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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joshua Randall" data-source="post: 925629" data-attributes="member: 7737">Random Possible FixesThese are just ideas off the top of my head. They may not be balanced or workable.(1) Instead of a fixed DC 15 + modifiers above (the part in bold), use a 1d20 roll + modifiers to set the escape DC. This would introduce additional randomness into how difficult it is for the bound creature to escape. 75% of the time, the new DC would be equal to or less than that derived via the core rules.(1a) Or, make it a 1d10 roll + modifiers to set the escape DC. With this variant, the escape DC would always be lower than that derived via the core rules.(1) and (1a) would be somewhat anaologous to the optional "defense roll" rule in the DMG (p. 64).(2) Allow the bound creature to use 1/2 its HD, or 1/2 its CR, as a modifier to its escape check. After all, if the caster gets to apply half his caster level, why shouldn't the bound creature get to apply the equivalent?This rule would make binding high-HD (or high-CR) creatures more difficult.A balor (13 HD, CR 18) would get a +6 or +9 modifier to its escape attempt, in addition to the +3 (Cha 16) it gets under the core rules.Unfortunately, even a modifier of +12 wouldn't let the balor escape from the DC 33 binding set by the 14th level sorcerer in Sepulchrave's original post.Using a combination of (1) and (2), the escape DC could range from a low of 14 (rolled 1 on d10 or d20 to set the escape DC, + 7 (half of caster level), + 6 (Cha 22)), in which case the balor has a very good chance to escape (minimum roll of 1, +6 or +9 from HD/CR, +3 (Cha 16)), to a high of 38 (rolled 20 on d20 to set the escape DC), in which case the balor is no worse off than it was under the core rules.</blockquote>

Verification