Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-16-07, 09:32 PM	As a house rule in my previous campaign (oh so long ago... one of the things I miss about the mainland), my DM, who also happened to be me, experimented with a house rule that if you are saving against a damaging spell with variable effect, rolling a 1 indicates that you take maximum damage and rolling a 20 indicates that you take minimum damage (assuming the spell was save for half, and minimum damage was applied before being halved obviously). On spells where you could save to avoid the damage entirely by description of the spell, rolling a 1 did not mean you took maximum damage. As per my own personal policy, I applied this universally (i.e. to enemies as well as the players). Fireball, as an example: a 10th-level wizard casts fireball. Player A rolls a 1. Player B rolls a 20. Player C makes save without a 20. Player D fails save without a 1. Player A takes 60 damage. Player B takes 5 damage (10 / 2). Player C takes (10d6 / 2) damage. Player D takes 10d6 damage. What is your take on this experimental rule?
Kintara 01-16-07, 11:51 PM	I don't really see why the minimum needs to be halved, but that's just a aesthetic thing. What if your save is high enough that you only fail on a 1? Do you still get hit with the nasty maximization? That doesn't seem right. Edit: And aloha. ;)
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-17-07, 12:07 AM	I don't really see why the minimum needs to be halved, but that's just a aesthetic thing. What if your save is high enough that you only fail on a 1? Do you still get hit with the nasty maximization? That doesn't seem right. Edit: And aloha. ;) It possibly doesn't seem right that a character who would only fail a roll on a 1 would get hit with the maximization, yes. However, for years I've also ruled out 1's being an automatic failure and 20's being an automatic success. On the other hand, as a DM I also tend to not put my players in situations where the only way they can succeed is by rolling a 20 (or the only way they can fail is by rolling a 1).
Ogreman 01-18-07, 01:26 AM	I think it's interesting. In a situation where saves are made instead of attack rolls, the idea of critical hit/ critical miss can still be implemented. What about for spells that don't do damage? My thought was increased duration. -Ogreman
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-18-07, 01:59 AM	I think it's interesting. In a situation where saves are made instead of attack rolls, the idea of critical hit/ critical miss can still be implemented. What about for spells that don't do damage? My thought was increased duration. -Ogreman That could be interesting as well. I personally don't like the idea of changing one factor (critical save) without counterweighting it with the opposite (critical failure of a save). Though, for that reason, I could balance it out perhaps this way: A critical failure (natural roll of 1) against a spell with a duration means that the spell has half again as much of its duration. A 10-minute duration would be increased to 15 minutes, a 3-round duration increased to 4. Just a thought.
Ryusage 01-18-07, 08:27 PM	Interesting concept... How has this worked for your group?
Ace_of_Diamonds 01-18-07, 08:31 PM	Interesting concept... How has this worked for your group? It actually didn't seem to make a noticeable difference other than that the players thought it was more fun to make a saving throw. I suppose that's for the better, though.