actually prefer the way you calculated it! Spell attack vs target DC of 14 + save bonus is much easier!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all,
for my next campaign (probably 5-10 sessions), I am considering making a change to how spells that require saving throws work and was curious if others have tried something like this.
Let's start with a situation!
A plucky band of level 3 adventurers have reached the end of a bandit lair and have a few more bandits and a bandit leader to fight.
The cleric has somehow saved their level 2 spell slot and have Hold Person ready! They cast it on the bandit leader... who saves.
At my tables, this situation is not uncommon, but leads to a poor player experience. They have effectively wasted one of their resources for no gain at all. Saving throws happen and the bad guys want to win and be dramatic as well, but maybe there is a better way to resolve this.
What I propose is something like, "the bandit leader saves, but their movement speed is halved for the rest of the round". That way, even on a failed save there is some brief effect.
Similarly for a spell like Earthbind on a successful save, the creature is still lowered 10-15 feet.
The degree of difficulty here is I'd need to update a lot of spells :) but am interested if others have done something like this and how it worked.
Cheers!
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
I've done exactly what you proposed here, and had some half successes for high level spells where the NPC saved. What I did to keep it balanced, was that I only did this for the players highest level spell. So if players only have 1st and 2nd level spells, succeeded saving throws against 1st level spells still fail, but succeeded saving throws against 2nd level spells have some milder effect
That way it seemed to keep it reasonably balanced without the party becoming to OP!
Hope that helps!
I frequently use the Degrees of Failure in the DMG - Resolution and Consequences. While I don't initially dislike what you are suggesting, I might caution against using this house rule for only the targets of the PC's. It may have the unintended consequence of allowing for spell interactions that weren't intended and present an opportunity for players to game the system.
I might ask two questions before implementing this rule:
Lastly, if you can imagine a way to overwhelm the party with monsters/villians using these rules, your players will eventually come to the same conclusion. I might recommend caution when proceeding.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I guess it is up to each table how to do this. Personally, I feel spells are fairly balanced in terms of risk/reward. E.g. you can go for spells that provide half damage on a successful save, or sometimes you go for broke - and getting a stronger effect if the opponent fails the save (Hold Person is a good example - it's a powerful spell for 2nd level). So all in all, the change will likely tip the balance of favour further in the direction of players (since spell casting monsters/opponents is probably not as frequent to gain the same benefits). That's totally ok if that's how your table wants to play - but just be prepared that some encounters will become much easier for the party.
But worth a shot! If you find that you end up having to throw disproportionately strong opponents at your party to counter, you can always run it differently in the next campaign :)
I get it, and it is a bummer, but what about when guiding bolt misses? Blowing a slot for absolutely nothing is not unique to saving throw spells.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
If you're adding partial effect on a successful save, you'd want to either reduce the significance of a failed save or make it easier to save.
What I do is that I change all saving thow spells so that the player rolls an "attack" against the save. Basically I just reverse the numbers and let the player roll.. I find most of the downer affect of saves is that the player didn't even get to roll.
It's basically a choice between, 'Do I have high enough skill to hit the bad guy?' and 'Do I think the bad guy can dodge this?'
Some of it comes down to what the PCs know about their targets. If they know the target is a caster it might not be a good idea to use WIS/INT save spells against them. If the target is slow or clumsy, then a good choice would be a DEX save spell. As a player I like to figure these things out.
Something not addressed is whether you roll in the open or not. If the players see you roll a 19 or 20 they can accept the result easily. If you are hiding your rolls, there is a chance that they think you're just making it up if the target passes especially if they have high DC.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
What DC do you use? To have the same actual odds you need a DC of 14+save bonus (so at +5 attack/save DC 13, a target with a +0 save is affected 60%).
It seems like casters in the edition are already quite strong. No need to make them stronger, which this absolutely will. Sometimes, things just don't work out. High risk, high reward. It makes it that much sweeter when the attack does land.
And if a fighter spends an action surge and misses their attacks, will they get a consolation prize? Or a raging barbarian who misses their attacks? How about when a cleric tries to turn undead and the undead save? A paladin smites and they roll all 1's -- I can tell you from experience that's pretty unsatisfying. There's any number of limited resource effects and powers in the game. The idea is that they won't all work all the time, that's the whole point of the dice. If it does all work every time, it cheapens it.
Yep you can definitely do it that way and I think it works, but I am a bit more basic. I just change the DC around and get the player to roll.
So, to use your example, instead of the DM rolling for the target to beat a 13 (60% chance of failure), I have the player roll to beat a DC of 9 (60% chance of success). I get the 9 as '22 + their save - the save DC'.
Takes a bit of maths but pretty easy to work out before the encounter.
Please correct me if my maths is off. I've only DMed low levels so far so the numbers are not big. I actually prefer the way you calculated it! Spell attack vs target DC of 14 + save bonus is much easier!