What if you used the maximum possible damage the attack could do? In that case avoiding a kobold with a knife is still pretty easy (1d6(max 6)+2 or something, DC8) but a giant would be tough if not impossible (3d12+5, max 41, doesn’t work) and a more reasonable mid/high level enemy (2d8+4, dc 20) would be tough but not impossible. Using a static reduction already takes the damage roll out of the equation, so that doesn’t work either. I was thinking having the player roll against a contested check earlier, but that could be really inconsistent. The DC needs to scale with level or damage somehow, and the ability needs to be limited to within reason (no rolling with a giant smacking you with a giant sized great axe unless you’re super high leveled). Instead I would bind it to a Weapon attack only (no magic melee) because non weapon melee attacks likely don’t carry the necessary force (for instance a chill touch cantrip). Because it’s about dodging and using the force of the blow instead of using armor, the magic damage loophole could be removed. If the check works, the damage is reduced by their DEX and they get to move 5’ without an opportunity attack.īecause it requires a check to pass ( and as long as the DC is reasonably hard as level increases) there is risk of failure that warrants the ability being better than HAM. What if you made it work with a reduction based on DEX modifier. You could further complicate it by saying that on a crit roll by the defending player, they can move 10 ft or not land prone, but I think that’s too much. If the attacker wins, you are unable to find an opening to move.” Standing from this roll costs only 5’ of movement. If you win, you roll 5’ away from the attacker in a direction of your choice, landing prone. Make an acrobatics check contested by the attackers acrobatics/athletics check. “when you are hit by a melee weapon attack by a target you can see, you may use your reaction to attempt to roll clear of your enemy’s reach. Reducing to 5’ is common to other abilities.Īlso, this should require sight of the enemy to plan this maneuver. I would add a reduced cost to stand so that it doesn’t hinder them next turn. Realistically contested is the best way to handle it. This means they could roll a 4 and pass the check, only failing 20% of the time. A proficient player at level 4 taking this feat would likely have a +4 to decide and would have +2 from proficiency. It should likely be a contested check instead of a damage DC, or at least have a fixed number like 10 minimum to have some chance of failure. That check will also be super easy to make in most cases. I would change it to have the roll effect always carry the player in increments of 5’, because 5e uses 5’ increments for basically everything. “Rolling with it” away from an attacker with multiattack and remaining movement could really hurt, as they could walk up and hit you again with advantage. All monsters, all the time!īeing prone in 5e could be a problem. Combat areas for every conceivable encounter. Collection of Podcasts, Vidcasts, and other D&D Multimedia for your consumption. Worldbuilding, Storybuilding, DM Discussion. The DM Help Multireddit Check out our wiki! Message the Moderators Keep Little Questions in the megathreadįull rules with additional explanations can be found here.Keep Problem Player talk in the megathread.External Links & Advertising are limited to active community members.Only three kinds of posts are allowed here: DMing Questions, Advice and tools. Please refrain from downvoting legitimate questions. We are not only for new DMs, but the bulk of the posts will no doubt be submitted by newer DMs. We welcome DMing questions, DMing advice or tools to help DMs old and new. The aim of this subreddit is to serve as a platform for learning to DM. Before Submitting a Question, Please Check our Rules Remove All Need Advice See Advice Only See Resources Only Join the Discord
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |