In both the new playtest packet and the previous one, alot of spells use what I call the HP threshold mechanic. Example spells include Bane, Charm Person, Command, Ghoul Touch, Hold Person, Ray of Enfeeblement, and so on. These spells either won't work at all on targets with more than a certain maximum hit point total, don't allow a saving throw to targets with fewer hit points than that threshold, or have reduced effects against creatures with hp maximums above the threshold. This is a terrible game mechanic and I strongly urge the designers to stop using it. Here's just a few of the reasons why this mechanic is bad for the game:
* It forces players to guess at a monster's maximum hit point totals (or worse, resort to using metagaming or peeking in the monster manual). Guessing wrong and attempting to use the spell on a creature with too many hit points usually means you waste the spell with little or no effect. That's frustrating and not fun at all, and not for any good reason. At least when a creature makes its save, you knew there was a chance that you might have accomplished something, so you don't feel like a complete idiot for wasting your turn and prepared spell for nothing.
* Many of these effects don't even allow a saving throw, even though the conditions or penalties they inflict can be quite severe. A good example of this is Charm Person, which offers no saving throw if your hit point maximum is less than 25. Another example is Command, which offers no saving throw if the target's hp max is less than 30. This isn't even save-or-suck. It's worse! It's "have enough maximum hit points or suck," without a saving throw or any other way to resist at all.
* As characters increase in level, these spells eventually become worthless, since the threats the PCs will be typically fighting will have maximum hp totals above the limits of these spells. Why should some 1st level spells, like Grease, remain useful forever, while spells like Charm Person eventually become useless? This isn't the first edition of the game to have this problem. We saw the same problem with spells like Sleep in 3.x, which was overpowered at levels 1-5 but then became useless later because it couldn't affect creatures with more than 5 Hit Dice. The one extreme does NOT balance the other. It is NOT okay for a spell to be overpowered at low levels or any level. Making it useless at higher levels does NOT balance it out, any more than wizards being frail weaklings at low levels was balanced by them becoming godlike at high levels in past editions. Bounded accuracy helps somewhat to alleviate this issue, but it only delays the inevitable. Monsters may stay releveant longer, but they don't remain relevant forever.
* It punishes some classes more than others. Since your hit points are determined by your class, the result is that wizards end up being more susceptible to these spells than fighters are, and so on. That's ridiculous. At least Hit Die limits treat all classes fairly (not that I'm a big fan of that mechanic either).
*[EDIT] This mechanic is contrary to bounded accuracy. One of the design goals of this edition is that players and monsters don't get large bonuses to stats, attack rolls, saves, AC, etc. just because they're higher level. This gives lower level characters a chance against higher level creatures, but also allows lower level monsters to remain somewhat relevant threats against higher level characters. But there is one stat that does still greatly inflate with level - hit points. And by tying that to these spells, they alone are stuck with the old level paradigm, even though it clashes with the rest of the system.
This mechanic is awful and needs to go. Any spell, ANY spell, that debilitates a character in any way needs to have either an attack roll or saving throw, as appropriate. It's simply not okay to have such spells automatically succeed or fail. If a spell like Sleep is just too powerful as a 1st level spell without a hp limit, well, then make it a higher level spell! Sleep in particular has always been problematic, being effectively a low level save-or-die. Maybe it's just not appropriate for a 1st level spell. Maybe it never has been.
There are also many other, far better ways of balancing these types of spells. Players could be given multiple ways to break out of their effects, not the least of which should be a saving throw every turn in combat to shrug off a nasty effect. Spells like Charm and Suggestion can have reasonable limits on what they can make people do (like not being able to make them commit suicide or attack their allies) so that they aren't effectively save-or-lose. There's even the possibility of giving higher level beings a bonus on their saving throws rather than granting them outright immunity. There are plenty of other options. Almost anything is better than the hp threshold mechanic they're using now to "balance" these spells.
In both the new playtest packet and the previous one, alot of spells use what I call the HP threshold mechanic. Example spells include Bane, Charm Person, Command, Ghoul Touch, Hold Person, Ray of Enfeeblement, and so on. These spells either won't wo
Though I'm usually one to play devil's advocate, in this case I agree with you 100%. I hated the HP threashold mechanic even back when it was called Power Word (insert effect here).
Though I'm usually one to play devil's advocate, in this case I agree with you 100%. I hated the HP threashold mechanic even back when it was called Power Word (insert effect here).
I agree. I understand where it came from. But that is not enough to justify it.
Where it came from (as I see it): 1) Some spells in the past had an arbitrary cap on what they could affect. Most of these were based on level, although a few (power word spells) were based on hit ponts. 2) They had a somewhat innovative idea for spells in 5E which they abandoned. The idea was that one way of reducing the swinginess of save or suck spells was to give them current hit point thresholds. If you wanted to use the spell on a powerful monsters you had to first wear it down to make it vulnerable. This appears to have been abandoned. 3) It is, in some cases, an attempt to balance the wizard as they go up in level. If a spell is 'all or nothing' - and it continues to work at high level, you end up with a spell that - despite being low level can take out a high level creature. That was not a problem in the days of scaling damage - because it serves the same purpose as scaling damage - it makes the low level spell relevant at high level. But scaling damage is part of the quadratic wizard problem and appears to be going away - and thus low level spells with non-damage effects on high level creatures are now problematic - and hit point thresholds are a way to balance them.
However - #1 was always one of the less logical parts of the AD&D magic system (and that is saying something...) and #2 they have dropped as a factor. The question is: IF so, where does that leave #3? Is the mechanic an adequate way of balancing those spells?
In my opinion -Probably not. It forces the players to think in terms of an abstract game mechanic - and worse yet, one they cannot accurately evaluate (How many hit points does that creature have?)
But worse yet, imho, it fall prey to one of the flaws of the current hit point system: As long as ConMod is added to the hit point total - hit points are not an accurate measure of creature power. It is a measure of the creatures ability to withstand damage, yes. But that is it.
The range of possible hit points both between classes (d4s or d6s versus up to d12s for dwarf fighters) and betwrrm low and high Con (25 point swing possible from 8 Con to 18 con) at L5 means that characters of the same level may have two, three, even four times as many hit points as another of the same level. The range of hit points between the characters and the monsters (especially if part of the fix to the monsters 'being crushed' is to raise their hit points) means that a spell that is balanced to affect a PC will be likely be improperly balanced against a monster (or vice versa).
Hit Points are just one measure of a creature's power and a particularly crude one at that. It is not a good mechanic upon which to hang multple spells.
If these mechanics were written so that creatures above some cap had advantage on the save - at least that would remove the absolute dependence upon the mechanic and make it slilghtly better. If these mechanics were based on level or hit dice (not hit points) it would still be metagamey and dependant upon something that the characters could not perceive and force the characters to guess what would work when - but it would at least avoid some of the flaws of hit points (the only advantage to hit points is that they drop and thus you can use current hit points as a mechanic. If you dump that approach, hit points as a metric should be dumped as well).
But what I think is the best approach (or at least a better approach) is this:
Stop basing saves on the primary ability score of the caster. If you want that to matter - put it back into the damage figure. Base saves on the level of the spell. A high level creatures shouldn't be unaffected or less affected by a low level spell because of some arbitrary hit point cap. It should just have a really good save because it is a low level spell.
This seems to satisfy the balance requirement (the low level spells are not very effective against the high level creatures) without the players having to judge someaarbitary cap - and the general idea of creatures saving - and some saving more often than others - has always been part of the game.
Carl
I agree. I understand where it came from. But that is not enough to justify it.Where it came from (as I see it):1) Some spells in the past had an arbitrary cap on what they could affect. Most of these were based on level, although a few (power w
Unless I'm mistaken, saves based on spell level was the approach done with 13th Age (except given how it uses the 4E unified attack system, it's static bonus to hit unless you use a higher spell slot level). In short, the idea's pretty solid
Unless I'm mistaken, saves based on spell level was the approach done with 13th Age (except given how it uses the 4E unified attack system, it's static bonus to hit unless you use a higher spell slot level). In short, the idea's pretty solid :)
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an example of a good target threshold its a detectable state and thus not a guessing game and its porportionate to the adversary and doesnt quit being relevant.
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an exa
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an example of a good target threshold its a detectable state and thus not a guessing game and its porportionate to the adversary and doesnt quit being relevant.
Exceptthey dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.
As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.
The only spell still using current hit points is sleep. All other spells with a hit point cap use the hit point maximum.
Carl
Except they dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.T
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an example of a good target threshold its a detectable state and thus not a guessing game and its porportionate to the adversary and doesnt quit being relevant.
Exceptthey dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.
As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.
The only spell still using current hit points is sleep. All other spells with a hit point cap use the hit point maximum.
Carl
And it doesnt mean that was a great idea.
Except they dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.T
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an example of a good target threshold its a detectable state and thus not a guessing game and its porportionate to the adversary and doesnt quit being relevant.
Exceptthey dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.
As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.
The only spell still using current hit points is sleep. All other spells with a hit point cap use the hit point maximum.
Carl
And it doesnt mean that was a great idea.
Granted - my point was that at least using current hit points gave the mechanic a justification. It remained badly flawed - but at least it served a purpose. But if it doesn't use current hit ponts, there is no longer any justification for using the mechanic.
Carl
Except they dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.T
I don't fully understand why they ditched the idea of using current hp, really, but even if you use current hp instead of max hp you can get to a place where you're metagaming 'cause everyone's doing the math and seeing how many more hits before they can take something out.
I've hated effects that depended on hit dice/hit points from day 1. Power Word spells are friggin cool and have tons of flavour but nobody uses them because it's so restrictive and a lower level spell that's scaled up with your high level status will take out a group of weenies without using your high level spell slots.
Basically it's just a bad idea.
What I don't mind are spells that only affect targets of equal HD or less than the character with breaking points, ie "deals 10d6 damage, if target is 5 HD less it deals 20d6, if target is 10 HD less it kills." There are conventions in play that tell a player roughly whether they've got more HD or not; in the past some skills have allowed you to have a guess at how many HD a creature has (usually in the context of sizing up another PC race guy with a class).
The spell should always do something, even if it doesn't do much past a certain point.
But yes current sitrep = bad. Please fix
I don't fully understand why they ditched the idea of using current hp, really, but even if you use current hp instead of max hp you can get to a place where you're metagaming 'cause everyone's doing the math and seeing how many more hits before they
I agree with OP, remove all HP thresholds on spells.
As for the Sleep spell... it should grant a save (you fall asleap on a failed save, becomes drowsy on a success) give bonuses to the save if the targets are in combat.
I agree with OP, remove all HP thresholds on spells. As for the Sleep spell... it should grant a save (you fall asleap on a failed save, becomes drowsy on a success) give bonuses to the save if the targets are in combat.
If a spell is like sleep and basically takes out the adversary a thresh hold based on current hit points serves as a way to make it a team effort.
I am not seeing any replacement for that...
If a spell is like sleep and basically takes out the adversary a thresh hold based on current hit points serves as a way to make it a team effort. I am not seeing any replacement for that...
give bonuses to the save if the targets are in combat.
Is the concept is to make it impractical in combat? ie to make it a ninja assassination move, you could give it a couple round casting time too.
Makes sense that folk are riled up and less susceptable in a fight
Is the concept is to make it impractical in combat? ie to make it a ninja assassination move, you could give it a couple round casting time too.Makes sense that folk are riled up and less susceptable in a fight
The spell should always do something, even if it doesn't do much past a certain point.
I think that is a separate issue with absolutist effects...
Agreed but if I'm given the choice of a spell that does nothing past a certain point and a spell that does not much past a certain point, I will take the one that does not much every single time.
Basically having something that might be cool is better than something that can't be cool.
I think that is a separate issue with absolutist effects... [/quote]Agreed but if I'm given the choice of a spell that does nothing past a certain point and a spell that does not much past a certain point, I will take the one that does not much eve
If a spell is like sleep and basically takes out the adversary a thresh hold based on current hit points serves as a way to make it a team effort.
I am not seeing any replacement for that...
The real problem with sleep is the ludicrously low hit point threshold. You can sleep a few weak creatures - or just use burning hands and kill them all.
I actually like the idea of rolling a handful of dice - perhaps one per caster level up to the number of creatures - and then matching the lowest die up to the lowest hit point creature and if the die meets or exceeds its hit points it falls asleep, then the second highest die to the second most hit points, etc. I"m not sure what the die size should be, but I'm leaning towards a d8, perhaps a d8+IntMod. But that detail of course depends upon where the hit points per level formula stabilizes.
Carl
The real problem with sleep is the ludicrously low hit point threshold. You can sleep a few weak creatures - or just use burning hands and kill them all.I actually like the idea of rolling a handful of dice - perhaps one per caster level up to the n
But what I think is the best approach (or at least a better approach) is this:
Stop basing saves on the primary ability score of the caster. If you want that to matter - put it back into the damage figure. Base saves on the level of the spell. A high level creatures shouldn't be unaffected or less affected by a low level spell because of some arbitrary hit point cap. It should just have a really good save because it is a low level spell.
This seems to satisfy the balance requirement (the low level spells are not very effective against the high level creatures) without the players having to judge someaarbitary cap - and the general idea of creatures saving - and some saving more often than others - has always been part of the game.
The problem is, with the whole bounded accuracy thing and emphasis on ability scores, if you tie the save DC to spell level it makes low level spells too easy to resist and high levels ones much too difficult. Character's aren't gaining +6-12 bonuses to their saving throws from class anymore. And to be honest, I didn't like the way they included spell level in the save DCs in 3rd edition, either. 1st level attack spells just didn't get used at higher level at all because the saves were too easy.
The way I see it, the problem is having such potent save-or-lose type magic as low level spells. 1st level spells include things like grease and ray of enfeeblement. Neither of those things have the ability to totally incapacitate a monster. Spells like Sleep and Charm person seem awfully out of place when compared to those. Why are these spells the same level?
The problem is, with the whole bounded accuracy thing and emphasis on ability scores, if you tie the save DC to spell level it makes low level spells too easy to resist and high levels ones much too difficult. Character's aren't gaining +6-12 bonuses
give bonuses to the save if the targets are in combat.
Is the concept is to make it impractical in combat? ie to make it a ninja assassination move, you could give it a couple round casting time too.
Makes sense that folk are riled up and less susceptable in a fight
Yea, I like sleep better as an exploration spell (sleeping the guards sitting and playing cards in the guard room, with some luck they will believe they fell asleap by themselves) rather than an in combat spell.
By giving targets a bonus on saves (and a penalty if they are already sleepy) this is reinforced.
By making people drowsy (with some negative modifiers) on a save it still has some combat use but is not a 'I WIN-button' on itself. The drowsyness can actually be the same thing as a success in the exploration case, or have other interesting effects.
This is basically how I DM sleep spells anyways..
Is the concept is to make it impractical in combat? ie to make it a ninja assassination move, you could give it a couple round casting time too.Makes sense that folk are riled up and less susceptable in a fight [/quote]Yea, I like sleep better as an
But what I think is the best approach (or at least a better approach) is this:
Stop basing saves on the primary ability score of the caster. If you want that to matter - put it back into the damage figure. Base saves on the level of the spell. A high level creatures shouldn't be unaffected or less affected by a low level spell because of some arbitrary hit point cap. It should just have a really good save because it is a low level spell.
This seems to satisfy the balance requirement (the low level spells are not very effective against the high level creatures) without the players having to judge someaarbitary cap - and the general idea of creatures saving - and some saving more often than others - has always been part of the game.
The problem is, with the whole bounded accuracy thing and emphasis on ability scores, if you tie the save DC to spell level it makes low level spells too easy to resist and high levels ones much too difficult.
On the contrary - that's the point of doing it.
Rather than a cap that says "If they are above this line it doesn't affect them" - they get a save they probably can't make (but can always get lucky).
Character's aren't gaining +6-12 bonuses to their saving throws from class anymore. And to be honest, I didn't like the way they included spell level in the save DCs in 3rd edition, either. 1st level attack spells just didn't get used at higher level at all because the saves were too easy.
Again - that is the point.
The problem is that these spells shouldn't be effective against high level creatures. The current solution is an arbitary hit point cap. The alternate proposal is a saving throw they will make almost every time.
I'd have to do the math - but I suspect this goes a very long ways towards solving part of the geometric wizard problem (not really quadratic anymore in 5E).
Where it is a problem is at the high level end. The spells at the high level end can't end up too difficult to resist. - but I think the solution is probably to set the base save lower than it is now. If you start out saving easily at low level you end up saving with moderate difficulty at higher levels.
For example - currently the save DC is 11+AbilityMod. If this was made 9+spell level low level targets would save more often (a different balance but one I like better - the PCs do too much damage anyway), but at L12 (L6 spells) the save would be pretty much as it is now versus a L6 spells - but the target would usually save against a L1 spell.
It requires some tweaking of the math - but I think it can be made to work. Better than hp caps at least.
The way I see it, the problem is having such potent save-or-lose type magic as low level spells. 1st level spells include things like grease and ray of enfeeblement. Neither of those things have the ability to totally incapacitate a monster. Spells like Sleep and Charm person seem awfully out of place when compared to those. Why are these spells the same level?
Actually - all four of those are good spells. Ok, the current version of sleep sucks. But other than that, those are good spells. Reduce a creature to minimum damage for the encounter (assuming the damage doesn't just kill it outright)? Bye bye threat. It might not be 'save or lose' - but it's pretty darn close. Create a zone where your enemy can't move easily and has to save to avoid falling prone? There are some around here arguing that it is actually broken - I'd call it situational. Make an enemy into a friend? Depending on how the DM works such things - can be awesome or really suck- at its best in a situation where the DM plays the creatures as more than bags of stats. Sleep - awesome concept - really sucky implementation. But it can be turned into something balanced.
Carl
The problem is, with the whole bounded accuracy thing and emphasis on ability scores, if you tie the save DC to spell level it makes low level spells too easy to resist and high levels ones much too difficult. [/quote]On the contrary - that's the poi
But what I think is the best approach (or at least a better approach) is this:
Stop basing saves on the primary ability score of the caster. If you want that to matter - put it back into the damage figure. Base saves on the level of the spell. A high level creatures shouldn't be unaffected or less affected by a low level spell because of some arbitrary hit point cap. It should just have a really good save because it is a low level spell.
This seems to satisfy the balance requirement (the low level spells are not very effective against the high level creatures) without the players having to judge someaarbitary cap - and the general idea of creatures saving - and some saving more often than others - has always been part of the game.
I don't like that "spell level based" idea too much. Why should it be (nearly) impossible, that an incredibly powerful wizard couldn put a somewhat higher creature to sleep, just because the spell itself is easy to master (or whatever a low spell level is standing for)? You'd be as likely to suffer (or enjoy?) the spell effects whether it's Stupido the apprentice or Elminster of Shadowdale who is casting. I'd find this a little bit off.
To me, the question (from a fluff persective) would be: How is the "spell level" reflected in fluff terms? - Maybe a spell is a spell and if cast as written in the spellbook/on the scroll always has exactly the same properties (if you have this gun and this type of ammunition, the impact of the projectile at a range of x metres will always be y kilonewton)? Then I'd agree with Carl's idea that I quoted above - but then again a master wizard might be able to make a little tweak here or there on the fly to make the spell a little more potent (he being a master, after all). - Or is it more a thing of complexity, with the caster bringing in his/her own abilities, for example how much magical energy can be acquired to "drive the spells effects home". For example: The expert olympian weightlifter using the same technique as a beginner does but being equipped with far more experience, training and muscle mass, thus being able to handle much heavier loads. Personally, I prefer the second interpretation, because I like the "person's abilities" matter more than the "thing itself".
I don't like that "spell level based" idea too much. Why should it be (nearly) impossible, that an incredibly powerful wizard couldn put a somewhat higher creature to sleep, just because the spell itself is easy to master (or whatever a low spell lev
* It forces players to guess at a monster's maximum hit point totals (or worse, resort to using metagaming or peeking in the monster manual). Guessing wrong and attempting to use the spell on a creature with too many hit points usually means you waste the spell with little or no effect.
In the previous packet, the spells still had an effect on creatures with HPs that exceeded the thresh hold, it was just reduced. Sleep, for example, reduced speed, rather than knocking you unconscious. It was a great way to ensure both that your action was never wasted and that you couldn't just CC a fresh, powerful enemy on round 1 with low level spells.
* As characters increase in level, these spells eventually become worthless, since the threats the PCs will be typically fighting will have maximum hp totals above the limits of these spells.
Again, totally agree. I even posted complaining about the obnoxious switch from Current HP to Maximum HP. When it was Current HP, it meant you could use your low level spells as finishers. I thought beating the Ogre up until it was susceptible to Sleep was a great design--I always hated spells being opening turn wins. Go first and ruin an entire encounter? Lame. With Current HP as the thresh hold, you didn't get that--you got "I hope he's finally weak enough to Sleep..." which I felt was far more exciting.
* It punishes some classes more than others. Since your hit points are determined by your class, the result is that wizards end up being more susceptible to these spells than fighters are, and so on. That's ridiculous. At least Hit Die limits treat all classes fairly (not that I'm a big fan of that mechanic either).
Oh, I don't really understand why this is a problem. I like it. Fighters should resist magic better than others. In fact, the HD sizes pretty well reflect how well I think the classes should resist.
So, yeah, I think Max HP thresh holds totally need to go, but I really liked the design of the Current HP thresh hold and hope it returns.
I was really unhappy with the thresh holds in the second packet, but I really liked them in the first. Here's why:In the previous packet, the spells still had an effect on creatures with HPs that exceeded the thresh hold, it was just reduced. Sleep
I don't like that "spell level based" idea too much. Why should it be (nearly) impossible, that an incredibly powerful wizard couldn put a somewhat higher creature to sleep, just because the spell itself is easy to master (or whatever a low spell level is standing for)? You'd be as likely to suffer (or enjoy?) the spell effects whether it's Stupido the apprentice or Elminster of Shadowdale who is casting. I'd find this a little bit off.
It would be, but not for the reason you stated. The difference between Stupido the Apprentice and the Sage of Shadowdale in this case, mechanically speaking, is that Elminster can prepare his Sleep spell in a higher level spell slot, while StA cannot. Think Heighten Spell but ingrained into the system and giving more benefits. Elminster has 12th-level spell slots, so he casts a 12th-level Sleep to knock out a dragon or the chosen of Sune or whatever.
It would be, but not for the reason you stated. The difference between Stupido the Apprentice and the Sage of Shadowdale in this case, mechanically speaking, is that Elminster can prepare his Sleep spell in a higher level spell slot, while StA cannot
* It forces players to guess at a monster's maximum hit point totals (or worse, resort to using metagaming or peeking in the monster manual). Guessing wrong and attempting to use the spell on a creature with too many hit points usually means you waste the spell with little or no effect.
In the previous packet, the spells still had an effect on creatures with HPs that exceeded the thresh hold, it was just reduced. Sleep, for example, reduced speed, rather than knocking you unconscious. It was a great way to ensure both that your action was never wasted and that you couldn't just CC a fresh, powerful enemy on round 1 with low level spells.
* As characters increase in level, these spells eventually become worthless, since the threats the PCs will be typically fighting will have maximum hp totals above the limits of these spells.
Again, totally agree. I even posted complaining about the obnoxious switch from Current HP to Maximum HP. When it was Current HP, it meant you could use your low level spells as finishers. I thought beating the Ogre up until it was susceptible to Sleep was a great design--I always hated spells being opening turn wins. Go first and ruin an entire encounter? Lame. With Current HP as the thresh hold, you didn't get that--you got "I hope he's finally weak enough to Sleep..." which I felt was far more exciting.
* It punishes some classes more than others. Since your hit points are determined by your class, the result is that wizards end up being more susceptible to these spells than fighters are, and so on. That's ridiculous. At least Hit Die limits treat all classes fairly (not that I'm a big fan of that mechanic either).
Oh, I don't really understand why this is a problem. I like it. Fighters should resist magic better than others. In fact, the HD sizes pretty well reflect how well I think the classes should resist.
So, yeah, I think Max HP thresh holds totally need to go, but I really liked the design of the Current HP thresh hold and hope it returns.
Hmmm agree well completely.. this was a case of more loss than gain by a long shot.
In the previous packet, the spells still had an effect on creatures with HPs that exceeded the thresh hold, it was just reduced. Sleep, for example, reduced speed, rather than knocking you unconscious. It was a great way to ensure both that your ac
I know the save situation is totally different in 5e but in 3e the save or suck spells got cornholed into this side category at high levels because monster saves were ridiculous.
Honestly this whole discussion hinges on how good the monsters are and the DM's inclination to play by the book. If the monsters have crap saves, then balancing it by saves is a waste of time because it'll work a lot. If they have crazy saves then casters just get to hate life and jump through hoops. If the DM agrees with said wounded wizard over their spells sucking too hard, they'll either tell them to suck up and play something else or they'll adjust the monster stats.
Why did they get rid of the current hp idea again?
I know the save situation is totally different in 5e but in 3e the save or suck spells got cornholed into this side category at high levels because monster saves were ridiculous.Honestly this whole discussion hinges on how good the monsters are and t
But what I think is the best approach (or at least a better approach) is this:
Stop basing saves on the primary ability score of the caster. If you want that to matter - put it back into the damage figure. Base saves on the level of the spell. A high level creatures shouldn't be unaffected or less affected by a low level spell because of some arbitrary hit point cap. It should just have a really good save because it is a low level spell.
This seems to satisfy the balance requirement (the low level spells are not very effective against the high level creatures) without the players having to judge someaarbitary cap - and the general idea of creatures saving - and some saving more often than others - has always been part of the game.
I don't like that "spell level based" idea too much. Why should it be (nearly) impossible, that an incredibly powerful wizard couldn put a somewhat higher creature to sleep, just because the spell itself is easy to master (or whatever a low spell level is standing for)? You'd be as likely to suffer (or enjoy?) the spell effects whether it's Stupido the apprentice or Elminster of Shadowdale who is casting. I'd find this a little bit off.
He absolutely should be able to put him to sleep.
But he should have to memorize sleep as a higher level spell to do it.
The issues is that allowing low level save or effect spells to work on high level creatures has a serious impact on the game that is part of the entire problem known as 'the quadratic wizard'.
At high level you have dozens of these spells -(OK, not 'dozens' - but certainly 'severals') and if they work on creatures of your own level, that makes you significantly more powerful than you ought to be.
A L1 save or effect spell should be less effective on a high level creature for the same reason as why damage spells no longer scale. To correct the imbalance such spells created in the rules of older editions.
Carl
I don't like that "spell level based" idea too much. Why should it be (nearly) impossible, that an incredibly powerful wizard couldn put a somewhat higher creature to sleep, just because the spell itself is easy to master (or whatever a low spell lev
At high level you have dozens of these spells - and if they work on creatures of your own level, that makes you significantly more powerful than you ought to be.
Carl
Which takes us back to the question of what wizards do with their lower level spell slots....
Which takes us back to the question of what wizards do with their lower level spell slots....
It is clear that saving throws have their own issues, so here's one idea I want to try bouncing off you guys: what if compulsion spells (and similar effects) attacked a separate HP score? After all, while save-or-dies are a contentious issue, damage to HP is not. Lets call this new score Mental HP.
Any mind-affecting spell or ability would attack a creature's Mental HP. Even if a spell does not manage to beat the threshold to take effect, it would contribute to your next attempt – giving the "wearing down your mental defences" effect seen in a lot of stories. Spells have a certain effect if they beat the half-point, and a "win" effect if you take down the whole. Physical damage affects mental HP but mental damage does not affect physical HP – the status effects from the mental spells affect the creature instead, thus encouraging teamwork (a warrior's attacks shock and distract and strain the monster, allowing the mage's magic to take effect on its mind, which further give the warrior an advantage). This way mental damage and physical damage is mechanically different while still using simple HP totals to keep track of who's winning, allowing for easy balancing.
What do you think?
It is clear that saving throws have their own issues, so here's one idea I want to try bouncing off you guys: what if compulsion spells (and similar effects) attacked a separate HP score? After all, while save-or-dies are a contentious issue, damage
At high level you have dozens of these spells - and if they work on creatures of your own level, that makes you significantly more powerful than you ought to be.
Carl
Which takes us back to the question of what wizards do with their lower level spell slots....
Option 1: They don't have them. The spell tables don't retain low level slots, they replace low level slots with higher level slots (just as 4E replaced low level encounter powers with higher level ones). -- not my preferred approach; I include it because it is an option.
Option 2: He uses them to deal with the low level riff raff he encounters. What in 4E would be 'minion killing'. The hordes of koblds accompanying the Dragon, etc. -- This is an important part of what is done with these spells. Any high level wizard is going to have a few low level area effect spells for just this purpose.
Option 3: They use them for utility spells which do not have attack rolls or saving throws amd thus are still useful despite their low level. -- this is my preferrred approach; it makes the high level wizard the master of such utility magic without costing his major damage/ combat potential severely - because he doesn't really expect such spells to be that useful against high level creatures anyway he can afford to use the slots for non-combat magic.
In short - a bit of option 2 and a bit of option 3, the exact balance depending upon where the wizard is going and what the wizard is planning on doing.
Carl
Which takes us back to the question of what wizards do with their lower level spell slots....[/quote]Option 1: They don't have them. The spell tables don't retain low level slots, they replace low level slots with higher level slots (just as 4E rep
Option 1: They don't have them. The spell tables don't retain low level slots, they replace low level slots with higher level slots (just as 4E replaced low level encounter powers with higher level ones). -- not my preferred approach; I include it because it is an option.
Option 2: He uses them to deal with the low level riff raff he encounters. What in 4E would be 'minion killing'. The hordes of koblds accompanying the Dragon, etc. -- This is an important part of what is done with these spells. Any high level wizard is going to have a few low level area effect spells for just this purpose.
Option 3: They use them for utility spells which do not have attack rolls or saving throws amd thus are still useful despite their low level. -- this is my preferrred approach; it makes the high level wizard the master of such utility magic without costing his major damage/ combat potential severely - because he doesn't really expect such spells to be that useful against high level creatures anyway he can afford to use the slots for non-combat magic.
In short - a bit of option 2 and a bit of option 3, the exact balance depending upon where the wizard is going and what the wizard is planning on doing.
Carl
Yeah I was being facetious.
Still, that is something people don't seem to like about casts/day is they feel like they get these rubbish spells in spades and like 4 really powerful nukes.
Mental HP:I think what the designers are trying to avoid is another set of numbers to mess around with. There was a similar variant back in 2e to deal with psionics (basically ego whip could allow a lvl 1 char to take down a lvl 20 char without any fuss... caused a pain) where everyone got a mental armour class. It used to make me chuckle 'cause I had images of everyone in D&D running around with a Mac.
Anyway it was a reasonable solution but it was yet another value to figure out so I don't recall it being widely used.
Honestly, I think the best solution is to just use current hp. It's how all the spells are balanced and it's totally mad that they discarded it.
Yeah I was being facetious.Still, that is something people don't seem to like about casts/day is they feel like they get these rubbish spells in spades and like 4 really powerful nukes.Mental HP:I think what the designers are trying to avoid is anoth
The problem is that these spells shouldn't be effective against high level creatures. The current solution is an arbitary hit point cap. The alternate proposal is a saving throw they will make almost every time.
I disagree.
Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature? The higher level spells should almost always be the better option, but lower level spells shouldn't be useless! They should just be less effective than the higher level spells are in most cases. One of the things about vancian casting is that wizards have daily spells that cover a wide range of power levels. Once they have used up your highest level spells, then what? Are they supposed to just throw in the towel for the rest of the day? That's what they'd have to do if their remaining low level spells were of no use at all at that level. Also, players may choose to use lower level spells to conserve their higher level spells. That should be a valid strategic choice.
Also, one of the big goals of bounded accuracy is that players can not only fight low level monsters at higher levels and have them remain relevant, but also so that lower level players can have a chance against higher level monsters. You can't really do that when magic using classes can't participate because their spells are useless, but the fighting classes can still contribute just fine. That's just not right. In this system, a low level fighter can hit a high level monster, he just won't do as much damage or otherwise be quite as effective as a higher level fighter with higher combat expertise dice and more/better maneuvers. By the same token, a low level spell should work on a higher level creature, it just shouldn't do as much damage or be as debilitating as a higher level spell.
I disagree. Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature? The higher level spells should almost always be the better option, but lower level spells shouldn't be useless! They should just be less effective than the higher level
So, yeah, I think Max HP thresh holds totally need to go, but I really liked the design of the Current HP thresh hold and hope it returns.
Using current hit points instead of maximum hit points is still problematic. You shouldn't be able to automatically charm people without a saving throw just because you beat them up first, for one thing. For another, you still have most of the problems I mentioned. You still have to guess what a creature's hit points are, and if you guess wrong, it's a waste. You still have the problem of some classes being better able to resist these types of spells than others. Etc.
Using current hit points instead of maximum hit points is still problematic. You shouldn't be able to automatically charm people without a saving throw just because you beat them up first, for one thing. For another, you still have most of the proble
Whoa, didn't even notice that they'd switched from current to maximum HP. That's gotta change back. I liked the current HP system a lot, for reasons already mentioned in this thread (team effort, spells don't become obsolete, etc.). Maximum is a baffling step backwards.
Whoa, didn't even notice that they'd switched from current to maximum HP. That's gotta change back. I liked the current HP system a lot, for reasons already mentioned in this thread (team effort, spells don't become obsolete, etc.). Maximum is a b
Option 1: They don't have them. The spell tables don't retain low level slots, they replace low level slots with higher level slots (just as 4E replaced low level encounter powers with higher level ones). -- not my preferred approach; I include it because it is an option.
Option 2: He uses them to deal with the low level riff raff he encounters. What in 4E would be 'minion killing'. The hordes of koblds accompanying the Dragon, etc. -- This is an important part of what is done with these spells. Any high level wizard is going to have a few low level area effect spells for just this purpose.
Option 3: They use them for utility spells which do not have attack rolls or saving throws amd thus are still useful despite their low level. -- this is my preferrred approach; it makes the high level wizard the master of such utility magic without costing his major damage/ combat potential severely - because he doesn't really expect such spells to be that useful against high level creatures anyway he can afford to use the slots for non-combat magic.
In short - a bit of option 2 and a bit of option 3, the exact balance depending upon where the wizard is going and what the wizard is planning on doing.
But that generates its own problems where wizards (and clerics) outskill the rogue through the use of spells. In fact, I have seen more complaints about 3e utility spells than about those that disable monsters. Utility spells can break adventures unless you design all kinds of often convulated story reasons to circumvent them.
Mind you, I am no fan of hit point thresholds either. For me, you are probably better off removing these kind of highly effective remove-from-combat spells and change them to less powerful effects or making them more of a utility spell. I have had some very fun and cool RP sessions when the PCs charmed a NPC or were charmed by one out of combat, but more often then not within combat spells like sleep and charm person just were boring...
But that generates its own problems where wizards (and clerics) outskill the rogue through the use of spells. In fact, I have seen more complaints about 3e utility spells than about those that disable monsters. Utility spells can break adventures unl
Roll x dice. The target makes a saving throw, if they make it, reduce the total rolled by 1/2.
If the dice total is greater than the targets hit points, it suffers the effect.
What's the logic behind this? Simple. If you could kill a creature (which is what would happen if the effect in this situation was "damage") then you could inflict a condition on it.
The dice rolled should be greater than if it were simple damage because it's an "all or nothing" situation, but the mechanism stays the same.
How to solve this problem1) Phrase the spell as follows:Roll x dice. The target makes a saving throw, if they make it, reduce the total rolled by 1/2.If the dice total is greater than the targets hit points, it suffers the effect.What's the logic beh
The problem is that these spells shouldn't be effective against high level creatures. The current solution is an arbitary hit point cap. The alternate proposal is a saving throw they will make almost every time.
I disagree.
Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature? The higher level spells should almost always be the better option, but lower level spells shouldn't be useless! They should just be less effective than the higher level spells are in most cases. One of the things about vancian casting is that wizards have daily spells that cover a wide range of power levels. Once they have used up your highest level spells, then what? Are they supposed to just throw in the towel for the rest of the day? That's what they'd have to do if their remaining low level spells were of no use at all at that level. Also, players may choose to use lower level spells to conserve their higher level spells. That should be a valid strategic choice.
Also, one of the big goals of bounded accuracy is that players can not only fight low level monsters at higher levels and have them remain relevant, but also so that lower level players can have a chance against higher level monsters. You can't really do that when magic using classes can't participate because their spells are useless, but the fighting classes can still contribute just fine. That's just not right. In this system, a low level fighter can hit a high level monster, he just won't do as much damage or otherwise be quite as effective as a higher level fighter with higher combat expertise dice and more/better maneuvers. By the same token, a low level spell should work on a higher level creature, it just shouldn't do as much damage or be as debilitating as a higher level spell.
I aggree with you pretty much. I would like to see a return to HD being used rather than hit points for threshold.
I disagree. Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature? The higher level spells should almost always be the better option, but lower level spells shouldn't be useless! They should just be less effective than the higher level
Roll x dice. The target makes a saving throw, if they make it, reduce the total rolled by 1/2.
If the dice total is greater than the targets hit points, it suffers the effect.
What's the logic behind this? Simple. If you could kill a creature (which is what would happen if the effect in this situation was "damage") then you could inflict a condition on it.
The dice rolled should be greater than if it were simple damage because it's an "all or nothing" situation, but the mechanism stays the same.
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an example of a good target threshold its a detectable state and thus not a guessing game and its porportionate to the adversary and doesnt quit being relevant.
Exceptthey dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.
As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.
The only spell still using current hit points is sleep. All other spells with a hit point cap use the hit point maximum.
Carl
If they get rid of this idea, they need to replace it with another mechanic for making sure that lower level spells are not effective on higher level monsters. What would you suggest? I tried to work it through monster level, but that didn't work.
Except they dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.T
I don't really like the system as is. Personally the way Mearls (I think it was him) orginally explained it, the whole thing sounded better, but each version they released has been worse.
I also agree that most spells shouldn't be either an all or nothing thing (in the case of fire and forget casting, other types of casting will very).
Personally if they are noting going to budge with the whole threshold idea, I would prefer spells to do something like Power Word Kill, this does does damage (half on a failed save) until you hit the hp threshold, then it has a chance to kill the enemy (failed save) or do full damage (successful save).
I don't really like the system as is. Personally the way Mearls (I think it was him) orginally explained it, the whole thing sounded better, but each version they released has been worse.I also agree that most spells shouldn't be either an all or no
I'm not saying that the threshold is the only way to do it, but there has to be a point where level 1 spells are no long effective. Otherwise the massive number of spellslots that a higher level caster gets unbalance things incredibly quickly.
My personal preference is that a caster maxes out with about 6-8 spell slots something like 4 spells of 2 spell levels under max, 2 of one spell level under max and 1 spell of their maximum spell level. If they want to cast a lower level spell they can put it into one of those spell slots.
So at level 5 a wizard might have 4 level 1, 2 level 2 and 1 level 3. At 17 they might have 4 level 7, 2 level 8 and one level 9. If a 17th level wizard wants to cast invisibility he memorises it in one of his spell slots, probably 7th level.
I'm not saying that the threshold is the only way to do it, but there has to be a point where level 1 spells are no long effective. Otherwise the massive number of spellslots that a higher level caster gets unbalance things incredibly quickly.My per
Roll x dice. The target makes a saving throw, if they make it, reduce the total rolled by 1/2.
If the dice total is greater than the targets hit points, it suffers the effect.
What's the logic behind this? Simple. If you could kill a creature (which is what would happen if the effect in this situation was "damage") then you could inflict a condition on it.
The dice rolled should be greater than if it were simple damage because it's an "all or nothing" situation, but the mechanism stays the same.
Works for me. Probably the best suggestion I've seen so far.
Works for me. Probably the best suggestion I've seen so far.
The problem: Save-or-suck spells means the casters and weapon-users are playing different games. The caster is just throwing stiff at the monster until a save is failed. Meanwhile, the weapon-users are whittling down hp... without the aid of their casters. This also affects monster design, particularly if the casters have damage-dealing spells available (like magic missile, lightning bolt, etc.) If you assume casters are not whittling down hp, then you make it so casters will want to avoid s-o-s spells (liek using magic resistance, spell immunities, and ridiculous saving throw bonuses), and concentrate on hp damage. If you assume they are, you make it so casters will shift to s-o-s spells and the weapon-users never contribute. And combat feels like a slog.
The first solution: Impose "current hp" thresholds for save-or-suck spells. Now the caster has the incentive to help his allies soften the enemies up.
The problem: It feels wrong. People described it as "beating the enemies until they love you." And it does feel weird that you could meet an ogre, have the wizard use charm person, it doesn't work. So you zap him with a few magic missiles, cast it again, and lo and behold, the ogre thinks the wizard is his best buddy.
The next solution: Impose "max hp" threshholds
The problem: It doesn't solve the issue. The caster is again playign a different game. Except now he's playing two games: hp mitigation with high-level creatures, and minion mop-up with low-level ones.
In the end, I don't know there will be a good solution. You have two irreconcilable factors. On the one hand, the weapon-users are only ever playing the "hp mitigation" game. One the other hand, some classic spell effects don't map well to the hp mitigation game no matter how you try to force it.
The problem: Save-or-suck spells means the casters and weapon-users are playing different games. The caster is just throwing stiff at the monster until a save is failed. Meanwhile, the weapon-users are whittling down hp... without the aid of their
Roll x dice. The target makes a saving throw, if they make it, reduce the total rolled by 1/2.
If the dice total is greater than the targets hit points, it suffers the effect.
What's the logic behind this? Simple. If you could kill a creature (which is what would happen if the effect in this situation was "damage") then you could inflict a condition on it.
The dice rolled should be greater than if it were simple damage because it's an "all or nothing" situation, but the mechanism stays the same.
Works for me. Probably the best suggestion I've seen so far.
It's the worst of all solutions. First, you still have the "beat 'em 'til they love you" issue. Second, since no damage occurs if you fail to meet the threshold, the caster is not playing the "damage mitigation" game. The weapn-users are stuck trying to whittle down the creature's hp while the caster is hoping to get a lucky imaginary damage roll. it also makes all spells feel samey. "This spell does X hp median imaginary damage and kills you" while "This spell does Y hp median imaginary damage and makes you sleep" and "This spell does Z hp imaginary damage and turns you to stone."
You might as well just do real damage.
Works for me. Probably the best suggestion I've seen so far.[/quote]It's the worst of all solutions. First, you still have the "beat 'em 'til they love you" issue. Second, since no damage occurs if you fail to meet the threshold, the caster is not
"Charm Person" (and similar spells like Suggestion) may be outliers to the problem, and you may want to resolve them with a straightforward saving throw.
The vast majority of effects - Stone to Flesh, Sleep, Hold Person etc - don't have that same cognitive dissonance (to me at least, YMMV), and the system I described would work for them.
Wrecan"Charm Person" (and similar spells like Suggestion) may be outliers to the problem, and you may want to resolve them with a straightforward saving throw. The vast majority of effects - Stone to Flesh, Sleep, Hold Person etc - don't have that sa
Someone has probably answered this already but what are the problems with using a creatures Hit Die? I'm sure there are problems, I just can't think of them right now. I'm working on a solution but I need to know all the pit-falls so I can avoid them.
Someone has probably answered this already but what are the problems with using a creatures Hit Die? I'm sure there are problems, I just can't think of them right now. I'm working on a solution but I need to know all the pit-falls so I can avoid them
"Charm Person" (and similar spells like Suggestion) may be outliers to the problem, and you may want to resolve them with a straightforward saving throw.
The vast majority of effects - Stone to Flesh, Sleep, Hold Person etc - don't have that same cognitive dissonance (to me at least, YMMV), and the system I described would work for them.
"Bea you until they love you" is merely the funniest way to state the phenomenon. But "beat you until you're petrified"? That doesn't follow any fantasy conventions of which I'm aware.
"Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hold Person" to "Sever Spinal Column"?
It just doesn't feel like "Stone to Flesh" or "Hold Person" or "Sleep". I wish it did. It would be an easy fix. Heck, you could simply have a spell "Damage". And it does 1d6 imaginary damage per level. When you cast it, choose a carrier effect. Some carriers are "real" damage, like fire, force, acid, cold, lightning, thinder, etc. Some inflict imaginary damage and comes with a carrier effect like sleep, paralysis, petrification, death, dominate, stun, removed from play, plane shift, or any of the effects that are classically attached to s-o-s spells. If you choose imaginary damage at the time of casting, the effect only occurs if the imaginary damage exceeds the creature's current hp. Maybe at every other level, the caster gets to learn a new carrier effect for their imaginary damage spell.
I liked it when Schwalb first suggested it. But they abandoned it. Why? My guess is they got a lot of negative feedback on the idea.
"Bea you until they love you" is merely the funniest way to state the phenomenon. But "beat you until you're petrified"? That doesn't follow any fantasy conventions of which I'm aware."Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hol
As I understand it, using something constant and knowable to establish the threshold allows players to "game the system" by using player knowledge of the Monster Manual to be able to choose what can, and can't, be affected by their spells.
(I make no comment on whether that actually IS a problem, I'm just answering the question.)
XerxesAs I understand it, using something constant and knowable to establish the threshold allows players to "game the system" by using player knowledge of the Monster Manual to be able to choose what can, and can't, be affected by their spells.(I ma
"Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hold Person" to "Sever Spinal Column"?
Funny, but no. Beat you until your luck runs out and -OOPS- this time the spell got you.
HP as an abstract, right? The same sword blow or paralyzing beam you evaded a dozen times finally makes contact and clocks you when your HP run low.
"Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hold Person" to "Sever Spinal Column"?Funny, but no. Beat you until your luck runs out and -OOPS- this time the spell got you.HP as an abstract, right? The same sword blow or paralyzing be
Someone has probably answered this already but what are the problems with using a cratures Hit Die?
It doesn't solve any of the s-o-s problems. It still means that the caster is playing the "beat the saving throw" game while the weapon-users are playing "deplete the hp" game. It also means most casters will have no more than four useful spells for high-HD creatures.
So the weapon-users feel everything is a slog, because only a fraction of the party is dealing hp damage. The casters feel like, during important battles, they ar eplaying roulette.
The reason is save-or-suck spells are almost always superior to damage-dealing spells because taking out a single foe is an exponentially better strategy than damaging a bunch of foes. Because damaged foes can still hurt your allies, but a dropped foe cannot. That's why "focused fire" is almost always the superior strategy in a hp-based system. And s-o-s is the ultimate in focused fire.
It doesn't solve any of the s-o-s problems. It still means that the caster is playing the "beat the saving throw" game while the weapon-users are playing "deplete the hp" game. It also means most casters will have no more than four useful spells fo
HP as an abstract, right? The same sword blow or paralyzing beam you evaded a dozen times finally makes contact and clocks you when your HP run low.
I undersrtand that. I was a huge fan of 4e, which relied on this conceit heavily. But lots of people hate the idea that hp is anything but physical injury.
And one problem is the narration. To maintain the illusion that hp is mostly luck, you have to continually describe a players' successful attacks as misses.
"18! And 15 hp damage" "Well, you narrowly miss the ogre, but boy is his luck running out." "Great, now I cast charm person... 12 hp imaginary damage". "The ogre's luck runs out and he is now under your spell"
It's anticlimactic. Even thought he fighter clearly contributed, it doesn't feel like he contruibuted, because in the story in his head... he whiffed. But if you treat hp like an actual blow, then it feels like you are beating the monster into loving you.
"18! And 15 hp damage!" "The ogre reels from your mighty blow. He is hurt, but not fallen." "Great, now I cast charm person... 12 hp imaginary damage". "The ogre's defenses are defeated; he is now under your spell"
Sure, the fighter feels like he contributed. But it also feels like an excerpt from 50 Shades of Gray.
I undersrtand that. I was a huge fan of 4e, which relied on this conceit heavily. But lots of people hate the idea that hp is anything but physical injury. And one problem is the narration. To maintain the illusion that hp is mostly luck, you hav
Yeah, doesn't work for Charm Person, already said that. Let that one go.
Having said that...
"18! And 15 hp damage!" "A most puissant attack! He's on the ropes!" "Great, now I cast sleep... 12 hp imaginary damage". "Weakened by the desperate fight, the ogre succumbs; your spell crumples him at your feet"
AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!
Yeah, doesn't work for Charm Person, already said that. Let that one go.Having said that... "18! And 15 hp damage!" "A most puissant attack! He's on the ropes!" "Great, now I cast sleep... 12 hp imaginary damage". "Weakened by the desperate fight
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an example of a good target threshold its a detectable state and thus not a guessing game and its porportionate to the adversary and doesnt quit being relevant.
Exceptthey dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.
As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.
The only spell still using current hit points is sleep. All other spells with a hit point cap use the hit point maximum.
Carl
If they get rid of this idea, they need to replace it with another mechanic for making sure that lower level spells are not effective on higher level monsters. What would you suggest? I tried to work it through monster level, but that didn't work.
How about just adding the level of the monster to the save roll it wouldn't start getting ridiculous until around level 10 or so. Then of course they could add the level of the caster to the save DC...
Except they dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.T
"Charm Person" (and similar spells like Suggestion) may be outliers to the problem, and you may want to resolve them with a straightforward saving throw.
The vast majority of effects - Stone to Flesh, Sleep, Hold Person etc - don't have that same cognitive dissonance (to me at least, YMMV), and the system I described would work for them.
"Bea you until they love you" is merely the funniest way to state the phenomenon. But "beat you until you're petrified"? That doesn't follow any fantasy conventions of which I'm aware.
"Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hold Person" to "Sever Spinal Column"?
It just doesn't feel like "Stone to Flesh" or "Hold Person" or "Sleep". I wish it did. It would be an easy fix. Heck, you could simply have a spell "Damage". And it does 1d6 imaginary damage per level. When you cast it, choose a carrier effect. Some carriers are "real" damage, like fire, force, acid, cold, lightning, thinder, etc. Some inflict imaginary damage and comes with a carrier effect like sleep, paralysis, petrification, death, dominate, stun, removed from play, plane shift, or any of the effects that are classically attached to s-o-s spells. If you choose imaginary damage at the time of casting, the effect only occurs if the imaginary damage exceeds the creature's current hp. Maybe at every other level, the caster gets to learn a new carrier effect for their imaginary damage spell.
I liked it when Schwalb first suggested it. But they abandoned it. Why? My guess is they got a lot of negative feedback on the idea.
How about if the target is 5 levels below you, they have disadvantage on saves versus your spells and if they are 5 levels above you they have advantage on saves versus your spells.
They spells would have full effect on a failed save and a lesser half effect on a successful save. So hold person might make you move at half speed and get a -2 on attacks if you make the save, if you fail the save you are paralyzed until you make the save then for the rest of the 10 rounds you get the half speed and -2 to attacks.
"Bea you until they love you" is merely the funniest way to state the phenomenon. But "beat you until you're petrified"? That doesn't follow any fantasy conventions of which I'm aware."Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hol
HP as an abstract, right? The same sword blow or paralyzing beam you evaded a dozen times finally makes contact and clocks you when your HP run low.
I undersrtand that. I was a huge fan of 4e, which relied on this conceit heavily. But lots of people hate the idea that hp is anything but physical injury.
And one problem is the narration. To maintain the illusion that hp is mostly luck, you have to continually describe a players' successful attacks as misses.
"18! And 15 hp damage" "Well, you narrowly miss the ogre, but boy is his luck running out." "Great, now I cast charm person... 12 hp imaginary damage". "The ogre's luck runs out and he is now under your spell"
It's anticlimactic. Even thought he fighter clearly contributed, it doesn't feel like he contruibuted, because in the story in his head... he whiffed. But if you treat hp like an actual blow, then it feels like you are beating the monster into loving you.
"18! And 15 hp damage!" "The ogre reels from your mighty blow. He is hurt, but not fallen." "Great, now I cast charm person... 12 hp imaginary damage". "The ogre's defenses are defeated; he is now under your spell"
Sure, the fighter feels like he contributed. But it also feels like an excerpt from 50 Shades of Gray.
Well those people that house ruled hit points as physical injury can house rule the rest of it too...
I undersrtand that. I was a huge fan of 4e, which relied on this conceit heavily. But lots of people hate the idea that hp is anything but physical injury. And one problem is the narration. To maintain the illusion that hp is mostly luck, you hav
The threshold allows everyone to participate in weakening an adversary (before the culmenating strike.) hence makes the save or die effect of these absolutist spell to become a team accomplishment .... In 4e terms a bloodied condition might be an example of a good target threshold its a detectable state and thus not a guessing game and its porportionate to the adversary and doesnt quit being relevant.
Exceptthey dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.
As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.
The only spell still using current hit points is sleep. All other spells with a hit point cap use the hit point maximum.
Carl
If they get rid of this idea, they need to replace it with another mechanic for making sure that lower level spells are not effective on higher level monsters. What would you suggest? I tried to work it through monster level, but that didn't work.
How about just adding the level of the monster to the save roll it wouldn't start getting ridiculous until around level 10 or so. Then of course they could add the level of the caster to the save DC...
You know, something very similar to that just occurred to me about 15 minutes ago. My thought was that monsters receive a bonus based on level above the spell level used. So if you were level 4 and were saving against a level 2 spell (received at level 3), you would get an additional +1 to the save. If you were level 10, you'd get +7 to that save.
Perhaps it would not kick in until you were at least 3 levels higher than the spell level, so that you had a reasonable range of time where monsters would get no bonus. So at level 10, you'd save against a level 2 spell at a +4 bonus on top of everything else (3: level spell gained at, + 3 level range with no bonus, + 4 levels where bonus is gained = 10)
Except they dumped the idea of using current hit points and in most cases now are using max hit points as the threshold.As I said - that was the one advantage of using hit points - you could use current hit ponts. But then they abandoned that idea.T
Yeah, doesn't work for Charm Person, already said that. Let that one go.
As I said, I only choose that one because it's the funniest. Relace it with "turned to stone" and the result is the same.
On the other hand, "sleep" is the easiest to justify because exhaustion is something that happens when you fight. So I'll stop using "charm" and you stop using "sleep"
The ogre charges. I intervene and heave at him with my hammer... 18! 15 hp damage! You hammer stops his charge and yowls in pain. I turn him to stone. He rolls a three. He turns to stone.
Notice how I didn't mention if we're using hp threshold or not. Did the fighter contribute to the fight? Well, he did if might have if we use thresholds, but he definitely didn't if we don't. But storywise, it really looks like he didn't.
But let's look at it this way:
The ogre charges at you from out of the darkness! I turn him to stone. The ogres shrugs off your spell and continues his charge I intervene with my mighty hammer... 18! I do 15 damage! You stopped the ogre's charge. He attacks you and... hits for 6 damage. I turn him to stone! The ogre shrugs off your spell again. I attack with my hammer again... nat 20! Critical hit... 28 hp damage! You feel the crack of bone as your hammer caves in the ogre's chest. he falls to the ground, dead.
In this scenario, did the wizard contribute? Regardless of whether we use thresholds or "imaginary hp", he did not. Because the wizard was playing the "beat the save" game and the fighter was playing "beat the hp". The "imaginary hp" rule means the wizard is dependent on the hp-depleters to play his "beat the save" game, while the fighter is not equally dependent on the wizard... except that the fighter probably has to fight for twice as long because the wizard isn't contributing anything until someone fails a save.
In the end, the problem with s-o-s is that someone is going to feel they made no contribution, depending on whether the creature is beaten on a save or by running out of hp. Even with thresholds, storywise, the fighter doesn't appear in-game to be contributing when the creature fails a save. We may now out-of-game that the fighter contributed to the defeat thanks to the glory of hp-abstraction, but in-game, there's no evidence of it.
In the end, for a lot of people that sort of metagame contribution isn't going to be very satisfying.
As I said I don't know what the solution is. I do know that thresholds are not going solve the issue.
The only solution that "works" is that every spell inflicts damage, even if it's only "psychic damage". Sleep inflicts psychic damage. Hold person inflicts force damage. Petrification inflicts untyped damage. The spell should describe the effect if the damage doesn't kill him. Sleep causes foggy thoughts. Hold person shackles the person in force. Petrification causes some of the person to turn stony.
The problem is (i) this doesn't resemble traditional D&D effects, and (ii) we tried it in 4e and people complaied it was too "samey".
How about if the target is 5 levels below you, they have disadvantage on saves versus your spells and if they are 5 levels above you they have advantage on saves versus your spells.
It doesn't solve the problem of casters and weapon-users playing different games ("beat the save" and "beat the hp", respectively)
If the problem was merely that s-o-s spells are more likely to take out a creature than hp-depletion, then we can try to rejigger the math of saving throws to ensure that it all works out. But the problem is that having two types of players operating on different premises -- particularly when one of those types can switch -- plays havoc with the game math.
As I said, I only choose that one because it's the funniest. Relace it with "turned to stone" and the result is the same.On the other hand, "sleep" is the easiest to justify because exhaustion is something that happens when you fight. So I'll stop
It forces players to guess at a monster's maximum hit point totals (or worse, resort to using metagaming or peeking in the monster manual).
This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."
Guessing wrong and attempting to use the spell on a creature with too many hit points usually means you waste the spell with little or no effect. That's frustrating and not fun at all, and not for any good reason. At least when a creature makes its save, you knew there was a chance that you might have accomplished something, so you don't feel like a complete idiot for wasting your turn and prepared spell for nothing.
Yeah, that does kinda suck. A recovery mechanic might be nice. Then again, wasting an action or limited resource on a bad tactical move always sucks. Mistakes should hurt. And while it hurts less if you roll a "1" on the attack or the monster rolls a "20" it doesn't suck that much less. If the fighter makes a bad call and bull rushes the gelatinous cube the game doesn't hold his hand and reduce the error.
Many of these effects don't even allow a saving throw, even though the conditions or penalties they inflict can be quite severe.
Saves/attacks increase the chance of spells not taking. Suddenly there's not just the question of "is it's hp threshold low enough" but also "will it make its save??"
As characters increase in level, these spells eventually become worthless, since the threats the PCs will be typically fighting will have maximum hp totals above the limits of these spells.
This assumes the thresholds remain constant. We haven't seen much of spells being memorized at a higher level. This might change.
It punishes some classes more than others. Since your hit points are determined by your class, the result is that wizards end up being more susceptible to these spells than fighters are, and so on.
Tying it to saves will punish certain characters just as much. The low Wisdom fight will fail Wis saves more than wizards and clerics. There's always going to be actions better aimed at certain classes.
There are also many other, far better ways of balancing these types of spells. Players could be given multiple ways to break out of their effects, not the least of which should be a saving throw every turn in combat to shrug off a nasty effect. Spells like Charm and Suggestion can have reasonable limits on what they can make people do (like not being able to make them commit suicide or attack their allies) so that they aren't effectively save-or-lose. There's even the possibility of giving higher level beings a bonus on their saving throws rather than granting them outright immunity. There are plenty of other options. Almost anything is better than the hp threshold mechanic they're using now to "balance" these spells.
Agreed. There should be some overall guidelines either in the spells of the description of magic or conditions. Advice for the DM on when to allow the PC to snap out of it or for the player to roll a second save. But I think I'd rather have them test independant of that at first, to better get a baseline of what needs more limits and what's fine the way it is.
Okay, I'm jumping in late to respond to the OP.This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."Yeah, that does kinda suck. A
I like tying the spell effect to the universal D&D indicator of overall PC/Mob power, the abstract Hitpoints. It makes it general enough to allow for any fluff description you like (since hitpoint loss is very abstract lending itself to any flavor text description you like).
One way to keep this mechanic, but not require PC metagaming guessing at mob hitpoint totals, is to include a new mechanic, perhaps call it "Shrug It Off". This mechanic would allow a spell to have a given effect on a mob, the maximum possible for the spell (this is for non-damage effects of course). Then the mob would choose to "actively resist" the spell, or not (it would attempt to "Shrug it off"). You could design it so they have to choose before they make their Save (if the spell allows one), or you can design it so they can choose after the Save.
If they choose to Shrug It Off, the spell has a damage value associated with it for this, X hitpoints. This is how many hitpoints the mob loses for resisting the spell in this way. If they do choose this option, they lose the X hitpoints, and then the initial spell effect is reduced to the Shrug It Off Effect. If the spell allows a Save, then that would further reduce the Effect.
If the loss of X hitpoints would drop the mob, then you could have the rule say that mob cannot then choose to resist it in this way, or just allow them to and then drop from the effort.
I would see spells under this mechanic having 3 Effects (or 2 if the spell has no Save allowed). The Primary Effect is the full effect. The Secondary Effect is what you get if you Shrug It Off or if You Save. The Tertiary Effect is what you get if you Both Shrug It Off and Save. So each of the "resistances" of the mob reduces it 1 level. If they actively resist (Shrug It Off) or just passively resist (Save) each success reduces the spell effect by 1 level (Primary, Secondary, Tertiary)
This way you can balance spells in more ways, by allowing a Save, and also by imposing a low or high Shrug It Off hitpoint loss.
You could say that a mob can only Shrug It Off if they can take actions (since it is Active Resistance) or are not surprised. So this makes Stunned, Unconscious, Surprised, mobs more vulnerable to certain spells with this mechanic.
You could for example have a spell that Puts you to Sleep/Dazes You/Slows You as the 3 tiers of effects. But make the Shrug It Off damage be low, like 5 hitpoints. This would mean most mobs would pay the 5 hitpoints to at worst be Dazed, and on a save merely be slowed. But surprised mobs would not get to Shrug It Off and so would be for sure Dazed of not Sleeping. Makes certain spells more useful if the target is taken off guard.
Or you could make the same spell say: Sleep/Slowed/Nothing, and make the Shrug It Off damage more, say 25 hitpoints. This means mobs may be willing to skip it, since the secondary effect is not as bad. But this spell would be less useful against unaware foes.
You could also have spells that escalate, so they have an initial weak effect, but remain for say 3 rounds. On round 1 they have their weak effect, then at the end of the target's turn, they choose to Shrug It Off, if they decline, the spell then imposes the next effect, if after their next turn they decline to Shrug It Off, it has its full effect. Then it would allow a Save after that to remove it (or allow another Shrug it Off to automatically end it). So the mob could pay the Shrug It Off value each time and prevent the escalation of the spell, they would suffer its mild effect for 3 rounds having lose the Shrug It Off damage 2 times and then get a Save to get rid of it after that. So it allows them mob to choose.
Say you have Acid Arrow: X initial acid damage, Shrug It Off damage = 15 hitpoints each time, and then the Effect = disadvantage on all attacks/disadvantage on all checks and grant foes advantage/stunned. So the acid continues to "burn" for 3 rounds, and the mob can keep the effect to disadvantage on attacks for all 3 of those rounds if it suffers the 15 damage each of rounds 2 and 3. Perhaps you could have the spell allow a Save after each round as well (after the spell effect escalates), if the mob saves, the effect is reduced by 1 level, and if already at the initial level it ends. This would mean a mob who Shrugs It Off at the end of their turn on round 1 if they make their Save also ends the effect. If they ignore the Shrug then if they Save they keep the effect at the initial level.
This allows for a lot of combinations and keeps the hitpoints connected to spell effects in some way. It makes the loss of hitpoints flavored as an active resistance which takes something out of you to resist it in this way. This would allow mobs to perhaps have a new ability, say if they have magic resistances or whatever, they lose only half the Shrug damage when they do that.
Just a skeleton of an idea anyway.
Larry
I like tying the spell effect to the universal D&D indicator of overall PC/Mob power, the abstract Hitpoints. It makes it general enough to allow for any fluff description you like (since hitpoint loss is very abstract lending itself to any flavor te
Yeah, doesn't work for Charm Person, already said that. Let that one go.
As I said, I only choose that one because it's the funniest. Relace it with "turned to stone" and the result is the same.
On the other hand, "sleep" is the easiest to justify because exhaustion is something that happens when you fight. So I'll stop using "charm" and you stop using "sleep"
The ogre charges. I intervene and heave at him with my hammer... 18! 15 hp damage! You hammer stops his charge and yowls in pain. I turn him to stone. He rolls a three. He turns to stone.
Notice how I didn't mention if we're using hp threshold or not. Did the fighter contribute to the fight? Well, he did if might have if we use thresholds, but he definitely didn't if we don't. But storywise, it really looks like he didn't.
But let's look at it this way:
The ogre charges at you from out of the darkness! I turn him to stone. The ogres shrugs off your spell and continues his charge I intervene with my mighty hammer... 18! I do 15 damage! You stopped the ogre's charge. He attacks you and... hits for 6 damage. I turn him to stone! The ogre shrugs off your spell again. I attack with my hammer again... nat 20! Critical hit... 28 hp damage! You feel the crack of bone as your hammer caves in the ogre's chest. he falls to the ground, dead.
In this scenario, did the wizard contribute? Regardless of whether we use thresholds or "imaginary hp", he did not. Because the wizard was playing the "beat the save" game and the fighter was playing "beat the hp". The "imaginary hp" rule means the wizard is dependent on the hp-depleters to play his "beat the save" game, while the fighter is not equally dependent on the wizard... except that the fighter probably has to fight for twice as long because the wizard isn't contributing anything until someone fails a save.
In the end, the problem with s-o-s is that someone is going to feel they made no contribution, depending on whether the creature is beaten on a save or by running out of hp. Even with thresholds, storywise, the fighter doesn't appear in-game to be contributing when the creature fails a save. We may now out-of-game that the fighter contributed to the defeat thanks to the glory of hp-abstraction, but in-game, there's no evidence of it.
In the end, for a lot of people that sort of metagame contribution isn't going to be very satisfying.
As I said I don't know what the solution is. I do know that thresholds are not going solve the issue.
The only solution that "works" is that every spell inflicts damage, even if it's only "psychic damage". Sleep inflicts psychic damage. Hold person inflicts force damage. Petrification inflicts untyped damage. The spell should describe the effect if the damage doesn't kill him. Sleep causes foggy thoughts. Hold person shackles the person in force. Petrification causes some of the person to turn stony.
The problem is (i) this doesn't resemble traditional D&D effects, and (ii) we tried it in 4e and people complaied it was too "samey".
How about if the target is 5 levels below you, they have disadvantage on saves versus your spells and if they are 5 levels above you they have advantage on saves versus your spells.
It doesn't solve the problem of casters and weapon-users playing different games ("beat the save" and "beat the hp", respectively)
If the problem was merely that s-o-s spells are more likely to take out a creature than hp-depletion, then we can try to rejigger the math of saving throws to ensure that it all works out. But the problem is that having two types of players operating on different premises -- particularly when one of those types can switch -- plays havoc with the game math.
Which is why fighters get something to do in the combat besides just do damage.
The ogre charges, running past the armored fighter with the sharp pointies to get at the soft human in the back. I intervene and heave at him with my hammer... 18! 15 hp damage and I knock him flat on his back! He looks up at you, surprised to be on the ground and yowls in frustration. I turn him to stone. He rolls a three. He turns to stone.
Did the fighter contribute to the fight? Yes - he kept the Ogre from squashing the mage.
Your argument only works if you assume that the role of both is to kill the monster (what some have termed the 'everyone out for themselves" view of past editions. If seen as a team effort, then both contributed.
The ogre charges, intending to run past the armored fighter with the sharp pointies to get at the soft human in the back. I turn him to stone. The ogres shrugs off your spell and continues his charge. However, the residual magic of your spell slows him down. I intervene with my mighty hammer... 18! Since the Oge is slowed and can't reach the wizard anymore, I focus on doing additional damage rather than stopping his movement. I do 20 damage! Knowing he will never reach the soft human, he attacks you and... hits for 6 damage. I turn him to stone! The ogre shrugs off your spell again. But the continued effect of your magic has now immobilized him - he can no longer advance upon you. I attack with my hammer again... nat 20! Critical hit... 28 hp damage! You feel the crack of bone as your hammer caves in the ogre's chest. he falls to the ground, dead.
Did the mage contribute to the fight? Yes - he his magic slowed the Ogre allowing the fighter to focus on doing damage rather than defending the wizard. Again - a team effort made it easier to bring him down.
The difference here was that the daily spell had a save effect that - although it was not damage - had an impact on the fight. Part of the problem of S O S spells is that they are traditionally seen as all or nothing. I'd rather see them as perhaps less powerful on a failed save (it might have taken that Ogre a couple of rounds to turn to stone had he failed his save) but still with a useful related effect on a successful save.
None of this, however, addresses the issue of imaginary hit points - which is entirely a question of "will the players accept them as a mechanic which feels intuitive and natural in play or will players reject them as a silly gamist approach." And that is not something I feel capable of predicting. The fact that I don't care for the appraoch isn't relevant because I can only speak for myself on that one. My gut reaction, however, is that players might accept them for spells which are seen as overcoming the physical defenses and resist them for spells (like Charm Person) which are seen as overcoming the mental defenses - no matter how many times we say that hit points are more than just a physical measure of damage.
Carl
As I said, I only choose that one because it's the funniest. Relace it with "turned to stone" and the result is the same.On the other hand, "sleep" is the easiest to justify because exhaustion is something that happens when you fight. So I'll stop
Which is why fighters get something to do in the combat besides just do damage.
Agreed. If all players can inflict damage + conditions, then everyone can feel like they contribute. The problem is we had a system in whcih everyone inflicted damge and conditions and people complained that all the classes felt the same.
"+X to hit, YdZ damage plus condition"
Except in 5e, caster are.... "Ability DC 20-X, YdZ damage plus condition"
I agree that I think a lot of people will find this a gamist approach for spells that traditionally target Will defenses or require Will saves... mostly the enchantment (charm, confusion, dominate, enthrall, feeblemind, hold, hypnotize, insanity, magic jar, suggestion, fear) and the abjuration (antipathy, banish, dismissal, imprisonment, plane shift, and repulsion) schools. Some of the illusory spells too. But a lot of grognards won't like it on other save-or-die spells. It pretty much rips any flavor from Power Word: Kill, Cloudkill, or Finger of Death, turning them merely into damage dealing spells.
So it will help with those spells that can have lesser included effects, like flesh to stone. But there are whole schools of magic for which this will remain a problem.
Agreed. If all players can inflict damage + conditions, then everyone can feel like they contribute. The problem is we had a system in whcih everyone inflicted damge and conditions and people complained that all the classes felt the same."+X to hit
"Charm Person" (and similar spells like Suggestion) may be outliers to the problem, and you may want to resolve them with a straightforward saving throw.
The vast majority of effects - Stone to Flesh, Sleep, Hold Person etc - don't have that same cognitive dissonance (to me at least, YMMV), and the system I described would work for them.
"Bea you until they love you" is merely the funniest way to state the phenomenon. But "beat you until you're petrified"? That doesn't follow any fantasy conventions of which I'm aware.
"Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hold Person" to "Sever Spinal Column"?
It just doesn't feel like "Stone to Flesh" or "Hold Person" or "Sleep". I wish it did. It would be an easy fix. Heck, you could simply have a spell "Damage". And it does 1d6 imaginary damage per level. When you cast it, choose a carrier effect. Some carriers are "real" damage, like fire, force, acid, cold, lightning, thinder, etc. Some inflict imaginary damage and comes with a carrier effect like sleep, paralysis, petrification, death, dominate, stun, removed from play, plane shift, or any of the effects that are classically attached to s-o-s spells. If you choose imaginary damage at the time of casting, the effect only occurs if the imaginary damage exceeds the creature's current hp. Maybe at every other level, the caster gets to learn a new carrier effect for their imaginary damage spell.
I liked it when Schwalb first suggested it. But they abandoned it. Why? My guess is they got a lot of negative feedback on the idea.
Here is a thought....
Its called good cop bad cop...
You cant be the one to deliver the damage heheheeh.... you have to be the good cop. Not sure exactly how to codify that in a way that comes across. Of course Torture is indeed used to cow victims the torturer then promises to never hurt them again if they just do this one little thing... then maybe this one little thing more.
"Bea you until they love you" is merely the funniest way to state the phenomenon. But "beat you until you're petrified"? That doesn't follow any fantasy conventions of which I'm aware."Beat you until you're paralyzed"? Should we simply rename "Hol
Save or dies will be tricky because some people love them and some people hate them. Coming up with a mechanic that makes both sides maybe not happy but okay with the rules is going to be hard.
Out of the HP threshold mechanics I prefer current HP, it allows others to contribute and there less of an issue of ending someone more powerful than anyone can take out in one round in the first round.
Saving throws tied to thresholds: Well it kind of depends on the threshold. These 50HP level 2 spell ones should have saves and they should break the entire spell or if there is a side effect on the save it should be more minor than immobilized. On the other hand things like a 10HP threshold might not need a save if damage would take them out anyways. I mean if on a normal roll with a burning hands if they save they are dead I don't really see the need for a save for a threshold of the same damage level.
Saves without thresholds: Whether they scale with your prime attribute or with levels, appropriate level targets should make their save around 75% of the time or maybe more depending on how long fights are supposed to last. Magic resistance targets should be failing saves on a 1 or a 2. Why? Well if you want to shortcut the entire HP pool you got to the roll the dice when the odds are against you. Now minor penalty spells should either not have a save or the saves should be much tougher. This was IMO the biggest failing in the 3e magic system if you did not suck at picking targets you could pretty much guarantee a monster would fail its save by having the right spells equipped. This was exacerbated by the HP inflation which made the amount of HP you bypassed a much bigger deal. When the monster saves on a 5-7 finger of death seems to be a bit of a suckers choice in 1-2e especially when you are only bypassing 45 HP. When you have to make the oh so hard choice of targeting will or fort to make the save a 15 needed roll and you bypass 100+HP they seem pretty damn awesome.
Anywho as long as it is roughly balanced with damage I am fine with any of the options we have seen so far.
Save or dies will be tricky because some people love them and some people hate them. Coming up with a mechanic that makes both sides maybe not happy but okay with the rules is going to be hard.Out of the HP threshold mechanics I prefer current HP, i
With max hit points or current hit points as possible solutions, you still need to include the caster level into the equation on how many creaturs or hit points are effected, otherwise anyone that multiclasses will just take 1 level of wizard to sleep the opponents. Currently the fighter builds up a dice pool to add effects each round, maybe a wizard should have a dice pool to draw upon by trading up spell slots and considering level to determine how many hit points or creatures are effected. But regardless, some will just prefer save or die, as they have no problems contending with seperate systems for casters versus martial characters. That is why I think it is almost easier to add saves to martial abilities, that may need a reflex save to avoid being tripped, etc. It is alot less work to level the playing field.
With max hit points or current hit points as possible solutions, you still need to include the caster level into the equation on how many creaturs or hit points are effected, otherwise anyone that multiclasses will just take 1 level of wizard to slee
It forces players to guess at a monster's maximum hit point totals (or worse, resort to using metagaming or peeking in the monster manual).
This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."
That is a very different thing. It's one thing for creatures to have specific immunities or vulnerabilites, like fire, for example. That's something that a character in the fantasy world could reasonably know. "Red dragons can't be hurt by fire" is totally appropriate knowledge to convey to the player. "Red dragons have 500 HP" is not. How would you even know that? HP are an abstraction, a dissasociated mechanic. Immunity to fire is not.
Guessing wrong and attempting to use the spell on a creature with too many hit points usually means you waste the spell with little or no effect. That's frustrating and not fun at all, and not for any good reason. At least when a creature makes its save, you knew there was a chance that you might have accomplished something, so you don't feel like a complete idiot for wasting your turn and prepared spell for nothing.
Yeah, that does kinda suck. A recovery mechanic might be nice. Then again, wasting an action or limited resource on a bad tactical move always sucks. Mistakes should hurt. And while it hurts less if you roll a "1" on the attack or the monster rolls a "20" it doesn't suck that much less. If the fighter makes a bad call and bull rushes the gelatinous cube the game doesn't hold his hand and reduce the error.
Trying to push a gelatinous cube is an obviously stupid mistake. It's something the character could know not to do, using common sense and knowledge. Whether or not the gellatinous cube has more than 30 HP, on the other hand, is not something a player in the world could know or even make sense of. It's fine for players to fail for making mistakes when they could possibly have known better. Wasting a spell because of a totally metagamy concept like hp totals is not even remotely comparable.
It punishes some classes more than others. Since your hit points are determined by your class, the result is that wizards end up being more susceptible to these spells than fighters are, and so on.
Tying it to saves will punish certain characters just as much. The low Wisdom fight will fail Wis saves more than wizards and clerics. There's always going to be actions better aimed at certain classes.
I don't mind characters being better able to resist certain things due to having higher ability scores. If you're stronger, you should be better able to resist being knocked down. If you're more agile, you should be better able to avoid fireballs. That's fine. But being overcome by a wide range of spell effects because of hit points, that's a very different story. There should be some things that wizards are typically better able to resist than fighters, and vice versa. This used to be represented by fighters having a better Fortitude save and wizards having a better Will save. Using HP thresholds means the fighter is always, always better at resisting magic than the guy who knows magic and uses it every day. That's not right.
This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."[/quote] That is a very different thing. It's one thing for creatures to hav
Yeah, doesn't work for Charm Person, already said that. Let that one go.
Having said that...
"18! And 15 hp damage!" "A most puissant attack! He's on the ropes!" "Great, now I cast sleep... 12 hp imaginary damage". "Weakened by the desperate fight, the ogre succumbs; your spell crumples him at your feet"
AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!
There are a couple problems with this. First, you still have to guess at a creature's HP. You're just guessing at its current HP instead of its max HP. Guess wrong and your spell is still wasted. Second, damaging spells end up being the better option here, always. Why? Because you can not only whittle the monster down AND use it to finish them off when they're low, but they also always work, unlike the sleep-type spells with HP caps. Why risk using Sleep, which can easily fail, when you could use a damaging spell on the weakened monster instead? You'll finish it off either way, but with the damaging spell, you don't risk having the spell do nothing at all because oops, the monster just happens to have a few more HP left than you thought.
There are a couple problems with this. First, you still have to guess at a creature's HP. You're just guessing at its current HP instead of its max HP. Guess wrong and your spell is still wasted. Second, damaging spells end up being the better option
I like relative thresholds The characters can tell when an enemy has reached a bloodied/winded/ragged state umm worn out state porportionate thresholds are a way to make it sensible in a general way.
I like relative thresholdsThe characters can tell when an enemy has reached a bloodied/winded/ragged state umm worn out state porportionate thresholds are a way to make it sensible in a general way.
It forces players to guess at a monster's maximum hit point totals (or worse, resort to using metagaming or peeking in the monster manual).
This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."
That is a very different thing. It's one thing for creatures to have specific immunities or vulnerabilites, like fire, for example. That's something that a character in the fantasy world could reasonably know. "Red dragons can't be hurt by fire" is totally appropriate knowledge to convey to the player. "Red dragons have 500 HP" is not. How would you even know that? HP are an abstraction, a dissasociated mechanic. Immunity to fire is not.
How? It's knowing how tough a monster is. Tracking actual hp (by memorizing or sneaking a peak from the book) seems ineffiecient but memorizing high and low hp monsters isn't that different. Knowing which monsters are just big sacks of hp and you should stick to damaging spells and which ones are low hp but have high defences and other saves.
Guessing wrong and attempting to use the spell on a creature with too many hit points usually means you waste the spell with little or no effect. That's frustrating and not fun at all, and not for any good reason. At least when a creature makes its save, you knew there was a chance that you might have accomplished something, so you don't feel like a complete idiot for wasting your turn and prepared spell for nothing.
Yeah, that does kinda suck. A recovery mechanic might be nice. Then again, wasting an action or limited resource on a bad tactical move always sucks. Mistakes should hurt. And while it hurts less if you roll a "1" on the attack or the monster rolls a "20" it doesn't suck that much less. If the fighter makes a bad call and bull rushes the gelatinous cube the game doesn't hold his hand and reduce the error.
Trying to push a gelatinous cube is an obviously stupid mistake. It's something the character could know not to do, using common sense and knowledge. Whether or not the gellatinous cube has more than 30 HP, on the other hand, is not something a player in the world could know or even make sense of. It's fine for players to fail for making mistakes when they could possibly have known better. Wasting a spell because of a totally metagamy concept like hp totals is not even remotely comparable.
It's only an "obviously stupid mistake" if you know what a gelatinous cube is what it does, which is just as metagamy as "charm the goblins not the ogre".
It punishes some classes more than others. Since your hit points are determined by your class, the result is that wizards end up being more susceptible to these spells than fighters are, and so on.
Tying it to saves will punish certain characters just as much. The low Wisdom fight will fail Wis saves more than wizards and clerics. There's always going to be actions better aimed at certain classes.
I don't mind characters being better able to resist certain things due to having higher ability scores. If you're stronger, you should be better able to resist being knocked down. If you're more agile, you should be better able to avoid fireballs. That's fine. But being overcome by a wide range of spell effects because of hit points, that's a very different story. There should be some things that wizards are typically better able to resist than fighters, and vice versa. This used to be represented by fighters having a better Fortitude save and wizards having a better Will save. Using HP thresholds means the fighter is always, always better at resisting magic than the guy who knows magic and uses it every day. That's not right.
I fail to see how being "physically less healthy" is any different than "stronger" or "weak willed". And while the fighter is initially better at resisting magic, they often are quickly reduced in hitpoints while a careful wizard might not be hurt. In play the fighter might end up charmed more after being hit a couple times. This requires more mass playtesting to confirm or not.
I like the idea of the threshold mechanic and is changes the dynamic of some spells. Typically daily use spells are best used at the start of combat. It's most efficient to use them quickly as they can take out a monster with the minimum expenditure of resources. If the monsters are asleep at the start the party takes fewer hits than if they fall asleep at the end. And if you're blowing a high level spell to deal damage you don't want the monsters too injured or you'll have wasted some damage; it'll take the fireball and die after half the dice have been rolled. So play is the same: start with the big guns and work down. CC early, unless there's an accidental grouping mid-fight that's too awesome not to blast.
Threshold spells change that dynamic. They're great against many weak opponents (which might be more common in 5e) early in a fight or against stronger opponents later. Having spells that require boss monsters to be softened up is good. It encourages using those spells against boss monsters without having to make them resistant to avoid stun-lockied Big Bads (un-dazing mechanics, so you waste the daily as the solo will shrug it off). And the spells come out at the end of the fight instead of spamming the At-wills changing the dynamic of the fight.
This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."[/quote]That is a very different thing. It's one thing for creatures to have
Yeah, doesn't work for Charm Person, already said that. Let that one go.
As I said, I only choose that one because it's the funniest. Relace it with "turned to stone" and the result is the same.
On the other hand, "sleep" is the easiest to justify because exhaustion is something that happens when you fight. So I'll stop using "charm" and you stop using "sleep"
The ogre charges. I intervene and heave at him with my hammer... 18! 15 hp damage! You hammer stops his charge and yowls in pain. I turn him to stone. He rolls a three. He turns to stone.
Notice how I didn't mention if we're using hp threshold or not. Did the fighter contribute to the fight? Well, he did if might have if we use thresholds, but he definitely didn't if we don't. But storywise, it really looks like he didn't.
But let's look at it this way:
The ogre charges at you from out of the darkness! I turn him to stone. The ogres shrugs off your spell and continues his charge I intervene with my mighty hammer... 18! I do 15 damage! You stopped the ogre's charge. He attacks you and... hits for 6 damage. I turn him to stone! The ogre shrugs off your spell again. I attack with my hammer again... nat 20! Critical hit... 28 hp damage! You feel the crack of bone as your hammer caves in the ogre's chest. he falls to the ground, dead.
In this scenario, did the wizard contribute? Regardless of whether we use thresholds or "imaginary hp", he did not. Because the wizard was playing the "beat the save" game and the fighter was playing "beat the hp". The "imaginary hp" rule means the wizard is dependent on the hp-depleters to play his "beat the save" game, while the fighter is not equally dependent on the wizard... except that the fighter probably has to fight for twice as long because the wizard isn't contributing anything until someone fails a save.
In the end, the problem with s-o-s is that someone is going to feel they made no contribution, depending on whether the creature is beaten on a save or by running out of hp. Even with thresholds, storywise, the fighter doesn't appear in-game to be contributing when the creature fails a save. We may now out-of-game that the fighter contributed to the defeat thanks to the glory of hp-abstraction, but in-game, there's no evidence of it.
In the end, for a lot of people that sort of metagame contribution isn't going to be very satisfying.
As I said I don't know what the solution is. I do know that thresholds are not going solve the issue.
The only solution that "works" is that every spell inflicts damage, even if it's only "psychic damage". Sleep inflicts psychic damage. Hold person inflicts force damage. Petrification inflicts untyped damage. The spell should describe the effect if the damage doesn't kill him. Sleep causes foggy thoughts. Hold person shackles the person in force. Petrification causes some of the person to turn stony.
The problem is (i) this doesn't resemble traditional D&D effects, and (ii) we tried it in 4e and people complaied it was too "samey".
How about if the target is 5 levels below you, they have disadvantage on saves versus your spells and if they are 5 levels above you they have advantage on saves versus your spells.
It doesn't solve the problem of casters and weapon-users playing different games ("beat the save" and "beat the hp", respectively)
If the problem was merely that s-o-s spells are more likely to take out a creature than hp-depletion, then we can try to rejigger the math of saving throws to ensure that it all works out. But the problem is that having two types of players operating on different premises -- particularly when one of those types can switch -- plays havoc with the game math.
My other solution was to have a smaller effect that happens on a successful save and a greater effect that happens on a failed save. So for Hold person it might be a slowed condition (half move and disadvantage on checks) if they succeed at the save, and paralyzed if they fail. Then you use the hit point threshold to grant advantage or disadvantage on the save. So those under 10 hp get disadvantage and those about 30 hp get advantage. The spell would allow saves every round until the duration wore off. Technically they could get rid of durations on spells like that altogether and let it last until they make the save.
This would be the best approach in my mind...
As I said, I only choose that one because it's the funniest. Relace it with "turned to stone" and the result is the same.On the other hand, "sleep" is the easiest to justify because exhaustion is something that happens when you fight. So I'll stop
My other solution was to have a smaller effect that happens on a successful save and a greater effect that happens on a failed save. So for Hold person it might be a slowed condition (half move and disadvantage on checks) if they succeed at the save, and paralyzed if they fail.
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.
Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell? Or power word kill? Or deafness? Some spells will seem pretty forced to have a "smaller effect".
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell?
My other solution was to have a smaller effect that happens on a successful save and a greater effect that happens on a failed save. So for Hold person it might be a slowed condition (half move and disadvantage on checks) if they succeed at the save, and paralyzed if they fail.
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.
Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell? Or power word kill? Or deafness? Some spells will seem pretty forced to have a "smaller effect".
I think that as long as the secondary effect is obviously related to a weaker version of the full effect - players will accept it. Even the 'old timers'.
Just don't apply damage when they save versus Hold Person (for example).
And, yes - for some spells there may not be a 'lesser effect'. Although a shorter duration is one obvious approach (for example, Deafness could deafen you for a round if you save, for a minute if you fail - I doubt they'd go the permanent AD&D approach in any case). Even a spell like Planeshift can be handled in the fashion - you shift it there but it doesn't stay if it saves, it returns on the next round (which makes it kinda like some of the 4E spells which temporarily took some targets off the board).
Speaking for myself (because whom else could I speak for): I'd actually probably like it better if these spells had some form of appropriate lesser effect. It feels more cinematic and fits how such things would likely work in the literature, it removes the suckiness of feeling as if you wasted your time when the enemy saves, and it just seems more fun.
But I'm not a strict traditionalist either.
Carl
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell?
My other solution was to have a smaller effect that happens on a successful save and a greater effect that happens on a failed save. So for Hold person it might be a slowed condition (half move and disadvantage on checks) if they succeed at the save, and paralyzed if they fail.
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.
Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell? Or power word kill? Or deafness? Some spells will seem pretty forced to have a "smaller effect".
I think that as long as the secondary effect is obviously related to a weaker version of the full effect - players will accept it. Even the 'old timers'.
Just don't apply damage when they save versus Hold Person (for example).
And, yes - for some spells there may not be a 'lesser effect'. Although a shorter duration is one obvious approach (for example, Deafness could deafen you for a round if you save, for a minute if you fail - I doubt they'd go the permanent AD&D approach in any case). Even a spell like Planeshift can be handled in the fashion - you shift it there but it doesn't stay if it saves, it returns on the next round (which makes it kinda like some of the 4E spells which temporarily took some targets off the board).
Speaking for myself (because whom else could I speak for): I'd actually probably like it better if these spells had some form of appropriate lesser effect. It feels more cinematic and fits how such things would likely work in the literature, it removes the suckiness of feeling as if you wasted your time when the enemy saves, and it just seems more fun.
But I'm not a strict traditionalist either.
Carl
I like it, although with the tracking of duration I would go failed save deaf for one round, versuses success, where it goes until it succeeds at a save. (I just don't like tracking durations, as just about every single game they seem to be forgotten).
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell?
In addition to duration tracking, a guaranteed condition open you up to all sorts of lock-down cheese. We saw this in 4e. If you can guarantee to take a foe out for a round, you've got a basis for all sorts of problems. Taking half-damage doesn't prevent a monster form attacking. But a guaranteed slow effect even on a failed save? Removing someone from play guaranteed, even for a round? These are way too powerful.
If wizard spells are going to inflict conditions, they should inflict conditions that hamper, not eliminate, the foe's attacks. They might grant a creature vulnerability to a damage type, or impose disadvantage (at most), or a penalty to attack or damage. But action denial on a miss (which is what a failed save is)? That is hugely potent.
Let's make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.
In addition to duration tracking, a guaranteed condition open you up to all sorts of lock-down cheese. We saw this in 4e. If you can guarantee to take a foe out for a round, you've got a basis for all sorts of problems. Taking half-damage doesn't
In addition to duration tracking, a guaranteed condition open you up to all sorts of lock-down cheese. We saw this in 4e. If you can guarantee to take a foe out for a round, you've got a basis for all sorts of problems. Taking half-damage doesn't prevent a monster form attacking. But a guaranteed slow effect even on a failed save? Removing someone from play guaranteed, even for a round? These are way too powerful.
If wizard spells are going to inflict conditions, they should inflict conditions that hamper, not eliminate, the foe's attacks. They might grant a creature vulnerability to a damage type, or impose disadvantage (at most), or a penalty to attack or damage. But action denial on a miss (which is what a failed save is)? That is hugely potent.
Let's make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.
Well you could go with a partial effect. Like:
Power Word Kill - Partial: Take damage; Full: Death Deafness - Partial: Partially deaf (i.e. Stealth attempts have advantage); Full: Deaf (i.e. Stealth attempts automatically succeed) Plane Shift - Partial: Ethereal until save made; Full: Shifted to other plane until save made.
I can do this all day. Its easy to come up with partial effects.
Well you could go with a partial effect. Like:Power Word Kill - Partial: Take damage; Full: DeathDeafness - Partial: Partially deaf (i.e. Stealth attempts have advantage); Full: Deaf (i.e. Stealth attempts automatically succeed)Plane Shift - Partial:
In addition to duration tracking, a guaranteed condition open you up to all sorts of lock-down cheese. We saw this in 4e. If you can guarantee to take a foe out for a round, you've got a basis for all sorts of problems. Taking half-damage doesn't prevent a monster form attacking. But a guaranteed slow effect even on a failed save? Removing someone from play guaranteed, even for a round? These are way too powerful.
If wizard spells are going to inflict conditions, they should inflict conditions that hamper, not eliminate, the foe's attacks. They might grant a creature vulnerability to a damage type, or impose disadvantage (at most), or a penalty to attack or damage. But action denial on a miss (which is what a failed save is)? That is hugely potent.
Let's make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.
A valid point.
I'd say that a slow is probably OK. A power that takes the target out of the game for a round is borderline, but alright (the monster can't attack, but it also can't be attacked). A power that stuns on a save would obviously be across the line.
A lot here also depends on the level of the spell so it's kinda hard to discuss it in a vacuum. A level two spell like Hold Person slowing on a save wouldn't bother me, but immobilize is questionable. Put a 1 round immobilize as a save effect on Petrification and I probably wouldn't blink.
Taking someone out of the round is powerful (but not overwhelmingly so as it's bascially a 1 round stun that also makes the target immune to attacks). If this were a save effect on a L4 spell, I'd scream foul. Put it on a L7 spell I'd probably be OK with it. On a L5 spell (like Plane Shift) and I'm on the fence till I see the real spell list.
Heck - if the effect is severe enough (Temporal Stasis) even a stun becomes a reasonable save effect. But there is no guarantee any of these high level spellsl will be in the game and if they are we can't really guess how they'll work.
Bottom line: Depending upon the spell level - I don't object to eliiminating (not just hampering) the creatures attacks for a round. Many of the problems in 4E came from powers of that nature with sustains. That doesn't apply here.
But the principle: Spells with saves have save effects which are very short duration and/or weaker versions of the spells effect - is a good one in my opinion.
Carl
A valid point.I'd say that a slow is probably OK. A power that takes the target out of the game for a round is borderline, but alright (the monster can't attack, but it also can't be attacked). A power that stuns on a save would obviously be across
The problem is that these spells shouldn't be effective against high level creatures. The current solution is an arbitary hit point cap. The alternate proposal is a saving throw they will make almost every time.
I disagree.
Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature?
Your [jedi] mind powers will not work on me, boy.
I disagree. Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature?[/quote]Your [jedi] mind powers will not work on me, boy.
Ideally, no given spell should be overpowered or useless because of your level/tier-of-play and a related cap. Caster level check, opposed by a defense/save still seems like the easiest mechanic, especially since it would naturally scale with play.
Ideally, no given spell should be overpowered or useless because of your level/tier-of-play and a related cap. Caster level check, opposed by a defense/save still seems like the easiest mechanic, especially since it would naturally scale with play.
It forces players to guess at a monster's maximum hit point totals (or worse, resort to using metagaming or peeking in the monster manual).
This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."
That is a very different thing. It's one thing for creatures to have specific immunities or vulnerabilites, like fire, for example. That's something that a character in the fantasy world could reasonably know. "Red dragons can't be hurt by fire" is totally appropriate knowledge to convey to the player. "Red dragons have 500 HP" is not. How would you even know that? HP are an abstraction, a dissasociated mechanic. Immunity to fire is not.
How? It's knowing how tough a monster is. Tracking actual hp (by memorizing or sneaking a peak from the book) seems ineffiecient but memorizing high and low hp monsters isn't that different. Knowing which monsters are just big sacks of hp and you should stick to damaging spells and which ones are low hp but have high defences and other saves.
Wait, are you seriously advocating memorizing monster hp and other stats out of the book?
Guessing wrong and attempting to use the spell on a creature with too many hit points usually means you waste the spell with little or no effect. That's frustrating and not fun at all, and not for any good reason. At least when a creature makes its save, you knew there was a chance that you might have accomplished something, so you don't feel like a complete idiot for wasting your turn and prepared spell for nothing.
Yeah, that does kinda suck. A recovery mechanic might be nice. Then again, wasting an action or limited resource on a bad tactical move always sucks. Mistakes should hurt. And while it hurts less if you roll a "1" on the attack or the monster rolls a "20" it doesn't suck that much less. If the fighter makes a bad call and bull rushes the gelatinous cube the game doesn't hold his hand and reduce the error.
Trying to push a gelatinous cube is an obviously stupid mistake. It's something the character could know not to do, using common sense and knowledge. Whether or not the gellatinous cube has more than 30 HP, on the other hand, is not something a player in the world could know or even make sense of. It's fine for players to fail for making mistakes when they could possibly have known better. Wasting a spell because of a totally metagamy concept like hp totals is not even remotely comparable.
It's only an "obviously stupid mistake" if you know what a gelatinous cube is what it does, which is just as metagamy as "charm the goblins not the ogre".
You're completely missing the point. Knowing that a gelatinous cube is something that it would be... unwise to try to push is something that a character in the world could reasonably know, just as a character in the game world might know that red dragons are immune to fire. This knowledge can be conveyed by the DM to the player based on knowledge checks and so on.
But how do you convey "this monster has more than 30 hp"? You can't. There is no roleplaying way to explain that because hp, by their very nature, are an abstraction. They're a completely ficticious, game concept that has no real-world or fantasy world equivalent. As people have discussed many times before, they are a strange mix of toughness, luck, morale, and other factors.
It punishes some classes more than others. Since your hit points are determined by your class, the result is that wizards end up being more susceptible to these spells than fighters are, and so on.
Tying it to saves will punish certain characters just as much. The low Wisdom fight will fail Wis saves more than wizards and clerics. There's always going to be actions better aimed at certain classes.
I don't mind characters being better able to resist certain things due to having higher ability scores. If you're stronger, you should be better able to resist being knocked down. If you're more agile, you should be better able to avoid fireballs. That's fine. But being overcome by a wide range of spell effects because of hit points, that's a very different story. There should be some things that wizards are typically better able to resist than fighters, and vice versa. This used to be represented by fighters having a better Fortitude save and wizards having a better Will save. Using HP thresholds means the fighter is always, always better at resisting magic than the guy who knows magic and uses it every day. That's not right.
I fail to see how being "physically less healthy" is any different than "stronger" or "weak willed".
Hit points are not physical health, and even if they were, why should they be used that to resist things like charm?
And while the fighter is initially better at resisting magic, they often are quickly reduced in hitpoints while a careful wizard might not be hurt.
Fighters have never been better at resisting all types of magic than wizards in any edition of D&D. Even back when there were things like saves vs. petrification, wizards were beter at resisting some types of effects than fighters were, and vice versa. 5e has a good thing going with ability score saves, I think it would be a pity if they mess that up by throwing hp into the equation.
This is probably the weakest complaint as metagaming is pretty common for spell choice. "Oh, it a red dragon. I think I'll hold off on that scorching ray and fireball combo."[/quote]That is a very different thing. It's one thing for creatures to have
Speaking for myself (because whom else could I speak for): I'd actually probably like it better if these spells had some form of appropriate lesser effect. It feels more cinematic and fits how such things would likely work in the literature, it removes the suckiness of feeling as if you wasted your time when the enemy saves, and it just seems more fun. l
One might use that as a repercussion the caster experienced under some circumstance....
One might use that as a repercussion the caster experienced under some circumstance....
The problem is that these spells shouldn't be effective against high level creatures. The current solution is an arbitary hit point cap. The alternate proposal is a saving throw they will make almost every time.
I disagree.
Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature?
Your [jedi] mind powers will not work on me, boy.
Jedi mind tricks only fail to work on the weak willed. Not all monsters have a strong will just because they're high level. Whether or not someone is strong-willed is a function of their ability scores (particularly Wisdom and Charisma).
Really, this mechanic flies in the face of bounded accuracy. One of the design goals of this edition is that players and monsters don't necessarily get large bonuses to stats, attack rolls, saves, AC, etc. just because they're higher level. This gives lower level characters a chance against higher level creatures, but also allows lower level monsters to remain somewhat relevant threats against higher level characters. But there is one stat that does still greatly inflate with level - hit points. And by tying that to these spells, they alone, and not any other type of spell, attack or other tool in the player's aresenal, are stuck with the old level paradigm, even though it clashes with the rest of the system.
I disagree. Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature?[/quote]Your [jedi] mind powers will not work on me, boy.[/quote]Jedi mind tricks only fail to work on the weak willed. Not all monsters have a strong will just because t
As the only things that really scale in D&D Next, as of to date, are
level
HP
Hit Dice (PC only)
There isn't much we can work on when it comes to determining how you can restrict save-or-die.
Honestly, the only tweak they needed to do with the first playtest was change those few spells that didn't make sense for the given paradigm: for Charm Person, they could've just said "As long as you or none of your allies have harmed the target of this spell before you cast it, the target is Charmed for the duration of the spell. If it has been damaged by you or your allies prior to casting it, it gets an Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma saving throw [whichever is highest] to save against the effect, gaining advantage to their saving throw when their HP is at X."
Basically, instead of whittle-down-to-charm, it'd be avoid-whittling-to-charm, which is more appropriate. Spoiler:Show
While I partially like the principle behind Bounded Accuracy -- you know, the "it's not so bad that you're lower level, you'll still get to contribute" -- the execution has been very sloppy, and levels in practice have virtually no use other than get more toys (HP, powers, features, items, gold), and forces DMs to inflate monster stats to keep them relevant and not insta-kill (assuming there even is a standard on monsters; as it stands, everything about a monster is arbitrary [especially HP]).
[ Then again, I usually ditch EXP and bring everybody to the same level after a few sessions at most, and throw at the party creatures that stay relevant in a fight. So far only two systems deliver that to me (4E [with some houserules], and 13th Age [out of the box]). ]
At the moment D&D Next seems to lack any sufficiently solid core system. Not that basing a lot of stuff on imagination is a bad thing per se, but given how we are doing a roleplaying game and not just improvised theatricals, I think Mike Mearls and co. really should get their heads out of just one or two editions and actually go about with proper system design that is rules light, yet substantial enough in spite of the lightness of rules, and is reflective of the appearance and feel of all editions (including 4E, regardless of how venomous it might appear to some; after all, it's mostly the uniformity and appearance [and resulting dissonance] that apparently turned off most people).
As the only things that really scale in D&D Next, as of to date, are level HP Hit Dice (PC only) There isn't much we can work on when it comes to determining how you can restrict save-or-die.Honestly, the only tweak they needed to do with the first
The problem is that these spells shouldn't be effective against high level creatures. The current solution is an arbitary hit point cap. The alternate proposal is a saving throw they will make almost every time.
I disagree.
Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature?
Your [jedi] mind powers will not work on me, boy.
Jedi mind tricks only fail to work on the weak willed. Not all monsters have a strong will just because they're high level. Whether or not someone is strong-willed is a function of their ability scores (particularly Wisdom and Charisma).
Really, this mechanic flies in the face of bounded accuracy. One of the design goals of this edition is that players and monsters don't necessarily get large bonuses to stats, attack rolls, saves, AC, etc. just because they're higher level. This gives lower level characters a chance against higher level creatures, but also allows lower level monsters to remain somewhat relevant threats against higher level characters. But there is one stat that does still greatly inflate with level - hit points. And by tying that to these spells, they alone, and not any other type of spell, attack or other tool in the player's aresenal, are stuck with the old level paradigm, even though it clashes with the rest of the system.
That is true, but quite often Hit Dice (and by extension hit points) have represented how strong a threat a creature is as well as how resistant it is: usually the more HD, the better the saves.
Actually I would like it if there was some kind of effect on a miss just to help keep those spells some what relevant.
I disagree. Why shouldn't a low level spell work against a high level creature?[/quote]Your [jedi] mind powers will not work on me, boy.[/quote]Jedi mind tricks only fail to work on the weak willed. Not all monsters have a strong will just because t
Actually I would like it if there was some kind of effect on a miss just to help keep those spells some what relevant.
Perhaps if 4E's Sleep was written in a different way, it would've read as:
Sleep
Wizard Attack 1
You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness.
DailyArcane, Charm, Implement
Standard Action - Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target:Each creature in burst
Attack:Intelligence vs. Will
Effect: The target is slowed (save ends)
Hit: The first time the target fails its saving throw against this power, it is knocked unconscious.
Now if D&D Next's Sleep spell worked like that, then would it feel more appropriate?
Perhaps if 4E's Sleep was written in a different way, it would've read as: SleepWizard Attack 1You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness.Daily :diamond: Arcane, Charm, ImplementStandard Action -
Actually I would like it if there was some kind of effect on a miss just to help keep those spells some what relevant.
Perhaps if 4E's Sleep was written in a different way, it would've read as:
Sleep
Wizard Attack 1
You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness.
DailyArcane, Charm, Implement
Standard Action - Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target:Each creature in burst
Attack:Intelligence vs. Will
Effect: The target is slowed (save ends)
Hit: The first time the target fails its saving throw against this power, it is knocked unconscious.
Now if D&D Next's Sleep spell worked like that, then would it feel more appropriate?
Yeah like that but with better presentation.
Perhaps if 4E's Sleep was written in a different way, it would've read as: Sleep Wizard Attack 1 You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness. Daily :diamond: Arcane, Charm, Implement Stan
Actually I would like it if there was some kind of effect on a miss just to help keep those spells some what relevant.
Perhaps if 4E's Sleep was written in a different way, it would've read as:
Sleep
Wizard Attack 1
You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness.
DailyArcane, Charm, Implement
Standard Action - Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target:Each creature in burst
Attack:Intelligence vs. Will
Effect: The target is slowed (save ends)
Hit: The first time the target fails its saving throw against this power, it is knocked unconscious.
Now if D&D Next's Sleep spell worked like that, then would it feel more appropriate?
To be honest I haven't really liked a save on sleep since it first started in 3.x. I'd rather go with my suggestion -but I don't think anyone else would like it (Roll 1 die per target in the area, up to some cap; starting with the lowest die roll and the lowest hp creature and compare the two; if the die roll equals or exceeds the hit points, it falls asleep. Compare the second highest of each; Etc. until the dice are all expended. Alternately - you compare dice sequentially until one beats the creature's hit points, then move onto the next highest creature.)
But failing that - I could live the the power above - but since we don't use saves in the same way for 5E it woud have to be:
Sleep
Wizard Attack 1
You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness.
DailyArcane, Charm, Implement
Standard Action -10' radius within 100'
Target:Each creature in burst
Effect: The target makes a saving throw versus Wisdom. On a success, the target is slowed untill the start of the caster's next turn. On a failure, the target falls unconscious.
Carl
Perhaps if 4E's Sleep was written in a different way, it would've read as: Sleep Wizard Attack 1 You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness. Daily :diamond: Arcane, Charm, Implement Stan
My other solution was to have a smaller effect that happens on a successful save and a greater effect that happens on a failed save. So for Hold person it might be a slowed condition (half move and disadvantage on checks) if they succeed at the save, and paralyzed if they fail.
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.
Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell? Or power word kill? Or deafness? Some spells will seem pretty forced to have a "smaller effect".
This by far is my favourite suggestion. I could see a smaller effect of plane shift being that they're phased for a turn and can't interact with the fight, but next turn they're back. Power word: kill is simple enough, make 'em dazed or shaken or something that costs them an action like that. Deafness... heh you got me there. but again, a daze effect would be OK. Some if it might seem contrived but nearly so contrived as "beat them up 'till they love me" or "high con = spell immunity."
Having it key off hps instead of saves is fine too, but I think a save stops the metagame more effectively 'cause it's essentially random.
That would work, but again, that's not how these spells traditionally worked, which means it might not produce the "feel" the designers hope to achieve.Also, it may not be possible for all spells. What's the "smaller effect" of a plane shift spell?
In the end I think the best answer is that they are going to have to use multiple different systems to achieve a desired effect, which is something that I think they want to avoid. For instance I think power word kill will work better with a threshold, example it does damage (xdsomedice) until the target has something like 50 hp left or something then it kills. While planeshift will work better with a save mechanic, if it fails its save it shifts for some duration (I prefer a continous save system but some people would rather have a tracking system) if succesful it shifts for 1 round.
In the end I think the best answer is that they are going to have to use multiple different systems to achieve a desired effect, which is something that I think they want to avoid. For instance I think power word kill will work better with a thresho
OK, lets say we have a sleep spell that affects any number of hp but grants a save.
Now in a world of bounded accuracy the only defense that is scaling is hp. Maybe saves slightly as stats go up.
So we have a level 20 party, they average between 100 and 300 hp, fighting a titan with 900 hp. The fighter does about 30 damage a round. So barring the titan stopping him he can kill the titan in 30 rounds. The wizard starts launching a sleep every round. Lets say the titan has a 80% chance to save. The wizard will kill the titan with a level 1 spell long before the fighter can.
So maybe you're ok with that. Now imagine the level 1 party of 5 mages with all sleep spells memorized and scythes for CDG. The titan will fail a save, likely on the first round. Then he CDG bait.
Well maybe 1st level characters are just supposed to be able to kill titans in 5th? Try the same stunt with 5 fighters, they get mashed while doing essentially zero damage.
If you don't like the sleep example, subsitute any save or die. It's pretty obvious that uncapped save or die spells are massively unbalanced, especially in a bounded accuracy setting.
I believe that save or suck are nearly as bad. Lets say the party is not level 1 and the wizard is stunning the titan or giving it disadvantage on all attacks or something like that. That ends the fight too. Now you can say it's a better scenario since the wizard is holding it while the party hits it so they can feel involved. I disagree, if the only role of a fighter or rogue or whatever non-casters exist is to hit helpless targets then they might as well just remove those classes and if you want that sort of functionality you use a summon monster spell to act as your slow damage over time to helpless targets.
There MUST be a method for low level spells to have little or no effect as levels go up. There cannot be a situation where low level save or suck/dies are taking out much higher level enemies than the caster. Or at least if it can happen it should be vanishingly small, like rolling double 1's with advantage or something.
OK, lets say we have a sleep spell that affects any number of hp but grants a save. Now in a world of bounded accuracy the only defense that is scaling is hp. Maybe saves slightly as stats go up.So we have a level 20 party, they average between 100
OK, lets say we have a sleep spell that affects any number of hp but grants a save.
Now in a world of bounded accuracy the only defense that is scaling is hp. Maybe saves slightly as stats go up.
So we have a level 20 party, they average between 100 and 300 hp, fighting a titan with 900 hp. The fighter does about 30 damage a round. So barring the titan stopping him he can kill the titan in 30 rounds. The wizard starts launching a sleep every round. Lets say the titan has a 80% chance to save. The wizard will kill the titan with a level 1 spell long before the fighter can.
So maybe you're ok with that. Now imagine the level 1 party of 5 mages with all sleep spells memorized and scythes for CDG. The titan will fail a save, likely on the first round. Then he CDG bait.
Well maybe 1st level characters are just supposed to be able to kill titans in 5th? Try the same stunt with 5 fighters, they get mashed while doing essentially zero damage.
If you don't like the sleep example, subsitute any save or die. It's pretty obvious that uncapped save or die spells are massively unbalanced, especially in a bounded accuracy setting.
I believe that save or suck are nearly as bad. Lets say the party is not level 1 and the wizard is stunning the titan or giving it disadvantage on all attacks or something like that. That ends the fight too. Now you can say it's a better scenario since the wizard is holding it while the party hits it so they can feel involved. I disagree, if the only role of a fighter or rogue or whatever non-casters exist is to hit helpless targets then they might as well just remove those classes and if you want that sort of functionality you use a summon monster spell to act as your slow damage over time to helpless targets.
There MUST be a method for low level spells to have little or no effect as levels go up. There cannot be a situation where low level save or suck/dies are taking out much higher level enemies than the caster. Or at least if it can happen it should be vanishingly small, like rolling double 1's with advantage or something.
HP thresholds of one sort or another are an absolute ahem save or die for the edition.
HP thresholds of one sort or another are an absolute ahem save or die for the edition.
In the end I think the best answer is that they are going to have to use multiple different systems to achieve a desired effect...
I agree completely. There are so many cool ways to balance a spell's effect within the game, each with their own benefits and pitfalls.
Does hammering on an opponent make them more subsceptible to a spell's effect or do you want it to easily have an effect on a certain lvl target. Then current hp is a good mechanic. It works with the current defeat tracker to HP, and plays well with the team, especially as a finisher. The same goes for spells that do damage, they just make better openers.
Do you want to highlight the fact that an effect is powerful and pretty much unavoidable. Then straight up affecting so many hd would be a good choice (turn undead obliterating so many HD of undead).
Do you want certain opponents to be immune to a instant death or save or suck to prevent a spell from wrecking an adventure? Set a limit on what kind of creature a spell can effect such as level, an individual's hd, or an attribute score (you can only dominate a creature with Cha score lower than your own or charm person only works on creatures at least two levels lower than you...).
Are you concerned about a spell's ability to trivially defeat and elite or solo type monster. Require multiple failed saves for it to have it's effect on those monsters.
Do you want the wizard to be able to wield a powerful effect, but prevent it from overshadowing the other classes. Make it less accurate or likely to succed. Sure it can bypass the HP track, but it only has a 20-25% chance of working so that on average it takes the wizard just as long to drop a foe as it takes the fighter to chop the same target down.
I really wish the designers would liberate spells from the idea that the reality bending power of magic should fit neatly within a 6 second frame of time and be reasonably certain that the spell will work. Imagine a magic, where some spells require multiple attempts performed over three or four rounds to have a reasonable chance of success or spells that slowly whittle or tie down a foe with effects until they effectively defeated in the same time the fighter could chop them down. That's an area where I think they might be really missing the boat. It really makes the wizard feel like they're standing their engaged in a battle to impose their will on the universe.
Take an at-will baleful polymorph. It seems overpowered at first, but imagine a standard at-level opponent only needs to roll a 6 or higher to make their save against it. If a player spams it over and over, they'll be successful approximately once every four rounds. Now if the fighter typically takes four rounds to drop a foe, it's balanced. But imagine how exciting that gamble would be for the wizard player. Will he be able to turn that orc into a pig before it chops their PC into little bits? Later on, vs. lower level opponents, he can then go around turning commoners into pigs with impunity just like a fighter can go around lopping off heads. The wizard bypasses the HP treadmill, but isn't anymore dangerous than any other class.
The same would work for a sleep spell. Imagine casting it on a group of 10 kobolds, but only three fall asleep, and 7 become drowsy and suspiscious. The next round 3 more fall asleep, 3 start to charge the wizard, and 1 runs for help. Will the wizard be able to finish the remaining ones off the next round, or will he be chopped to bits by the three that or closing on him? Will the one running away make it, or will he fall asleep as he attempts to escape. It's an interesting gamble, and definitely one I'd like to see at the table. Just like I'd like to see a fighter wade into that group of 10 kobolds and see if he can murder them all before falling beneath a wave of kobold fury.
Uncertainty is good for spellcasters, either in a hp threshold, or saves. All you need is a nice effect when a spell doesn't have the full effect so that the caster doesn't feel like their action was wasted and enough spells to either spam those gambles or a way to repeat them until they work. This is why I like a current HP threshold mechanic, and hope to see that as well as other options used to bring back powerful magic without having it overshadow what the other classes can do.
I agree completely. There are so many cool ways to balance a spell's effect within the game, each with their own benefits and pitfalls.Does hammering on an opponent make them more subsceptible to a spell's effect or do you want it to easily have an e
OK, lets say we have a sleep spell that affects any number of hp but grants a save.
Now in a world of bounded accuracy the only defense that is scaling is hp. Maybe saves slightly as stats go up.
So we have a level 20 party, they average between 100 and 300 hp, fighting a titan with 900 hp. The fighter does about 30 damage a round. So barring the titan stopping him he can kill the titan in 30 rounds. The wizard starts launching a sleep every round. Lets say the titan has a 80% chance to save. The wizard will kill the titan with a level 1 spell long before the fighter can.
So maybe you're ok with that. Now imagine the level 1 party of 5 mages with all sleep spells memorized and scythes for CDG. The titan will fail a save, likely on the first round. Then he CDG bait.
Well maybe 1st level characters are just supposed to be able to kill titans in 5th? Try the same stunt with 5 fighters, they get mashed while doing essentially zero damage.
If you don't like the sleep example, subsitute any save or die. It's pretty obvious that uncapped save or die spells are massively unbalanced, especially in a bounded accuracy setting.
I believe that save or suck are nearly as bad. Lets say the party is not level 1 and the wizard is stunning the titan or giving it disadvantage on all attacks or something like that. That ends the fight too. Now you can say it's a better scenario since the wizard is holding it while the party hits it so they can feel involved. I disagree, if the only role of a fighter or rogue or whatever non-casters exist is to hit helpless targets then they might as well just remove those classes and if you want that sort of functionality you use a summon monster spell to act as your slow damage over time to helpless targets.
There MUST be a method for low level spells to have little or no effect as levels go up. There cannot be a situation where low level save or suck/dies are taking out much higher level enemies than the caster. Or at least if it can happen it should be vanishingly small, like rolling double 1's with advantage or something.
It is easy to make something look bad when you invent the numbers whole cloth. What if the fighter was doing 300 HP of damage every round to that titan and the titan had that 80% chance to save? Sure the mage might kill it the first round but odds are, well honestly I don't know its been 20 years since statistics. But if you skew it so odds are the fighter would kill it first it ends up not looking so broken.
Which is how basic-2e handled it, the fighter in 2e might be hitting assuming not really cheesed 3 times for 1d8+15 or close to 60HP of damage a round lots of high end creatures were in the low end 100HP range or even under that.(monsters had even less HP in 1e) Given how awesome 2 weapon style was in 2e it would likely be more like 5 attacks a round for even more damage, but like I said a non-cheese fighter might kill a demon in 2 rounds, a mage would be lucky to drop it with save or dies in 5 rounds. Are they still overpowered?
Have save or dies as a flashy way to take out suckers and as long shot spells and they are fine. If they are an assumed part of the arsenal for a normal attack and chances are you need thresholds+saves.
Now yes first level spells will get filtered out as not working against high level enemies like they should, I don't see the HP cap leaving sleep it has been there in one form or another since the beginning. Hold only working on the person level for level 2 etc. should stay. Though I'd expect most high level mobs to just be immune to certain effects. Hell back in earlier editions monsters were immune to weapons unless they had the right+ effect you can easily have something like auto make saves against spells of X spell level or less. Though hypothetical full party mage casting the same spell exercises are not really persuasive to me since they would fail in so may other areas.
It is easy to make something look bad when you invent the numbers whole cloth. What if the fighter was doing 300 HP of damage every round to that titan and the titan had that 80% chance to save? Sure the mage might kill it the first round but odds
Personally, I think the idea that we need to pursue (and what they seem to be opening up to) is that while we should not give everyone the same ability-delivery system, but rather the same power/capability spread.
Think of it this way: all powers prior to Tome of Battle would roughly pan out as follows: at-will X/day
One might say that the wizard's spell is supposed to be 1/day, but eventually workarounds came by -- simplest and non-rule-breaking being the ability to memorize multiple times [doesn't make sense concept-wise but as no one bothered to put that in rules and no one seemed to bother with that level of versimilitude-breaking ("you know, magic"), it ended up being allowed] -- resulting in some of the simplest, yet most broken aspects of 3E especially.
I do hope they really go about it as follows: at-will X/battle recharge X/day
Because that way, we can more easily allow subtle imbalances, as opposed to wild imbalances.
Once you've got the criteria for balancing abilities set, you can then design a cornucopia of systems that, regardless of how varied the system is, still results in a somewhat balanced game, without breaking the bank so to speak.
When it comes to this topic, for instance: save-or-die/suck is outright a bad idea, due to the fact that it's generally an ultimatum that is either it happens, or it doesn't. Not that there aren't any people that like the idea, but it does have the effect of A) very limited tension-building, and B) potentially negating encounters, especially when optimized well enough. The HP threshold for me was an interesting idea because while it potentially allowed for narrative silliness -- which really could be fixed by some simple tweaking -- not only did it encourage team play (as now the wizard needed the fighter to weaken the enemy before his spell could work), but it also reigned in spells to fit closer to the ABRD [at-will, battle-based, recharge-based, daily-based] paradigm, without having to force the wizard to use the exact same class system as the fighter.
Now imagine:
Combat Superiority effectively working as primary stamina, allowing maneuvers that, while normally possible via improvisation to other classes, required other classes to spend their hit dice to replicate, and Fighters having near-limitless power... for their at-will maneuvers. For tougher, riskier and more powerful maneuvers -- that no other class could duplicate, with or without magic -- they could access maneuvers that
cost more Expertise Dice [at-will]
use hit dice in addition to Expertise Dice [partially at-will, partially daily]
prevent Expertise Dice from recovering during a battle unless they spend hit dice or what not [rechargable]
prevent Expertise Dice from recovering for the entirety of either a battle or an adventuring day (and perhaps attempting to use them would cost them hit dice) [X/day, given the limited number of hit dice one gets]
Fighters and other classes gaining class features that granted X/day, X/battle, rechargable, or even permanent (at-will) benefits, none of which hint at anything magical, but are certainly extraordinary in their own right, especially when they become available at higher levels
13th Age provides some interesting insight on this, as certain classes -- especially the non-casters -- do have at-will abilities, but some had prerequisites (attack roll prerequisite, attack type prerequisite, escalation die prerequisite, etc.), while others, instead of gaining powers, gained class features that were sometimes restricted in the X/battle, rechargable and daily aspects. All without having to be magical or spell-like in format.
Now note that even if we *do* get stuck in an at-will & X/day only system, there has to be a way to restrict spellcasters and expand non-caster options, so that even if spellcasters were significantly more powerful, they would only be more powerful in their own way. Applying HP Thresholds to spells and restricting spell effectivity until a certain HP range is obtained -- or in the case of some spells, while a certain HP rage is not reached -- does help limit casters.
[ Frankly, I'd rather have wizards in the same area as every fantasy novels, movies, etc. has depicted them: as support characters for the warrior protagonists, possibly having a magical solution for every (boring) problem, but not to the point where the wizard in question steals the show. ]
Personally, I think the idea that we need to pursue (and what they seem to be opening up to) is that while we should not give everyone the same ability-delivery system, but rather the same power/capability spread.Think of it this way: all powers prio
I have to question whether bounded accuracy as a concept really works for spells, at least in this form.
It sounds to me like the real issue is the upper boundary. Nobody is arguing the point that at the low end the spell necessarily has too high a chance for failure; in fact the argument seems to be more for the lower boundary either staying where it is or being lowered a bit.
So what's the problem with unbinding the accuracy a little bit for the purposes of raising the bar with level again? Why can't saving throw modifiers climb with level? What if the spell's save DC was modified by the level of the spell cast and the players got a modification that scaled with class level that ended with +9, same as spells?
If that was the case, a monster meant to challenge a lvl 18 character would have a +9 to their saves relative to what they'd be like now (we have no data, but just to say), but the spells add their spell level so the lvl 18 character casting a lvl 1 spell would have a save DC modified by +1.
That'd do the job. "All or nothing" type spells would be very useful at the point where you get them and wane in power as you progressed and fought stronger monsters until finally the save mechanic works for a lvl 9 spell roughly as a lvl 1 spell did back in the day, but the lvl 1 spell has a very small chance of working.
I have to question whether bounded accuracy as a concept really works for spells, at least in this form.It sounds to me like the real issue is the upper boundary. Nobody is arguing the point that at the low end the spell necessarily has too high a ch
I have to question whether bounded accuracy as a concept really works for spells, at least in this form.
It sounds to me like the real issue is the upper boundary. Nobody is arguing the point that at the low end the spell necessarily has too high a chance for failure; in fact the argument seems to be more for the lower boundary either staying where it is or being lowered a bit.
So what's the problem with unbinding the accuracy a little bit for the purposes of raising the bar with level again? Why can't saving throw modifiers climb with level? What if the spell's save DC was modified by the level of the spell cast and the players got a modification that scaled with class level that ended with +9, same as spells?
If that was the case, a monster meant to challenge a lvl 18 character would have a +9 to their saves relative to what they'd be like now (we have no data, but just to say), but the spells add their spell level so the lvl 18 character casting a lvl 1 spell would have a save DC modified by +1.
That'd do the job. "All or nothing" type spells would be very useful at the point where you get them and wane in power as you progressed and fought stronger monsters until finally the save mechanic works for a lvl 9 spell roughly as a lvl 1 spell did back in the day, but the lvl 1 spell has a very small chance of working.
Actually I think the problem is threefold: 1. Monster design is currently too unpredictable, wild and freeform 2. Bounded accuracy applies to just about everything as it stands, which means that unless monster design is adjusted to allow high level monsters to avoid having the same success rate as low level monsters, there's likely uniformity in just about everything in terms of attacks, defenses and saves 3. Spells and class features are still way too rough in terms of design.
Some want all-or-nothing spells, others don't. Personally I'd like it as better-or-worse (not all-or-nothing). That way, the spell is never wasted, but failing the save got you bonuses.
I agree that at some point, Bounded Accuracy sort of fails here, because high level creatures would effectively be as vulnerable to magic as low level creatures. Normally Bounded Accuracy fails when it comes to non-magic as well, but that's where high quality armor and weapons come in (all the more if they're magical). But that's mainly because Bounded Accuracy is currently designed with no scaling at all. There are only three things that reliably scale in Bounded Accuracy -- level, HP, and hit dice -- so there are three possible solutions to allow high level monsters a better chance to save: force the DMs to have high level monsters have ridiculously high stats, link the spells to any of the three things that reliably scale in Bounded Accuracy, or change Bounded Accuracy so that it is closer to the original intent of significantly slowing -- as opposed to completely stopping, like how it works now -- universal scaling of all primary and secondary stats.
Actually I think the problem is threefold:1. Monster design is currently too unpredictable, wild and freeform2. Bounded accuracy applies to just about everything as it stands, which means that unless monster design is adjusted to allow high level mon
I don't mind using the idea of bounded accuracy as a starting point but I feel like what we're really seeing is where it's not actually all that good. Unless they want to introduce magical weapons that increase your spell save DC, but that exaserbates the issue and paves the way for needing save gear again.
Solving it with items probably sucks but it's there.
Honestly, I just think they need to make saves scale with level and spell save DCs scale with spell level. Once we do that, avoid mechanics that don't use saves (I'm looking at you, black tentacles). Give every effect a lesser effect if they make their save so wizards feel like they're not stuck in a zero-sum game.
Sometimes I feel like the "fix" really causes more problems than the original problem.
I prefer some-or-worse as well.I don't mind using the idea of bounded accuracy as a starting point but I feel like what we're really seeing is where it's not actually all that good. Unless they want to introduce magical weapons that increase your spe
I don't mind using the idea of bounded accuracy as a starting point but I feel like what we're really seeing is where it's not actually all that good. Unless they want to introduce magical weapons that increase your spell save DC, but that exaserbates the issue and paves the way for needing save gear again.
Solving it with items probably sucks but it's there.
Honestly, I just think they need to make saves scale with level and spell save DCs scale with spell level. Once we do that, avoid mechanics that don't use saves (I'm looking at you, black tentacles). Give every effect a lesser effect if they make their save so wizards feel like they're not stuck in a zero-sum game.
Sometimes I feel like the "fix" really causes more problems than the original problem.
And that's the thing with all these mechanical wozzits that they've been putting into the game since... ever. Instead of creating a game where the numbers are alright and we can live with or without "a magical sword that is set itself ablaze on command", we get "a magical sword that adds +1 to your attack and damage rolls... and can set itself on fire as part of another action". It's a numbers game -- it always has been -- and the game's math (or pre-4E, the DM's math) has always assumed (even prior to 4E) that you were to be facing enemies with the magical items that you get over the course of the game, so monster stats had to adjust to it.
Heck, in my 13th Age game, I've decided that since monster and PC defense scaling were virtually the same, I had all magical equipment give just +1 to their respective stats, and focused on what really would make magic items interesting: sentience, quirks, personality, and in some cases history. Yes, a powerful +5 Vorpal Blade is interesting, but how about Haberdasher's Eloquent Headcrusher? Or Lilarcor?
Point is, I dislike the idea that DMs are forced to give their monsters magical gear just to keep at par with the group of humanoids that are heading their way.
And that's the thing with all these mechanical wozzits that they've been putting into the game since... ever. Instead of creating a game where the numbers are alright and we can live with or without "a magical sword that is set itself ablaze on comm
"18! And 15 hp damage" 
"Well, you narrowly miss the ogre, but boy is his luck running out." 
"Great, now I cast charm person... 12 hp imaginary damage". 
