Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7211320" data-attributes="member: 59848">Obviously magic and spells are a bit more varied, so it can be just a case by case basis regarding what would make sense. For example, let's say someone gets a crit success against Charm Person. Maybe it's appropriate that for the rest of the encounter, the original target of the spell is more on his guard and gains advantage against any other spell saves or spell attacks are at disadvantage when done by the original caster. Or maybe the target raises some innate psychic defense, causing the caster to take 1d12 psychic damage. Either would be appropriate, but I saw it as more a result of the target successfully defending rather than the caster getting a fumble. This is especially true on spells that target multiple creatures. If one crit succeeds on a fireball, it doesn't mean everyone is better off because the caster had a brain fart, but that specific target did a really amazing job getting out of the way. While this is a matter of perspective, there seems to be an underlying assumption in D&D that the person rolling the d20 is the active one within the situation. An attacker is actively attacking, while the defender is passively defending (AC is technically a passive defense check where the target takes 10 rather than roll). Opposed checks seem to be the most active types of checks, since both creatures are rolling d20s both are seen to be doing something. But like I said, it is a subtle difference and not everyone may see it that way.</blockquote>

Verification