How’s this concept sound, in my opinion it works well, in addition to some cool descriptive rp moments. I’m sure this has been done or attempted, perhaps even in previous editions too. But I wanted to build it from my own from the ground up and worry about similarities later.
In a meet AC scenario you or the enemy parries the attack, you take half damage due to the absorption of the force of the blow yet having the weapon, shield, or “rp’d deflection of your choice”. All other effects to being hit normally like poison do not apply since no physical contact was made. Apply mechanics from classes like rogue abilities as normal when applicable for example.
In a meet spell saving throw you take half damage, on successful save, quarter damage. Effect spells are essentially cut in half in all aspects and outright pass means failure as normal.
spell saves are still working tweak process but this is home brew rule I’m working on. Melee combat is rather solidified.
I'm not totally sure what you're actually suggesting. It seems like you're just suggesting having some method of halfing damage dealt against a character, which does exist... the closest example I can think of is the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge ability, which consumes a reaction, but does exactly what you're describing otherwise.
Your suggestion for spells seems to also just be rewording another Rogue (and Monk) ability, Evasion, which doesn't take a reaction, but basically any creature that has that feature only takes half-damage if they fail a DEX saving throw, and no damage if they succeed.
As a player I wouldn't want to use this tactic: my chances of hitting or of a spell succeeding have gone down by 5%, and enemies who make a saving throw are going to only take quarter damage. That changes the risk calculations and the battle CR calculations by a lot.
I feel like this is an unnecessary over-complication. I would absolutely hate it if I was playing D&D, and with every attack I make against an enemy they also get a saving throw, on top of their existing AC. It will slow down combat (which is already fairly slow in most games), both by requiring more rolling and math with every single attack, but also because attacks will become less impactful and deal less damage, making it much more time consuming.
I feel like this addition would just result in combats being more of a slugfest than they already can be. Especially the spellsave to quarter damage instead. Dnd combat can already feel like it goes on too long sometimes.
The other problem, though maybe not everyone sees this as a potential problem, is that it will have the result of making high ac pcs even more tanky than they already are and it will be hard to actually effectively do damage to them and threaten the party. When enemies already miss most of time, adding another die result that won't really hurt much doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Game math assumes you doing full damage on a “meet” it’s baked into the underlying hp and statistics of how often you hit. I’d be hesitant to make a change that messes with that.
Thanks, the spell variation felt really risky when I was making it but for melee based encounters what say you?
Yeah I wouldn’t do it even with melee. It’s still messing with the CR calculations too much. I think it’d be one of those things that seemed fine until it absolutely busted something.
Well, unanimous nays all around. Thanks, it saves me face from looking the fool at the table. I still need to refine homebrewing things it seems.
I am in the nay camp as well but...I think it might be interesting for you to try it at your table and see if you or your group like it. One thing I have found is at times an idea does not work but after testing it it leads to another better idea and or change.
As someone above pointed out it is important to try and identify what you change is going to affect and the effect it will have on other game rules as well as how many small changes in one area can have huge impacts.
How’s this concept sound, in my opinion it works well, in addition to some cool descriptive rp moments
You can still do cool descriptive RP moments on attack rolls that come very close to the creature's AC. Just describe how and why the blow came close to hitting/missing, but the armor of the defender/skill of the attacker made the final difference
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Here's my advice if you want to go with a sort of "fail forward" approach. Let players and enemies have a "push through" option once per short or long rest. If they are at or within 1 point of an enemy AC, an attacker can push through for half the damage rolled. However, the next attack upon the initial attacker is made with advantage, as the exertion of forcing through an attempted block or parry leaves them wide open and winded for a moment. Similarly, enemies can do this as well. If you really want to make things more interesting for players, you could CONSIDER letting them push through entirely for full damage rolled (perhaps letting them roll first to decide if you're super generous), but they take a level of exhaustion immediately after doing so. It's not a total game-changer, but it allows for that special little oomph to give players some combat flavor providing they accept the inherent risk too. I'm just spitballing here very off the cuff, but I can't see it being any more broken than the Inspiration system as I understand it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How’s this concept sound, in my opinion it works well, in addition to some cool descriptive rp moments. I’m sure this has been done or attempted, perhaps even in previous editions too. But I wanted to build it from my own from the ground up and worry about similarities later.
In a meet AC scenario you or the enemy parries the attack, you take half damage due to the absorption of the force of the blow yet having the weapon, shield, or “rp’d deflection of your choice”. All other effects to being hit normally like poison do not apply since no physical contact was made. Apply mechanics from classes like rogue abilities as normal when applicable for example.
In a meet spell saving throw you take half damage, on successful save, quarter damage. Effect spells are essentially cut in half in all aspects and outright pass means failure as normal.
spell saves are still working tweak process but this is home brew rule I’m working on. Melee combat is rather solidified.
opinions? Thanks
I'm not totally sure what you're actually suggesting. It seems like you're just suggesting having some method of halfing damage dealt against a character, which does exist... the closest example I can think of is the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge ability, which consumes a reaction, but does exactly what you're describing otherwise.
Your suggestion for spells seems to also just be rewording another Rogue (and Monk) ability, Evasion, which doesn't take a reaction, but basically any creature that has that feature only takes half-damage if they fail a DEX saving throw, and no damage if they succeed.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
In summary when physical attacks are made
fail - full damage
meet - half damage
pass - no damage
Aoe
fail - full damage
meet - half damage
pass - quarter damage
something to this nature.
As a player I wouldn't want to use this tactic: my chances of hitting or of a spell succeeding have gone down by 5%, and enemies who make a saving throw are going to only take quarter damage. That changes the risk calculations and the battle CR calculations by a lot.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Thanks, the spell variation felt really risky when I was making it but for melee based encounters what say you?
I feel like this is an unnecessary over-complication. I would absolutely hate it if I was playing D&D, and with every attack I make against an enemy they also get a saving throw, on top of their existing AC. It will slow down combat (which is already fairly slow in most games), both by requiring more rolling and math with every single attack, but also because attacks will become less impactful and deal less damage, making it much more time consuming.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I feel like this addition would just result in combats being more of a slugfest than they already can be. Especially the spellsave to quarter damage instead. Dnd combat can already feel like it goes on too long sometimes.
The other problem, though maybe not everyone sees this as a potential problem, is that it will have the result of making high ac pcs even more tanky than they already are and it will be hard to actually effectively do damage to them and threaten the party. When enemies already miss most of time, adding another die result that won't really hurt much doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Game math assumes you doing full damage on a “meet” it’s baked into the underlying hp and statistics of how often you hit. I’d be hesitant to make a change that messes with that.
Yeah I wouldn’t do it even with melee. It’s still messing with the CR calculations too much. I think it’d be one of those things that seemed fine until it absolutely busted something.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Well, unanimous nays all around. Thanks, it saves me face from looking the fool at the table. I still need to refine homebrewing things it seems.
I am in the nay camp as well but...I think it might be interesting for you to try it at your table and see if you or your group like it. One thing I have found is at times an idea does not work but after testing it it leads to another better idea and or change.
As someone above pointed out it is important to try and identify what you change is going to affect and the effect it will have on other game rules as well as how many small changes in one area can have huge impacts.
You can still do cool descriptive RP moments on attack rolls that come very close to the creature's AC. Just describe how and why the blow came close to hitting/missing, but the armor of the defender/skill of the attacker made the final difference
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Here's my advice if you want to go with a sort of "fail forward" approach. Let players and enemies have a "push through" option once per short or long rest. If they are at or within 1 point of an enemy AC, an attacker can push through for half the damage rolled. However, the next attack upon the initial attacker is made with advantage, as the exertion of forcing through an attempted block or parry leaves them wide open and winded for a moment. Similarly, enemies can do this as well. If you really want to make things more interesting for players, you could CONSIDER letting them push through entirely for full damage rolled (perhaps letting them roll first to decide if you're super generous), but they take a level of exhaustion immediately after doing so.
It's not a total game-changer, but it allows for that special little oomph to give players some combat flavor providing they accept the inherent risk too. I'm just spitballing here very off the cuff, but I can't see it being any more broken than the Inspiration system as I understand it.