Removing "He saved, nothing happens"

[mgshamster]

One of my biggest complaints about d&d is when absolutely nothing happens due to a successful saving throw. It feels like such a let down and a waste of a spell.

But the problem with changing it is that spell casters become even stronger compared to martials. So, based on that, what would you think of this idea:

Whenever a non-cantrip spell fails and *nothing happens* because an enemy successfully made their saving throw, choose one of the following:

Enemy is distracted; one ally can make a stealth check with advantage to become hidden against this enemy.
One Ally's next weapon attack gains a bonus equal to the spell level to attack or damage against this enemy.

These bonuses must be used before the start of your next turn.

--------

I think this will help remove the annoyance of casting a spell only to have nothing happen because they made their save, while also giving your martial allies a boost.

Note that if an effect is still experienced on a successful save, this doesn't apply.

Ok, based on feedback, my group wants to make the following changes:

For any limited use ability that recharges on a short or long rest, if it fails due to a single d20 roll (attack or save; not including advantage/disadvantage), and upon failure nothing happens, then roll on (or pick from) the following chart:

1) One ally gains advantage on their next weapon attack against the target
2) One ally can make an immediate stealth check against the target
3) One ally may ignore any resistance the target has
4) One ally can use their reaction to make a weapon attack against the target
5) One ally gains +1d4 damage against the target on their next weapon attack
6) One ally gains +1d4 to attack against the target on their next weapon attack

All of these expire if they're not used by the begining of the initial character's next turn.

------

This should include spells, battlemaster dice, ki abilities, channel divinity, and anything else. It also only affects abilities that are dependent on a single roll, so any ability with ongoing effects or have multiple rounds, or have additional abilities or have something happen even if it fails would not count.

[Kane0]

What about spells that miss attack rolls?

Also, the result needs to be as simple as possible. Something like the nearest ally gains advantage to hit the target with their next attack roll.

Otherwise, perfectly valid idea.

[Honest Tiefling]

Couldn't you just start spamming low level spells against a boss to give advantage to the Paladin or Fighter? Or for rogues, get them tons of Sneak Attack damage. While I get the idea behind the idea, I would worry it would get out of hand quickly.

[mgshamster]

What about spells that miss attack rolls?

Are there any non-cantrip spells that have a spell attack where absolutely nothing happens on a fail?


Also, the result needs to be as simple as possible. Something like the nearest ally gains advantage to hit the target with their next attack roll.

Otherwise, perfectly valid idea.

I disagree that it *needs* to be as simple as possible. Simplicity is within the 5e design philosophy, but not everything in 5e is as simple as possible. There's still a lot of complexity in 5e, and by giving three options, you add a bit more team dynamics than a simple "gain advantage to attack" will give.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think you should also specify if it works when the spell first triggers a saving throw, or every saving throw. Else I'd use Black Tentacles and go to town.

Who am I kidding, I'd use that spell anyway.

[Millstone85]

Are there any non-cantrip spells that have a spell attack where absolutely nothing happens on a fail?Chromatic Orb, Guiding Bolt, Inflict Wounds, Plane Shift, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Sickness, Scorching Ray, Witch Bolt...

Seems pretty standard.

[mgshamster]

Chromatic Orb, Guiding Bolt, Inflict Wounds, Plane Shift, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Sickness, Scorching Ray, Witch Bolt...

Seems pretty standard.

Huh. Well, then yeah, let's include those.

Black tentacles wouldn't fit though, because there's still an ongoing effect even if someone fails a save.

[Matrix_Walker]

It is a super bummer.

Might be nice to let a caster recover some energy... recover a spell slot a level or two below on a successful roll... spit-balling here...

Make an ability check against your casting stat with a CD of 10+the spell points expended, and recover spell points equal to your margin of victory to a maximum of one less than you expended on the initial spell.

[mgshamster]

It is a super bummer.

Might be nice to let a caster recover some energy... recover a spell slot a level or two below on a successful roll... spit-balling here...

Make an ability check against your casting stat with a CD of 10+the spell points expended, and recover spell points equal to your margin of victory to a maximum of one less than you expended on the initial spell.

The biggest issue I have with that is it only makes casters even stronger, while providing no benefit to martial characters.

[Matrix_Walker]

The biggest issue I have with that is it only makes casters even stronger, while providing no benefit to martial characters.

Sorry, I skimmed your OP too lightly ;)

[Misterwhisper]

Sure remove spells where nothing happens when they save, as soon as they also remove spells that instantly end situations on a fail.

[busterswd]

Couldn't you just start spamming low level spells against a boss to give advantage to the Paladin or Fighter? Or for rogues, get them tons of Sneak Attack damage. While I get the idea behind the idea, I would worry it would get out of hand quickly.

Well, don't forget you can bestow advantage every round without consuming any spells, either with your familiar or by using your own help action. The main concern would be whether giving advantage to a "Save - null" spell on failure would be too powerful in terms of action economy.

@mgshamster: If you're worried about raising the power level of casters, why not make it a feat and balance accordingly? There's not a ton of compelling offensive spellcasting feats, anyway. As for your suggested effects:


Enemy is distracted; one ally can make a stealth check with advantage to become hidden against this enemy.

I think this one is probably underpowered. Unless you're a rogue, Stealth is a standard action, and even once you're hidden, unless you're a rogue, it's basically advantage on your next attack for the cost of two actions. And the other option looks like it would generally be way more attractive, regardless of party makeup.


One Ally's next weapon attack gains a bonus equal to the spell level to attack or damage against this enemy.

I can't imagine anybody not simply using the attack bonus, and scaling static modifiers to the attack bonus tend to make me pause in 5e. Granted, it's "just" more damage, but let's say you whiff with polymorph; it's now a +4 attack to, say, that Fighter who's about to nova, or to the Paladin about to smite the stuffing out of what's very likely a high priority target. It may be less power for the caster, but it's a fairly significant power increase to the party overall.



What about an effect that allows allies to bypass nonmagical weapon resistance, and if they have magic weapons, they gain an extra +1 to hit? It's an effect that's going to be incredibly useful in the right situations, and not insignificant in other situations. Plus, there's a bit of flavor of "lingering magical aura" or what not.

[Saiga]

What about just letting one ally within 5 feet of the target to use their reaction to make one weapon attack? Uses the reaction, and won't be too powerful, but it's better than nothing and requires martials to gain the benefit.

[Honest Tiefling]

What about just letting one ally within 5 feet of the target to use their reaction to make one weapon attack? Uses the reaction, and won't be too powerful, but it's better than nothing and requires martials to gain the benefit.

Also reduces the amount one has to remember, which is always good when your players have the attention span of a kitten.

[Sigreid]

I don't personally agree. After all, if a martial fails their attack roll or their grapple check then...nothing happens.

[nickl_2000]

I don't personally agree. After all, if a martial fails their attack roll or their grapple check then...nothing happens.

I believe that your comparison here isn't a good one. A spellcaster has a limited supply of non-cantrip spells (especially at earlier levels), while a melee character can swing their sword all day long without any problems.

That being said, I believe that spellcasters do have a way to mitigate this issue, which is to pick different spells. There is nothing there preventing you from choosing buffs and half damage on save spells. If they choose a spell like heat metal, then there is nothing to worry about. So, they may not be the most powerful spells, but they will always be effective.


If you insist on an effect, the reaction within melee range to attack would be decent, or give melee the next attack advantage wouldn't be to bad for non-cantrip spells. I just don't think it is necessary.

[ZorroGames]

Of course, this would work for enemy casters and allies/monks right? Sauce for the Goose, sauce for the Gander.

I see more frequent NPC casters in any game I would DM with that rule in action on the table.

Perhaps spell casters need to be aware of that danger in spell selection try to select some spells that damage even with saves in a mix of "chip," "saw," and "bombs away" capabilities.

A whiff is a whiff and a save is a save.

[Sigreid]

I believe that your comparison here isn't a good one. A spellcaster has a limited supply of non-cantrip spells (especially at earlier levels), while a melee character can swing their sword all day long without any problems.

That being said, I believe that spellcasters do have a way to mitigate this issue, which is to pick different spells. There is nothing there preventing you from choosing buffs and half damage on save spells. If they choose a spell like heat metal, then there is nothing to worry about. So, they may not be the most powerful spells, but they will always be effective.


If you insist on an effect, the reaction within melee range to attack would be decent, or give melee the next attack advantage wouldn't be to bad for non-cantrip spells. I just don't think it is necessary.

I understand your position, I just don't agree and believe that it would give casters a leg up they don't need. While the martial isn't spending a resorce, he's also not gambling on shutting down a mob or encounter completely.

That said, make your table work for you.

[Unoriginal]

One of my biggest complaints about d&d is when absolutely nothing happens due to a successful saving throw. It feels like such a let down and a waste of a spell.

Well yes, it's supposed to be bad. Failure is failure.


I believe that your comparison here isn't a good one. A spellcaster has a limited supply of non-cantrip spells (especially at earlier levels), while a melee character can swing their sword all day long without any problems.

Yes, that's the principle. You get something more powerful than a sword swing in exchange of having a limited supply of it.

[Decstarr]

I think the general idea is perfectly legit but for all the wrong reasons. Casters are generally more powerful than the martial classes because of their versatility. If the players build their PCs in a way that save=nothing happens situations occur on a regular basis, it's their own "fault" and they should live with the consequences.

I think that being exceptionally descriptive can help to make such a "nothing happens" scenario way more interesting. Blame it on the wind, the weather, the gnome's stupid costume or whatever that the spell failed rather than on the creature making the safe. This way it's less dull and you could even come up with creative ways that might influence the battlefield a little bit. Then all of a sudden it's not "nothing happens" anymore but the avalanche distracting the caster for a split second so the spell fails, but parts of the battle field are not covered in snow, providing difficult terrain and/or cover.

If I could get behind the idea of "spell save distraction can trigger a reaction based OA style from a nearby martial character". How would you handle it if a creature has legendary resistance and chooses to succeed? And how would you tackle the issue of "counterspell" against your caster which pretty much has the exact same effect: Nothing happens.

[EvilAnagram]

It seems to me that occasionally failing is part of the game. I don't see why casters should be exempt.

[Tanarii]

I don't personally agree. After all, if a martial fails their attack roll or their grapple check then...nothing happens.
Pretty much my view too.

I mean, I understand that a spell is a daily (or short rest for warlock) resource ON TOP of your action for the round being useless. But I don't see any particular reason that resource expenditure should mean some guaranteed effect. If you want that, choose a spell that has a guaranteed (albeit probably weaker) effect.

OTOH it's probably due to my BECMI / AD&D experience, where I view a saving throw as active defense on the part of the creature making the save. A last chance to avoid annihilation roll. Since spells tend to be less 'save or die' now, having a minor effect on save anyway isn't necessarily going to be a game breaker.

The only question is, what are you going to take away in return for doing this? Off the top of my head, you could change spell saves to DC 4 + Prof + Ability mod, in return for an automatic effect, for any spells that used to be 'saved = failed spell'. Edit: you could even leave the choice up to the player when they cast the spell. Lower save DC with automatic effect vs higher save DC with save fails spell. Then see how often players choose one or the other to determine if you've got the DC in balance with the automatic effect.

[mgshamster]

Well yes, it's supposed to be bad. Failure is failure.



Yes, that's the principle. You get something more powerful than a sword swing in exchange of having a limited supply of it.

I understand where you're coming from. And in a video game sense it makes sense. Perfect game theory.

However the principle of the house rule isn't just to get "rid of failure" it's to make the game move forward in a much more interesting and varied way.

"I cast charm person"
"He saves and hates you now"
"Well **** there goes a spell slot"

Vs

"I cast charm person"
"He saves and hates you now"
"Well ****... OK, the rogue is standing behind him? The NPC is so focused on my now that I cast the spell the rogue can make a quick stealth check"

It puts 'the party' in a more advantageous position without directly making spellcasters the Hero God Victors. As well as giving another mechanic to introduce fun storytelling elements.

[Orion3T]

As someone playing my first sorcerer, this is interesting.

My feeling with 'Save for no effect' is that I don' want many of them as a sorcerer. Last level she chose her first level 6 spell; I was mostly considering Disintegrate, Mass Suggestion and Chain Lightning. The idea that if the target passes their save nothing happens really put me off Disintegrate, especially when I only get a single level 6 spell slot. Mass Suggestion was less of a problem in that regard but I eliminated it based on the quests she has to complete which don't seem to involve having to deal with a great many enemies at once but single larger enemies.

So for safety's sake I chose Chain Lightning.

However once I have more high level slots, Disintegrate will look more appealing. It's still a potential waste of an action but it's still in principle a higher damage spell against 1-2 targets so in a longer fight with more slots it will make sense. Especially if she can pick up Heighten spell for use against single targets.

Especially since, even when mostly twinned, Hold Person has probably been her least used spell because it has often let her down by doing nothing.

I'm sure it makes more sense with a Wizard as they can prepare the spell which is theoretically optimal for the foe they expect to face that day. A Socerer needs to be more versatile and having no effect from your best daily ability is pretty rough.

That said, the spells are, on average, balanced to take this into account. So you definitely don't want to make the actual spell more powerful. Effectively you're suggesting a consolation prize for the party as a whole, which I think could work, and would certainly make those spells slightly more appealing. And the annoyance of them failing might be slightly mitigated if it allows the fighter to e.g. make an opportunity attack using their reaction (probably my favourite suggestion so far).

Would the effect apply per target, or per spell? If I twin e.g. Hold, and target saves, does the effect come into play or not? Something you might want to clarify if you're considring trying it out.

I'm also not sure about how to visualise it thematically. It might make sense for a reflex save but I'm not sure how passing a con or wisdom save would cause such an effect, but failing does not.

[Naanomi]

I understand where you're coming from. And in a video game sense it makes sense. Perfect game theory.

However the principle of the house rule isn't just to get "rid of failure" it's to make the game move forward in a much more interesting and varied way.

"I cast charm person"
"He saves and hates you now"
"Well **** there goes a spell slot"

Vs

"I cast charm person"
"He saves and hates you now"
"Well ****... OK, the rogue is standing behind him? The NPC is so focused on my now that I cast the spell the rogue can make a quick stealth check"

It puts 'the party' in a more advantageous position without directly making spellcasters the Hero God Victors. As well as giving another mechanic to introduce fun storytelling elements.
So what cool status effects do martial types get to apply when they miss?

[Thrudd]

Wasted/missed spells is something that happens sometimes. Spells don't need to be any more powerful. A someone making a saving throw should in no way make them more vulnerable.

[solidork]

I'm not sure that I agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but it would actually be a pretty interesting class feature for a Sorcerer subclass, where you get back N sorcery points if your spell literally does nothing.

[Burley]

I feel like, if I'm a wizard, and I chose to prepare and cast Fireball instead of Haste, I should deal with the consequences. I should deal with the possibility that, sometimes, I will be ineffective.

As a DM and a Player, if I am consistently feeling ineffective, especially because I have bad luck at dice rolls, I'm going to find ways to make my character effective. If I'm thinking in-character: "I am the worst at fireballs, so, maybe I should start doing other things to help my group. Maybe I'll stop proverbially burning my spell slots to do damage, and use them to buff my party and help them all do damage, which will statistically be more useful in most situations."

I think that adding padding to failures is encouraging the running-headfirst-at-the-wall behavior.


Also, if you're worried about wasting spell slots, play a Warlock and get them all back every time you sneeze. Then, your misses are only as detrimental as the non-casters.

[MrStabby]

Just a thought:

Whenever a player passes a save vs a spell they subtract 1 from their next save roll. Whenever they fail they add 1 to their next roll.

If they pass their save then at least you weaken them for their next attack. It balances out the luck a little bit.

[mgshamster]

So what cool status effects do martial types get to apply when they miss?

Do martial classes have limited use abilities where nothing happens on a miss? The only ones I can think of off hand are actually spells for EK, AT, etc.

And besides, these cool things directly benefit martial classes. The Spellcaster can't use it themselves; they have to affect an ally in a martial manner. So when the caster fails, the martial benefits. That's the idea behind it all.

[MrStabby]

Do martial classes have limited use abilities where nothing happens on a miss? The only ones I can think of off hand are actually spells for EK, AT, etc.

And besides, these cool things directly benefit martial classes. The Spellcaster can't use it themselves; they have to affect an ally in a martial manner. So when the caster fails, the martial benefits. That's the idea behind it all.

Action surge, battlemaster abilities, barbarian rage, monk flurry of blows can all end up doing nothing if you miss.

[EvilAnagram]

Do martial classes have limited use abilities where nothing happens on a miss? The only ones I can think of off hand are actually spells for EK, AT, etc.


Several BM maneuvers require spending the resource before you know you hit. Action Surge can come to naught. If a Barbarian rages, then succumbs to an effect that keeps him from attacking for a turn he's wasted a daily. Every combat that isn't a surprise is a wasted feature for Assassins. Paladins have Channel Divinity. Monks have ki abilities.

[mgshamster]

Action surge, battlemaster abilities, barbarian rage, monk flurry of blows can all end up doing nothing if you miss.

Rage is ongoing and has other effects. But action surge and flurry of blows may count.

[mgshamster]

Ok, based on feedback, my group wants to make the following changes:

For any limited use ability that recharges on a short or long rest, if it fails due to a single d20 roll (attack or save; not including advantage/disadvantage), and upon failure nothing happens, then roll on the following chart:

1) One ally gains advantage on their next weapon attack against the target
2) One ally can make an immediate stealth check against the target
3) One ally may ignore any resistance the target has
4) One ally can use their reaction to make a weapon attack against the target
5) One ally gains +1d4 damage against the target on their next weapon attack
6) One ally gains +1d4 to attack against the target on their next weapon attack

All of these expire if they're not used by the begining of the initial character's next turn.

------

This should include spells, battlemaster dice, ki abilities, channel divinity, and anything else. It also only affects abilities that are dependent on a single roll, so any ability with ongoing effects or have multiple rounds, or have additional abilities or have something happen even if it fails would not count.

[Sigreid]

Sure, knock yourself out. As long as you all have fun and no one in your group is fuming.

[pwykersotz]

Ok, based on feedback, my group wants to make the following changes:

For any limited use ability that recharges on a short or long rest, if it fails due to a single d20 roll (attack or save; not including advantage/disadvantage), and upon failure nothing happens, then roll on the following chart:

1) One ally gains advantage on their next weapon attack against the target
2) One ally can make an immediate stealth check against the target
3) One ally may ignore any resistance the target has
4) One ally can use their reaction to make a weapon attack against the target
5) One ally gains +1d4 damage against the target on their next weapon attack
6) One ally gains +1d4 to attack against the target on their next weapon attack

All of these expire if they're not used by the begining of the initial character's next turn.

------

This should include spells, battlemaster dice, ki abilities, channel divinity, and anything else. It also only affects abilities that are dependent on a single roll, so any ability with ongoing effects or have multiple rounds, or have additional abilities or have something happen even if it fails would not count.

It's a pretty neat idea, I have to say. A bit more refined than your initial one. I might try this out.

[Phelan Boots]

Make it a Feat?

Tactical Spell Casting

Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.

When you cast a spell that expends a spell slot, and an enemy makes their saving throw, you may take the Help action as a bonus action until the end of your turn. Additionally, when you use the Help action to aid an ally in attacking the enemy creature who made the save, the ally has to have Line of Sight to enemy at any range, rather than be within 5 feet of you.

[Laurefindel]

How about reducing target speed to half on its turn? That could represent gathering up your wits/dodging the attack/shrugging the pain.

[mgshamster]

How about reducing target speed to half on its turn? That could represent gathering up your wits/dodging the attack/shrugging the pain.

It's another to add to the list of effects!

[Willie the Duck]

I understand where you're coming from. And in a video game sense it makes sense. Perfect game theory.

However the principle of the house rule isn't just to get "rid of failure" it's to make the game move forward in a much more interesting and varied way.


I'm not sure how reducing the difference between success and failure on ones' rolls increases variation.


Do martial classes have limited use abilities where nothing happens on a miss? The only ones I can think of off hand are actually spells for EK, AT, etc.

Your focus on limited use abilities seems odd and without clear point. The different classes have a mixture of at will, short-rest recharge, and long rest recharge abilities that are (relatively) balanced around X encounters per SR, and Y encounters per day. That seems to be completely separate from the what-happens-on-a-miss mechanic. The balance comes in in that the LR recharge abilities are the most powerful, and the unlimited use ones the least, and the classes who have the least LR abilities have the best unlimited use abilities, etc.

A martial misses on a sword swing when they don't roll to-hit, and the spellcaster misses on a spell when the opponent makes their save. The only difference is who is rolling the D20. If you want to include a benefit for the spellcaster on a miss, I would strongly suggest doing the same for martials. And I would suggest doing the same for the NPCs and monsters. We've now created a world where balanced encounters are ones where both sides do 4 damage per round, with a 25% chance of instead doing an additional 8; instead of the old situation where you have a ~50% chance of doing 12 damage. I'm not sure how this greatly improves the game, but it is just doubling down on the already existent trend of 5e compared to 3 and 4e of increasing the normal chance of both hitting and being hit, but lowering the damage.


Rage is ongoing and has other effects. But action surge and flurry of blows may count.

Again, count for what, and why?

[Tanarii]

Are you lowering attack roll bonuses and DC numbers across the board to compensate?

[Thrudd]

I assume this is a PC only power. As soon as enemy NPC spellcasters start undermining the player's saving throws, they might not like the system as much

[Burley]

Are you lowering attack roll bonuses and DC numbers across the board to compensate?

If the players are feeling like there is a balance issue, like this seems to be, adding the same bonus to the other side doesn't rebalance.

[Willie the Duck]

If the players are feeling like there is a balance issue, like this seems to be, adding the same bonus to the other side doesn't rebalance.

I don't think we're clear whether it is a balance issue. I don't know many people that think that the martial characters are running away with the game in 5e. It seems more along the lines of a 'the rounds where you cast a spell that fails to produce results feels really unsatisfactory' issue.

[Burley]

I don't think we're clear whether it is a balance issue. I don't know many people that think that the martial characters are running away with the game in 5e. It seems more along the lines of a 'the rounds where you cast a spell that fails to produce results feels really unsatisfactory' issue.

I meant, "Internal Balance." One or more members of the party feel like they're ineffective in combat. Giving extra bonuses to enemies will only exacerbate the situation.

[Tanarii]

I didn't get the impression that any players felt there was an internal balance issue. But I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about game balance assumptions. Special abilities are balanced as a resource cost vs expected capabilities of detailing with encounters. If you increase the power of resources that used to miss by making them always have an effect, you've just made it easier for PCs to get past encounters.

You could ramp up your encounters, but the problem with that is you're now giving out more XP, and will have accelerated level gain. And 5e level gain is already lightning fast.

IMO the simplest way to balance character power vs enemies where you've given something an on-miss effect is to correspondingly decrease the chance of the 'on-hit' effect.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't think this would work for mgshamster himself, but I wonder if it would work for an Inspiration Point system that is getting toned down. Instead of getting advantage with a Inspiration Point, your resources are more valuable because they still DO a thing on a miss. The individual points could be handed out more freely and without a need for such great balance.

Through I admit, I sorta like the idea of making this a feat (no one has complained yet at my table before anyone thinks I think mgshamter is doing something wrong) for certain characters. Has anyone written that up yet?

[mgshamster]

I don't think this would work for mgshamster himself, but I wonder if it would work for an Inspiration Point system that is getting toned down. Instead of getting advantage with a Inspiration Point, your resources are more valuable because they still DO a thing on a miss. The individual points could be handed out more freely and without a need for such great balance.

Through I admit, I sorta like the idea of making this a feat (no one has complained yet at my table before anyone thinks I think mgshamter is doing something wrong) for certain characters. Has anyone written that up yet?

I don't like the idea as a feat, but I really like the idea as a use for inspiration. That's a fine idea.

For inspiration, I'd make it so it could be used on any failed roll, no matter what.

[PeteNutButter]

"Look at your character sheet little buddy. See those little budding spell slots? Some day they'll grow up and and be used on spells against your enemies. Many of them will never land, but it only makes the ones that do all the more worth while."

-Paraphrasing an old DM in response to a player's complaint this same issue

[oxybe]

You may want to take a look at 4th ed as it used that concept of "effect on/regardless of miss" pretty liberally.

While many powers had an "effect" section that simply occurred regardless of success/failure of the power in question, like clerical power that could miss out on dealing damage but still provide a buff to an ally, many had a "miss" effect that would often be a lessened version of the power in question.

Reaping Strike, a 1st level fighter's At-Will power, had this as it's summed up mechanics:

Hit: "weapon + Str mod damage."
Miss: "Half Str mod damage. If using a 2hander, deal damage equal to your full Str mod"


This will probably require a decent rewrite of some of the rules though as 4th ed was pretty big on damage+effects as part of the class design, so having the miss being a lesser version of the main deal wasn't really a problem.

[Phelan Boots]

Though I admit, I sorta like the idea of making this a feat (no one has complained yet at my table before anyone thinks I think mgshamter is doing something wrong) for certain characters. Has anyone written that up yet?

Why yes, I have. In case you missed it. ;)


Make it a Feat?

Tactical Spell Casting

Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.

When you cast a spell that expends a spell slot, and an enemy makes their saving throw, you may take the Help action as a bonus action until the end of your turn. Additionally, when you use the Help action to aid an ally in attacking the enemy creature who made the save, the ally has to have Line of Sight to enemy at any range, rather than be within 5 feet of you.

I think the Help action does everything you wanted in the OP, except interrupt the turn order for a rogue to hide. So I borrowed from the Rogue Mastermind subclass and wrote this version for spell casters.

[Dappershire]

What? Why?

I don't understand why you would even want this. Are we sticking PCs with the same negatives if they pass their saves? If I hurl a line a burning plasma through some warrior, and he sidesteps out of the way, im not going to expect him to look around and go "wow, dude, that was wicked close." I expect him to grin, because he's a badass, and try to skewer me.
If anything, if someone dodges your lightning bolt, skips out of range of your fireball, or shrugs off your sleep spell, I would expect you to lose your ****. "This shouldn't be! Inconceivable!" Maybe pee your robes a little, if it was particularly bad ass.

If you want, a good DM could always throw disadvantage on everyone. Badguys for "how close that was", good guys for "holy ****, how'd he do that?" Throw it into the artistic description of the fight.

[Beelzebubba]

This is how 'caster supremacy' happened in 3E.

(I can literally change the course of the battle with one action, but all these limitations placed on me are so annoying.) "Are you *sure* we need to do that?"

It's one small buff at a time. And they are rationalized into being given to casters, and rationalized away from martials and skill characters.

Face it, to balance great power, you need annoying limitations.

IMO this isn't game breaking, but it's stepping squarely on to the slippery slope.

[mgshamster]

This is how 'caster supremacy' happened in 3E.

No, it isn't. Caster supremacy happened by bothincreasing caster power AND decreasing martial power (especially by hiding martial power behind feat walls).

This both increases caster AND martial power.


Face it, to balance great power, you need annoying limitations.

Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.
Because, ultimately, this is a game we play for fun, and more abstract complaints like "balance" should always give way to fun if they become more annoying then useful.

Also, "annoying limitations" are hard to use well. Disruptive players will pitch fits about them and be more disruptive; inappropriate powergamers will figure out how to circumvent them, and reasonable and new players will either suffer or avoid the option entirely.

[Contrast]

A few weeks ago I was playing with someone using low level characters. He blew his spell slots trying to cast Guiding Bolt (high damage, hit or nothing), missed repeatedly and was sad when his spell slots had achieved nothing.

Meanwhile I cast Thunderwave (save for half) and sleep (no save) and was pretty happy with my performance.

The point, as others have already suggested - the game already has an inbuilt solution to address this issue. You choose which spells you cast. If you choose the high risk, high reward spells then you have to accept the high risk part as the balance for the high reward. If you don't want to suffer when those spells whiff, choose different spells.

[ZorroGames]

A few weeks ago I was playing with someone using low level characters. He blew his spell slots trying to cast Guiding Bolt (high damage, hit or nothing), missed repeatedly and was sad when his spell slots had achieved nothing.

Meanwhile I cast Thunderwave (save for half) and sleep (no save) and was pretty happy with my performance.

The point, as others have already suggested - the game already has an inbuilt solution to address this issue. You choose which spells you cast. If you choose the high risk, high reward spells then you have to accept the high risk part as the balance for the high reward. If you don't want to suffer when those spells whiff, choose different spells.

i swing i miss, no damage.

i cast he saves for no damage.

seems balanced.

[Unoriginal]

Don't players like when they succeed something that has a chance of failure?

[mgshamster]

i swing i miss, no damage.

i cast he saves for no damage.

seems balanced.

Fighter: I swing, I miss. Oh wait, I get several more swings.

Wizard: I cast, he saves fo no damage. Nothing happens. Oh wait, hey fighter, get another swing because my spell failed.

A lot of people seem to be ignoring that this idea directly benefits the martial classes by giving *them* a boost when the caster misses.

[mgshamster]

Don't players like when they succeed something that has a chance of failure?

Yes, when that chance of success is a direct result of their own choices and actions. When it's due to random chance? Only slot machine gamblers enjoy that.

[Millstone85]

Yes, when that chance of success is a direct result of their own choices and actions. When it's due to random chance? Only slot machine gamblers enjoy that.Ah, so I am not the only one who is masochist enough to play D&D while hating dice.

[Thrudd]

The game goes on after that one encounter, it's a mistake to look at the game in the vacuum of one single encounter, or one single combat round, trying to "balance" things from that point of view - the wizard has more spells to try, and can try that spell again tomorrow. Also, wizards now have cantrips, exactly to address the issue of "fighters can keep swinging swords, but I've got no more magic, boo hoo." Gods forbid a wizard actually use the dagger or staff they carry around for something other than looking like a stereotype. So they are never out of spells. If your big fight-ending spell misses, move on and try something else.
The overall power of wizards is already high relative to non-spellcasters as they get into the higher levels. They already have a way to recover spell slots on a short rest, the rules have already been changed to let them spontaneously cast from their prepared spell list, they get to choose two new spells for free at every level, and their sub-classes give them some pretty amazing extra abilities. If we were talking about 1st edition or something, maybe I could agree that wizards could use a little nudge to get them through the low levels, but 5e is so lenient already, with everything. There's really no need to make them stronger.

You don't even need a new rule to use inspiration for something. If your players get so upset when a spell fails to have effect, hand them an inspiration die when it happens. Maybe only if there was a good chance of success but they just got really unlucky, so there isn't a tantrum. If they chuck spells at things they have little to no hope of affecting, that behavior should not be rewarded.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, when that chance of success is a direct result of their own choices and actions. When it's due to random chance? Only slot machine gamblers enjoy that.

So you're saying that people don't enjoy succeeding attack and skill rolls?

[ZorroGames]

Yes, when that chance of success is a direct result of their own choices and actions. When it's due to random chance? Only slot machine gamblers enjoy that.

When dice or other devices that create a range or succeed/fail options, random chance is in the result. Unless you are a Presbyterian then people believe Free Choice and/Random "Luck" are always present in varying degrees.

Not saying you should not do something as suggested for casters though I wouldn't, but I think NPCs should have the same options/Effects as PCs. That creates a new level of balancing in the game.

[Millstone85]

So you're saying that people don't enjoy succeeding attack and skill rolls?Well, I enjoy not-failing them, in a "Finally, a hit!" or "Whew, that worked!" kind of way. But it sure doesn't feel like an achievement.

[Lombra]

Most of the relevant spells have a rider on a successful save, like fireball or lightning bolt, or have such an high reward for low risk that the gamble would be worth anyways. Not to mention that this would slow down the game and make enemy spellcasters stronger.

[mgshamster]

When dice or other devices that create a range or succeed/fail options, random chance is in the result. Unless you are a Presbyterian then people believe Free Choice and/Random "Luck" are always present in varying degrees.

Not saying you should not do something as suggested for casters though I wouldn't, but I think NPCs should have the same options/Effects as PCs. That creates a new level of balancing in the game.

Please note that the updated version presented on page 2 of this thread also allows every class to benefit from this system. Not just casters. It's any limited use ability from any class that would fail due to a single die roll and as a result nothing happens. From there, it's primarily martial characters who then benefit from the boon.

As for NPCs? The DM is god in the game. I don't need to have my NPCs use this ability to balance out the game. If I need to balance something, I can throw in an extra mook or make the game a bit more challenging in other regards.

5e already has a strong imbalance between PCs and NPCs - they're not built the same, they have different mechanics, NPCs can get things that PCs never will, etc.. Previous editions tried to make PCs and NPCs exactly balanced and use the same creation rules, but that is no longer the case in 5e.

It's really easy to adjust the game up and down from a GM perspective. Much more difficult from a PC perspective.

Besides, if I *really* wanted to up the power level of PCs, I'd just use heroic rest rules. My proposed system is just a small increase that removes an annoyance while also giving martial characters a bit of a boost.

It adds options to the game, creates some new tactical opportunities, and reduces an annoyance.

[BillyBobShorton]

Risk. Reward.

A good DM can make even a flubbed spell entertaining. Part of the game. And what about a missed attack? Should that also grant some bonus?

What the OP is asking for is an effect granted by several actual spells to apply to all made saving throws. Insanely game breaking and really bad idea.

Spells don't always work. Nothing does. Hence the dice. Get your DC up higher. Level up instead of changing rules because someone ate all the doritos..

[ZorroGames]

Please note that the updated version presented on page 2 of this thread also allows every class to benefit from this system. Not just casters. It's any limited use ability from any class that would fail due to a single die roll and as a result nothing happens. From there, it's primarily martial characters who then benefit from the boon.

As for NPCs? The DM is god in the game. I don't need to have my NPCs use this ability to balance out the game. If I need to balance something, I can throw in an extra mook or make the game a bit more challenging in other regards.

5e already has a strong imbalance between PCs and NPCs - they're not built the same, they have different mechanics, NPCs can get things that PCs never will, etc.. Previous editions tried to make PCs and NPCs exactly balanced and use the same creation rules, but that is no longer the case in 5e.

It's really easy to adjust the game up and down from a GM perspective. Much more difficult from a PC perspective.

Besides, if I *really* wanted to up the power level of PCs, I'd just use heroic rest rules. My proposed system is just a small increase that removes an annoyance while also giving martial characters a bit of a boost.

It adds options to the game, creates some new tactical opportunities, and reduces an annoyance.

great. enjoy. I pretty much this this thread has run its course and has been helpful to me in understanding what you want to achieve and your proposed homebrew solution (and homebrew here is not a passive aggressive slight but a categorization of how AL different it is) enough that I can move reading of the other threads after rereading the reference on page two of this thread on forum. Thank you for your ideas.

[Sir cryosin]

A few weeks ago I was playing with someone using low level characters. He blew his spell slots trying to cast Guiding Bolt (high damage, hit or nothing), missed repeatedly and was sad when his spell slots had achieved nothing.

Meanwhile I cast Thunderwave (save for half) and sleep (no save) and was pretty happy with my performance.

The point, as others have already suggested - the game already has an inbuilt solution to address this issue. You choose which spells you cast. If you choose the high risk, high reward spells then you have to accept the high risk part as the balance for the high reward. If you don't want to suffer when those spells whiff, choose different spells.

It funny I have the opposite effect at my table. Everything I use a spell that have the creatures make a save they always pass it. But when I use attack spells were I roll to hit it hits 9 out of 10 times.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ok, based on feedback, my group wants to make the following changes:

For any limited use ability that recharges on a short or long rest, if it fails due to a single d20 roll (attack or save; not including advantage/disadvantage), and upon failure nothing happens, then roll on the following chart:

1) One ally gains advantage on their next weapon attack against the target
2) One ally can make an immediate stealth check against the target
3) One ally may ignore any resistance the target has
4) One ally can use their reaction to make a weapon attack against the target
5) One ally gains +1d4 damage against the target on their next weapon attack
6) One ally gains +1d4 to attack against the target on their next weapon attack

All of these expire if they're not used by the begining of the initial character's next turn.

------

This should include spells, battlemaster dice, ki abilities, channel divinity, and anything else. It also only affects abilities that are dependent on a single roll, so any ability with ongoing effects or have multiple rounds, or have additional abilities or have something happen even if it fails would not count.
Hmm. I do like the idea of not wasting entire rounds, and I think granting a small bonus to an ally is an interesting idea. It will, obviously, boost the party's power a little bit, but it does so in a way that's universal enough that it's easy to compensate for. My main concern is the slow-down from having to roll on a chart every time, though I suppose the tactical variety makes up for it. Hmm... For a simpler version, you could perhaps something vaguely inspired by Boosts in Fate? If you miss with a limited use ability, grant an ally (within reach of the target?) an inspiration die that they can add to any die roll before the end of their next turn? You could even modulate it-- +1d4 for short rest abilities or 1st-3rd level spells, +1d6 for long rest or 4th-6th level spells, +1d8 for 7th-9th level spells.

And if you want to make it a little less prominent, perhaps only have the special effect trigger when the d20 roll "fails" (either you miss or the opponent saves) by 5 or less?

[CantigThimble]

I think this is more an issue with the d20 system than with the way spells work in 5e. Systems with degrees of success or failure can handle this issue very well but it's really forced in D&D.

[Contrast]

Yes, when that chance of success is a direct result of their own choices and actions. When it's due to random chance? Only slot machine gamblers enjoy that.

Except you have made a choice.

They cast Hold Person, they pass their save. Yeah it sucks. They chose a coin-flip spell and it landed on the wrong side.

Of course instead of casting Hold Person you could have chosen to cast Mirror Image for a guaranteed effect. Or Scorching Ray which gives you several flips of the coin but with less of an upside on success. Or Web or one of a load of other spells. Or held your spell and cast a cantrip so you can cast Invisibility later.

The player knowingly choses the coin flip spell because of the large upside when it goes off. Choosing which spells to learn/memorise/prepare and when to cast them is a large part of playing a spell caster. With this rule be aware you're devaluing all spells which specifically don't give a save or offer save for half or whatever because you're turning all 'save for nothing' spells into 'save for (choose from list of buffs)'.

If an enemy wizard casts Hold Person on the player and they fail their save should they then get to debuff the enemy somehow because its not fun for them to be held?

Edit - Amusingly slot machine gamblers hope to win big with low risk investment, which is exactly the sort of behaviour you're encouraging in spell selection with this rule :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

The player knowingly choses the coin flip spell because of the large upside when it goes off. Choosing which spells to learn/memorise/prepare and when to cast them is a large part of playing a spell caster. With this rule be aware you're devaluing all spells which specifically don't give a save or offer save for half or whatever because you're turning all 'save for nothing' spells into 'save for (choose from list of buffs)'.
That's why I'm advocating lowering the save DC for spells affected by this rule. That keeps the internal game balance on the spells.

[Willie the Duck]

Fighter: I swing, I miss. Oh wait, I get several more swings.

Wizard: I cast, he saves fo no damage. Nothing happens. Oh wait, hey fighter, get another swing because my spell failed.

A lot of people seem to be ignoring that this idea directly benefits the martial classes by giving *them* a boost when the caster misses.

To your first point, I have two points. First, this is already balanced in the game by the spellcasters limited resource abilities having greater effect than a fighter's to-hit roll. Second, I do not see the fighter missing as not a resource expended. They are using up a precious and limited resource: a round of actions where someone is trying to kill them.


Please note that the updated version presented on page 2 of this thread also allows every class to benefit from this system. Not just casters. It's any limited use ability from any class that would fail due to a single die roll and as a result nothing happens. From there, it's primarily martial characters who then benefit from the boon.

So are we addressing the spellcasters wasting a precious spell or not? You seem to be arguing in both directions.

[Willie the Duck]

Of course instead of casting Hold Person you could have chosen to cast Mirror Image for a guaranteed effect. Or Scorching Ray which gives you several flips of the coin but with less of an upside on success. Or Web or one of a load of other spells. Or held your spell and cast a cantrip so you can cast Invisibility later.


Or how about magic missile? That's the entire point of that spell.

[Beelzebubba]

No, it isn't. Caster supremacy happened by bothincreasing caster power AND decreasing martial power (especially by hiding martial power behind feat walls).

Thanks for the edit, it's a decent basis of discussion now.

I'd argue we're in the realm of semantics. A 3E fighter with feats is way more powerful than any 1E or 2E fighter, before you even get to the mechanic of ability score improvements, higher hit points, etcetera. Everyone and every mechanical system got buffed. At the same time, casters had the ability to 'stack' much more in a game about stacking, so DCs + multiple buffs + targeted nerds + etc. made them go quadratic, while at the same time, 5' step, concentration checks (not just automatic spoiling of the spell), concentration feats to eliminate even that loss, etc. took away all the 'glass' of the 'glass cannons'.



This both increases caster AND martial power.

Casters are based completely around 'recharge' abilities, whereas fighters have only a few. Despite your efforts, this still helps casters more than fighters.



Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

Drog's Corollary: To a power gamer, any balance or limitation whatsoever is annoying and a bad mechanic to be fixed.

[Orion3T]

Seems to me this is where Sorcerers actually get to shine. They can twin or heighten spells to reduce the odds of whiffing. They can empower if they fluff the damage roll.

On the other hand the wizard can more easily just prepare those spells and have them as 'oh crap' buttons to try before fleeing from an otherwise superior enemy.* It's not such an investment to be able to try the spell in an emergency, but it's a bit less likely to work compared to a Sorcerer who has heighten or twin spell.

For example, keeping Banishment prepared just in case they come across a powerful enemy. They can give it a try then flee if it doesn't work. Other spells are similar; basically save or suck spells are 'oh crap' buttons which make battles more swingy and luck dependent. If you get lucky you might defeat that deadly encounter. If not, you flee. But the point is that 'playing it safe' was probably never going to defeat that encounter anyway. A save or suck could swing the entire combat in your favour.