|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:14PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 1:49PM
#72
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 2:08PM
#73
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 2:43PM
#74
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:12PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:54PM
#76
|
|
|
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.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:58PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 6:08PM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 6:13PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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....
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 6:20PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
