D&D 5E Boons and Setbacks in 5e

[Jimbro]

So I've been playing a lot of RPGs with boons and setback mechanics recently (like Edge of the Empire). I wanted to see if I could make this work in 5e, so I wrote about it on my blog. You can read the full post below.

LINK: https://worldbuilderblog.me/2017/03/23/boons-and-setbacks-in-5e/

I wanted to share my different ideas here and get some feedback. Let me know what you think.


[h=6]Optional Rule: Five Above/Below[/h]This optional rule allows you to apply boons based on the result of a character's ability check, attack roll, or saving throw when compared to the DC or AC . Roll the dice, apply appropriate modifiers, and then use the table below to determine the result.

[TABLE="width: 1"]
[TR]
[TD]Result[/TD]
[TD]Effect[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5 or more above DC/AC[/TD]
[TD]Success with boon[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1-4 above DC/AC[/TD]
[TD]Normal success[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Equals DC/AC[/TD]
[TD]Success with setback*[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 below DC/AC[/TD]
[TD]Failure with boon*[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2-4 below DC/AC[/TD]
[TD]Normal failure[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5 or more below DC/AC[/TD]
[TD]Failure with setback[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
*If you are not playing with these effects as options, treat the results as normal successes and failures.

[h=6]Optional Rule: Know Your the Roll[/h]This optional rule uses the unmodified results of the dice. Any natural roll of 15 or above grants a boon, while any natural roll of 5 or less imposes a setback. You can increase the ranges of these results to increase the frequencies of boons and setbacks to fit the needs of your group and story.

[h=6]Optional Rule: Advantage Boons and Disadvantage Setbacks[/h]This optional rule states that an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw is made with advantage, the result grants a boon, while anytime one of those rolls is made with disadvantage, the result grants a setback. Note that this rule does not mesh well with the suggested boons and setbacks that grant advantage and disadvantage on the next d20 roll, since it risks creating never-ending advantage and disadvantage.

[h=6]Optional Rule: Natural 20s and 1s Only[/h]With this optional rule you gain a boon whenever you roll a natural 20 on your ability check, attack roll, or saving throw and a setback whenever you roll a natural 1 on one of those rolls.

[h=4]Suggested Boons[/h]You have advantage on the next d20 roll you make.
You gain a piece of knowledge or hint about your current quest.
You can immediately take the Help action as a bonus action.
You can spend one die to heal as if had taken a short rest immediately.
Attack: You knock your target prone.
Attack: You disarm your target.
Attack: You deafen your target.
Attack: Your attack does an extra 1d6 damage. Damage type is chosen by the DM.
Save: You can immediately move 10 feet in any direction.
Save: You shout a warning which allows another creature of your choice who can hear you and has to make the same save advantage on their saving throw.

[h=4]Suggested Setbacks[/h]You have disadvantage on the next d20.
An item being used in the action is broken.
You take 1d6 damage as a result of the setback. Damage type is determined by the DM.
You lose one hit die, 1st-level spell slot, or other small resource.
Attack: You drop your weapon or implement used to make the attack.
Attack: You fall prone.
Save: You fall prone or are moved 10 feet in a random direction if the effect already knocks you prone.

 

[Kabouter Games]

I like this idea and use parts of it at my table.

I don't like the added effects in combat. The combat system works very well as it is, and I don't think it's wise to throw a spanner into it. Your combat boons, for example, are very, very powerful, and duplicate sought-after powers.

But I adore the idea of boons. Like many people, I reward crits on skill checks with what I guess you could call boons. For example, if a character crits a roll to pick a lock, she gets advantage on the next roll she makes to pick a lock.

I also use "near miss" mechanics to liven things up, in combat and out, which amounts to your "success with setback." Since rolling the target number is a success, I don't use that part of your mechanic. I use a miss by one.

If the above rogue misses the DC to pick a lock by 1, I'll say she picked the lock but broke one of her thieve's tools, which equates to disadvantage to further checks to use those tools until she can repair or replace them.

Of course this must be tempered with some thought. You don't want the setback to be too severe. If they're three weeks from civilization, and on level two of a five-level dungeon, replacing the tools is impossible. So it's fair to rule that she can repair the tool during the next short rest. If they're in a town, I'd rule that no further use of the tools is possible until the broken part is replaced, because it's not only easy, it presents an awesome opportunity for a side quest or at least a bit of role-playing.

I don't much like the idea of significant setbacks, either, not to the characters.

Taken from my monograph on DMs Guild chock full of advice for DMs:

People talk about game balance all the time. It’s true: Rules need to be balanced. That rule holds for critical success and critical failure. If a natural 20 is OMGTOTALLYRAD, a natural 1 should suck. The trouble, as such eminent designers as Monte Cook point out, is that fumbles make players feel bad. That’s not a good thing, by and large. But it has its moments.

Failure should never suck so much that characters look bad or players feel stupid. Some DMs think that botches should result only in a harmful effect, but that should be avoided. We’re playing a game that’s supposed to be about thrilling heroics. Every gamer who’s had botch mechanics at her table has a story about the PC who got killed because someone fired into melee and botched. Or a valued piece of gear breaks, like the Ranger above, when he rolls a 1, his +1 longbow breaks. That is stupid. No hero should screw the pooch that badly, and RPGs like D&D are all about thrilling heroics. We want James Bond, not Mr Bean.

D&D is a game which needs story to work. Every story has a certain anatomy, part of which is that the protagonist encounters setbacks and roadblocks. Overcoming failure is part of the story’s drama. Without drama, the story is uninteresting. So use the botch to ramp up the drama.

Let’s say the party is in the boss fight for this part of the adventure, and the boss is on the ropes. The Ranger rolls a natural 1 on a longbow shot. Rather than something happening which makes the character look like a dope, go for something different which, while mechanical failure, ratchets up the tension. Like this: The arrow hits an oil lamp on the wall behind the goblin king. The lamp explodes, splashing burning oil all over the place. Which sets alight his throne and the curtains behind it. Which quickly spreads to the filthy rushes which cover the floor of the room. Suddenly the Goblin King’s throne room is filled with thick, choking smoke, enraged and/or terrified goblins, and – did I mention this? – FIRE. You’ve got goblins that get some benefit (maybe advantage on attack rolls or temporary HP like a Barbarian’s rage), or the PCs need to make CON saves for the smoke, or whatever. The bits on fire become terrain obstacles, like entering squares on fire mean a Dexterity saving throw or 5 HP fire damage. The important thing is an unexpected bad thing happened that didn’t automatically kill or harm any of the PCs or their gear, but did ramp up the drama.

See what I mean?

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

 

[thethain]

Although it could be fun, I feel like it adds a good bit of potential slowdown when 5e has taken many measures to ensure quick play.

Also I think it would occasionally put npcs and characters in positions where they ended up just dodging because they didn't have a good chance to hit, so didn't want to risk a penalty by missing hard.

I could see the 20/1 implementation so it doesn't interfere much, but I have never been a big fan of stupid effects on nat 1, critical failures is meant to enforce the fact that in the chaos of life theres always a chance of failure, but the chance of you literally shooting your foot with the a crossbow is far less than 5% especially when you are dealing with trained experts who have shot hundreds or thousands of shots (apparently taking a minimum of 1/20 of those shots in their own feet) although I do feel like especially with some builds, critical hits feel unimpressive. (but that I have always felt was easier solved by using max 1 die + roll instead of roll 2 dice)

 

[Jimbro]

In the full blog post I do address why boons and setbacks work best with ability checks and should be approached with caution when applying them to attacks and saves.

 

[Kabouter Games]

(but that I have always felt was easier solved by using max 1 die + roll instead of roll 2 dice)

I remember max normal +1W being the way of crits in D&DNext for ages, then when the books came out it was merely 2W+bonuses? Bugger THAT. A crit with a longsword should automatically do more damage than a firebolt.

In the full blog post I do address why boons and setbacks work best with ability checks and should be approached with caution when applying them to attacks and saves.

I should probably have read that before replying. Sorry!

 

[Jimbro]

No what you have is great and I agree. You break it down more in-depth than I do certainly. Just wanted to let you know I had put some thought and warnings into it too!

 

[The Old Crow]

Although it could be fun, I feel like it adds a good bit of potential slowdown when 5e has taken many measures to ensure quick play.

Also I think it would occasionally put npcs and characters in positions where they ended up just dodging because they didn't have a good chance to hit, so didn't want to risk a penalty by missing hard.

I could see the 20/1 implementation so it doesn't interfere much, but I have never been a big fan of stupid effects on nat 1, critical failures is meant to enforce the fact that in the chaos of life theres always a chance of failure, but the chance of you literally shooting your foot with the a crossbow is far less than 5% especially when you are dealing with trained experts who have shot hundreds or thousands of shots (apparently taking a minimum of 1/20 of those shots in their own feet) although I do feel like especially with some builds, critical hits feel unimpressive. (but that I have always felt was easier solved by using max 1 die + roll instead of roll 2 dice)

One way to take skill into account would be to use the optional rule for proficiency dice instead of a proficiency bonus, and only if both the d20 and the proficiency die turn up 1s does something bad happen.