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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7547967" data-attributes="member: 20323">Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I do wonder about the "single bad die roll" critique. I mean, that's always a risk in D&D isn't it? Trying to leap a chasm and failing only to fall a distance which can kill you? Failing at a check to control a demon gate and getting sucked into the Abyss? Failing a saving throw versus a medusa's petrification (yes, technically two saves)? Failing a save against a diabolical trap or a dangerous spell? D&D is full of situations where a "single bad die roll" can ruin your day.I wonder what about my idea of a gradated Constitution save makes it any different?Hmm, were I to do that, would it just be one CON save, so either one exhaustion level or 2d6 damage – that seems to lack any real teeth for a 6th level party with healing resources. Druid casts healing spirit the first before the fight and everyone is back to full. Done.If I were to alternately propose an option to "take X damage from thorns and branches instead of an Exhaustion level", that would raise the question of how to handle the druid's Land's Stride feature making her immune to damage from thorns and branches.So ditch the forced march rules entirely? And ditch exhaustion entirely? Make it purely narrative consequences?I see that skill challenge – where failing to make it in time (to at least have a chance to save the settlement) despite genuinely trying – as even more unsatisfying for players than having to make a single roll that offers no rewards, only suffering. At least in the latter scenario there's a sense of buy-in: "We want to be the heroes, so we're going to push through this, no matter how much it hurts. Now let's find ways to boost our Constitution saves as best we can." Whereas in the former scenario there's the devastating possibility of: "We didn't roll high enough, so now we don't even get the chance to try to save the settlement."I honestly don't know which is better.You mean up to 4 CON saves for each PC, right? What would the DC be for these saves? Would it be the same for however many CON saves the party opts into?I don't see my players as doing less than 3 CON saves in order to get your Scenario B. So the only real choice would be whether they'd opt for 4 or 3 CON saves. They would not accept Scenarios C and D, if they're given a choice.</blockquote>

Verification