Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7930384" data-attributes="member: 6987520">No, the DC 15 bump is because the check is now a spellcasting check and not a CON save. Most casters don't have proficiency in CON saves and generally +3 to +5 CON modifiers, but all casters are proficient in their spellcasting and have +3 to +5 ability in their spell casting. So, instead of normally a +1 or +2 at many levels, the modifier is +5 to +11.In general, if a caster is attempting their highest level spell, their chance for failing a check should be a bit under 50%.Yeah, the intent was correct and I'll reword the OP to reflect it better. The idea was if the damage done is high (typically from a critical hit or failed save), the check should be with disadvantage. Originally, it was if the damage exceeded the DC of the check, it was at disadvantage. But, then I realized that lower levels spells were more likely to have disadvantage from a big damage source--and that didn't make sense.How about: If the damage exceeds 10 + your spellcasting modifier, the check is made with disadvantage.That would also handle the cantrip killer-effect and was pretty much what I was going for. What do you think about the bolded option above?We'll play test it as is, and if we see a slow down then going with a flat DC increase might be the best way. I'd have to run some numbers to find out what a good flat increase would be, but it is a good idea.How is this double-dipping? The DC is based on the spell level, not damage. Disadvantage is only then imposed on a critical hit/failed save.Keeping it simple is always a good thing, but I don't want it automatic. That's why I am making a concentration check required whenever you attempt to concentrate on more than one spell.</blockquote>

Verification