2
\$\begingroup\$

I recently came across this post on Reddit, and got to thinking about the viability of a newish mechanic, where the strength of the dice used determined the AC before rolling. For example, a lower end NOM (non-Newtonian Ooze Monster) may have a base AC of 8 plus 1 for every d6 or d8 rolled for damage, plus 2 for every d10 or d12. A level 3 party with a barbarian wielding a great axe would encounter this NNOM with an AC of 10, whereas a rogue in the same party would see it at 12AC when sneak attacking (11 if they're using a weapon with damage of 1d4). Different NOMs would have different resistances and immunities as proscribed by the adventures needs.

Calculating the CR of an encounter with a NOM would require a bit of extra math as well, as the AC would depend on the expected damage output of a typical party at that level.

I'm concerned that this homebrew will horribly unbalance my campaign and cause my players to rage quit.

Does this homebrew seem viable and balanced(ish)?

\$\endgroup\$
10
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ I could use some clarification on how the feature is supposed to work. Are you saying that the AC is based on the number and size of the damage dice the attack would deal if it were to hit? If so, what do you do with features that optionally change the damage? Sneak Attack is an optional feature - the rogue can choose to use it or not when they hit with an attack. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 7, 2021 at 18:20
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ What happens when someone uses an ability (such as sneak attack or divine smite) which changes the amount of damage dice the attack throws after determining whether or not the attack hits in the first place? (If the AC retroactively changes and the attack therefore doesn't hit, did they still expend the use of their ability?) (Ah, jinx.) \$\endgroup\$
    – Carcer
    Dec 7, 2021 at 18:20
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think what we need here is the actual feature text that you plan to implement at the table. Right now it is just an idea, but it isn't something we can evaluate because we don't have the actual feature description that is going to be put into play. (Voted to close for now, there is a good question here, but we need something more concrete to work with). \$\endgroup\$ Dec 7, 2021 at 18:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @GOATNine Yeah, nothing wrong with closure. I keep a pretty close eye on things, and we're generally pretty good about getting things reopened in a timely fashion. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 7, 2021 at 18:28
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Please read the meta on the term viable and the meta on how to ask a good homebrew question to refine the details and to add the clarity that is lacking in your current question. We can reopen your question once you do, a closure is temporary when you resolve the issues :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Dec 7, 2021 at 18:37

0

Browse other questions tagged .