Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[5e] Offensive and defensive stances
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7594858" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>My thoughts...</p><p></p><p>First while the idea seems something worthwhile, I do not like that it's so narrow as to only be affecting attacks and so powerful it stomps over other actions and class features. So it would not get in my game eith this manifestation.</p><p></p><p>Second, i do not like the certainty, the easy math, trade-off. I give this I get that makes it too predictable. </p><p></p><p>Third, dodge is already powerful. Your best way to encourage its use is to use it and let them see it in play against them, not changing it to something else. </p><p></p><p></p><p>So, if I were going to do this, I would leverage it with the DMG option for success at cost (S@C). (Assumes you are not already using that optional feature.) </p><p>_____</p><p>Let's call it - Going All Out</p><p>At the start of your turn you may go all out, throwing everything into your effort. If your attack roll fails by 1 or 2, it succeeds anyway. But at that point, once the success occurs, the GM can and will impose some cost, setback or misfortune that also happens. (See Success at cost and Ability Checks "some progress with setback" as just a few examples. This could be applied to an enemy's save vs your spell, turning a narrow success to resist your spell into a failure, but again at a cost to you.</p><p>_____</p><p>So, this basically brings S@C inyo the game as a choice one can invoke before taking an action, wagering a slight gain in odds of success with a cost.</p><p></p><p>It's essentially S@C but declared in advance, "pre-clared"?</p><p></p><p>The key to this working will be the variety and scope of the impactful drawbacks that hit the character when the 1-2 under occurs. (Note, you could make a small tweak, to flavor, and frame it as lemons to lemonade - if you say "on a roll of 1 or 2" instead of 1 or 2 under. Makes it more of an immediate recognize thing.)</p><p></p><p>But the key remains the uncertainty - the GM has a wide array of options, not a set trade-off you calculate in advance. </p><p></p><p>So, this is the route I would go, leveraging an optional rule, bringing it more as a choice or gamble into the fray.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7594858, member: 6919838"] My thoughts... First while the idea seems something worthwhile, I do not like that it's so narrow as to only be affecting attacks and so powerful it stomps over other actions and class features. So it would not get in my game eith this manifestation. Second, i do not like the certainty, the easy math, trade-off. I give this I get that makes it too predictable. Third, dodge is already powerful. Your best way to encourage its use is to use it and let them see it in play against them, not changing it to something else. So, if I were going to do this, I would leverage it with the DMG option for success at cost (S@C). (Assumes you are not already using that optional feature.) _____ Let's call it - Going All Out At the start of your turn you may go all out, throwing everything into your effort. If your attack roll fails by 1 or 2, it succeeds anyway. But at that point, once the success occurs, the GM can and will impose some cost, setback or misfortune that also happens. (See Success at cost and Ability Checks "some progress with setback" as just a few examples. This could be applied to an enemy's save vs your spell, turning a narrow success to resist your spell into a failure, but again at a cost to you. _____ So, this basically brings S@C inyo the game as a choice one can invoke before taking an action, wagering a slight gain in odds of success with a cost. It's essentially S@C but declared in advance, "pre-clared"? The key to this working will be the variety and scope of the impactful drawbacks that hit the character when the 1-2 under occurs. (Note, you could make a small tweak, to flavor, and frame it as lemons to lemonade - if you say "on a roll of 1 or 2" instead of 1 or 2 under. Makes it more of an immediate recognize thing.) But the key remains the uncertainty - the GM has a wide array of options, not a set trade-off you calculate in advance. So, this is the route I would go, leveraging an optional rule, bringing it more as a choice or gamble into the fray. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[5e] Offensive and defensive stances
Top