D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Draz74]

Excession has the right of it.

Yeah, I get what you're saying ... My last post was just trying to correct your 5e jargon. It confused me momentarily, so I was trying to prevent similar confusion in other readers.

That would be a nice way to handle healing that would leave most everyone happy, actually, now that I think about it. Some people want to attack and cast in the same round, some want it to take up your action, and some people want to play healers who do nothing but heal. Ta-da, channeled cure wounds! Cast as a [whatever 5e is using to denote free-but-only-once-per-turn actions], heal a bit of damage; cast as your action, heal a bunch of damage; cast for two turns, heal more damage and get a secondary effect.

First of all, aren't we already worried about the real estate in the rulebooks occupied by spell descriptions?

Incidentally, 5e's version of "free-but-only-once-per-turn" is "Uses up your (standard) action, but you can also do ______ as a free action." Where "_____" is a limited menu of things that normally require your action, such as making a basic attack or casting a cantrip.

The second form would be spells that you can maintain automatically (though, again, only one at a time) that you can "take control of" with your actions. Something like a flaming sphere that would automatically attack the nearest creature but that you could take an action to redirect, or a flesh to stone that slowly inflicts penalties but that you can spend an action to concentrate on to try to immobilize the target for a round, things like that. That way you can't have a ton of spells running at once, but you're not forced to stick with just the one spell for multiple rounds.

I do think spells like this have good potential.

[Excession]

I think this would be even worse to be honest. Part of the fun of those sorts of spells is that they offer you an alternative for getting past an obstacle beyond "beat it into submission." Kill Strahd by beating him up? Ho hum, everyone has done that. Kill Strahd because he missed his saving throw and you had a scroll of dispel evil? Everyone will be talking about it for weeks. Let's not reduce every way of overcoming an obstacle to either draining its HP or running a skill challenge.

If the DM has to tell you afterwards that what you killed really was the big bad, is that really that good of a story? Should vampire hunters just carry lots of scrolls of dispel evil and wait for a 1 on the save?

I'll admit I'm biased toward 4e here. I've come to consider hit points as simply a way of keeping score, nothing to do with wounds or real damage at all. Winning without reducing the enemy to zero feels a bit like cheating.

I agree with the desire to change save-or-dies into attacks against a pool of points that others can attack as well, but making it HP damage feels unavoidably bizarre and wrong at a basic level. The point of, say, a basilisk or gorgon or medusa is that it doesn't care how sturdy a warrior you may be, but just zaps you into stone. Similarly a mage (evil or otherwise) who casts flesh to stone isn't wounding you, they're petrifying you. (And, as 1337 b4k4 said, it's boring if every means of defeating a monster reduces to "slog through its HP".)

My own preference then is to introduce one or more other pools that mean different things than "toughness", and give essentially all characters at least some means of attacking any given pool (though efficiency may vary).

Edit: of course, this won't happen in 5e. But I'd still prefer not shifting toward sameness.

I actually rather like the idea, but it would need to be designed very carefully. The main issue that shows up to me is how you balance parties that all specialise in different point pools vs. ones that can focus on one. Maybe abilities like say "second wind" that let you spend WP to regain HP; now you can burst down a weak pool, or go for a slower but more assured victory.

I'm not sure it would be D&D when it was finished, but it could work.

The second form would be spells that you can maintain automatically (though, again, only one at a time) that you can "take control of" with your actions. Something like a flaming sphere that would automatically attack the nearest creature but that you could take an action to redirect, or a flesh to stone that slowly inflicts penalties but that you can spend an action to concentrate on to try to immobilize the target for a round, things like that. That way you can't have a ton of spells running at once, but you're not forced to stick with just the one spell for multiple rounds.

I really like these ideas.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

First of all, aren't we already worried about the real estate in the rulebooks occupied by spell descriptions?

Incidentally, 5e's version of "free-but-only-once-per-turn" is "Uses up your (standard) action, but you can also do ______ as a free action." Where "_____" is a limited menu of things that normally require your action, such as making a basic attack or casting a cantrip.

Hmm. That wording works if you're writing an ability that does X and also lets you do something for free, but not so much if you're trying to add X on as a rider. Even so, it wouldn't take up that much space, aside from the fluff. To pull numbers out of thin air, "Effect: When you take an action, you may cast this spell as part of that action. Choose a living creature within 50 feet of you to regain 2d8 hit points. If you use up your action to cast this spell, the creature you choose instead regains 4d8 hit points. If you use up your action in two consecutive rounds, any living creatures you choose within 50 feet regain 4d8+15 hit points." would work, and it's shorter than most spells' Effects line.

On a side note, damn is 5e verbiage clunky. It's okay, WotC, we know you're trying to pretend 4e never happened, but we can handle keywords, honest. "Target: One or more living creatures within 50 feet; Effect: This spell cures a single target of 2d8 damage if cast as a [swift|minor] action or 4d8 damage if cast as a standard action, or it cures all targets of 4d8+15 damage if cast with two consecutive standard actions" is so much cleaner.

I'll admit I'm biased toward 4e here. I've come to consider hit points as simply a way of keeping score, nothing to do with wounds or real damage at all. Winning without reducing the enemy to zero feels a bit like cheating.

Is it also "cheating" if you talk your way out of a combat, or drop a bunch of heavy objects on your enemies, or mind-control one enemy into killing the others, or similar tactics that don't boil down to "whoever reduces the other side's HP gauge fastest wins"? I admit I'm biased in that I'd rather kill an enemy with clever use of silent image and a bunch of hired archers than with a maximized empowered twinned meteor swarm o' doom, but I hate the various suggestions to have everything do HP damage to cause their effect. I don't think the traditional way is necessarily better, but I'd rather see some sort of compromise solution (like a condition track plus degrees of failure, where damage -> drop steps -> save penalties -> lower saves -> fail by more -> take worse effects from one casting or something) than an HP-based one.

Dropping peoples' HP to make a charm person land feels like you're actually casting engender abusive relationship, the inability to make non-damaging spells stick against full-HP enemies renders many of them useless, and if I wanted to play a game where only HP-based effects work and "bosses" are immune to anything interesting I'd play a Final Fantasy game.

I do think spells like this have good potential.

I really like these ideas.

Glad you like them. I hope Mearls is paying attention.

[TuggyNE]

If the DM has to tell you afterwards that what you killed really was the big bad, is that really that good of a story?

Given that the mood was "keyed-up stunned disbelief", it seems to have worked well. They knew he was tricky, they knew he was hard to kill, so discovering that yes they were in fact able to cunningly target the weak point for massive damage was a sort of eucatastrophe.

I actually rather like the idea, but it would need to be designed very carefully. The main issue that shows up to me is how you balance parties that all specialise in different point pools vs. ones that can focus on one. Maybe abilities like say "second wind" that let you spend WP to regain HP; now you can burst down a weak pool, or go for a slower but more assured victory.

Yes, that's an absolutely fundamental aspect of the system in its current (rather amorphous) form: stamina is substituted for HP damage with one of several abilities (and some classes are more or less efficient, or have abilities to improve substitution rate), HP can be sacrificed to regain stamina or will, stamina must be spent to gain lux at more than a very low background rate, and so on. So a major part of tactics is managing the flow of different pools, allied and enemy alike, especially since different pools recharge at different rates (stamina trickles in fast enough to fully recharge in less than a day, HP take days to refill, lux can pour in at different rates depending on environment or be pulled in with extra effort, etc).

I'm not sure it would be D&D when it was finished, but it could work.

I'm not certain either, although it might be similar enough to appeal to most of the same people, and progress has been a bit slow.

Dropping peoples' HP to make a charm person land feels like you're actually casting engender abusive relationship, the inability to make non-damaging spells stick against full-HP enemies renders many of them useless, and if I wanted to play a game where only HP-based effects work and "bosses" are immune to anything interesting I'd play a Final Fantasy game.

I don't think there's any way I could phrase this better. Awesome soundbite.

[Noldo]

I would say that the problem with SoD/SoS working outside the Hit Points is primarily co-operative one. If attacks, whether spells or physical primarily deal hit point damage, all members of the party contribute towards the same goal: to bring the foe's hit points to zero. However, if a SoD/SoS spell does not deal hit point damage or is in no way dependant on creature's hit points, any hit point damage done by other members of the party before casting of the spell becomes irrelevant if the SoD/SoS spell succeeds. The wizard is practiaclly encouraged to outside the group, because if the SoD/SoS ignores the hit points, it nullifies any prior effors from the rest of the party once it succeeds.

[Kurald Galain]

It strikes me that the main problem with SODs in the hands of PCs is them one-shotting a boss monster. I'm fine with PCs one-shotting mooks, because there can always be more mooks. I'm also fine with certain boss monsters just being flat-out immune to most or all kinds of anticlimactic death - it happens in fiction all the time.

[Zeful]

I admit I'm biased in that I'd rather kill an enemy with clever use of silent image and a bunch of hired archers

*headdesk*

*headdesk*

*headdesk*


In what way is that not HP damage? Are you seriously attempting to counter, "deal damage to something" with "deal damage to something in a marginally different fashion"? Because if you are, then quite literally any respect for the rest of your side in this argument is thrown right out the window, that's how poorly you've managed to screw up this counter argument.

It strikes me that the main problem with SODs in the hands of PCs is them one-shotting a boss monster. I'm fine with PCs one-shotting mooks, because there can always be more mooks. I'm also fine with certain boss monsters just being flat-out immune to most or all kinds of anticlimactic death - it happens in fiction all the time.

No the problem is systemic. "Save or Die/Lose/Suck" forces combat to revolve around the save. Win and you've won with disproportionally less effort than any other class or build, lose and your entire turn was wasted. And that's the player's side, on the GM's side SoD/L/S abilities essentially are a "do you get to play this combat" save and that if you fail, tune out and go do something else while you wait to play again, or win and the monster's entire turn was wasted. It's one of those instances where existing design is almost always bad design, no matter the perspective.

[Excession]

Is it also "cheating" if you talk your way out of a combat, or drop a bunch of heavy objects on your enemies, or mind-control one enemy into killing the others, or similar tactics that don't boil down to "whoever reduces the other side's HP gauge fastest wins"? I admit I'm biased in that I'd rather kill an enemy with clever use of silent image and a bunch of hired archers than with a maximized empowered twinned meteor swarm o' doom, but I hate the various suggestions to have everything do HP damage to cause their effect. I don't think the traditional way is necessarily better, but I'd rather see some sort of compromise solution (like a condition track plus degrees of failure, where damage -> drop steps -> save penalties -> lower saves -> fail by more -> take worse effects from one casting or something) than an HP-based one.

Talking instead of fighting is fine. Saying something inane and rolling diplomacy isn't, and neither are the 3.5 diplomacy RAW. Dropping heavy objects deals HP damage. Mind controlled enemies deal HP damage, usually, with the bonus that they're not dealing that HP damage to your side. Silent image to hide an ambush is also HP damage, and 5e will actually do that better because the low level archer swarm will actually be able to hit on less than a 20. Using tricks to help deal HP damage, or stop your side from taking it, is pretty much what 4e leaders and controllers are all about, and you won't find me arguing that its a bad idea.

"Whoever reduces the other side's HP gauge fastest wins" does not preclude creativity, it just gives you a way to keep score. The thing I don't want to play is "whoever rolls a 1 first loses." Multiple condition tracks risks a "you must be this magical to ride" restriction that leaves the fighter and wizard playing the same game with different scoreboards.

[Kurald Galain]

No the problem is systemic. "Save or Die/Lose/Suck" forces combat to revolve around the save. Win and you've won with disproportionally less effort than any other class or build, lose and your entire turn was wasted.

I don't see a problem with that; I'd call it a high-risk high-reward move.

Assuming, of course, that you don't get to resolve the entire plot or kill the Big Bad just like that. The thing is: don't assume the PCs are fighting one monster. Assume they're fighting ten, and suddenly it's much less of a problem if they petrify one of the monsters.

Now using SOL spells against PCs does need more thought, because the DM declaring that "you cannot fight now" is not good for gameplay (although it would surely be mitigated if combats play out much faster, or if other PCs have decent countermeasures).

[Craft (Cheese)]

In what way is that not HP damage? Are you seriously attempting to counter, "deal damage to something" with "deal damage to something in a marginally different fashion"? Because if you are, then quite literally any respect for the rest of your side in this argument is thrown right out the window, that's how poorly you've managed to screw up this counter argument.

I dunno, I think Pair O'Dice has a point here. There's a difference between damage-dealing spells like Fireball, and spells that can be used to dispatch enemies if you're clever like Silent Image. It's not just a matter of aesthetics either.

(What I'd consider an "aesthetic difference" between spells is if Silent Image's effect read "You create a vision so horrible it destroys the sanity of whoever sees it. Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature within 20 ft. of that point must make a Wisdom saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 Psychic damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one." Using the image to lure enemies into a trap that deals 5d6 damage is only superficially similar to tossing a fireball, because you have to prepare the trap in advance (or have it already available in the environment) to use it this way, and Silent Image can be used for a bajillion other things aside from just killing things.)

[Zeful]

I don't see a problem with that; I'd call it a high-risk high-reward move.

High risk?

Bull. Sacrificing a turn on a gamble is not "high risk", especially when you it costs the same as other options available to you. That implies some kind of backfire or effect which is not just outright wasting a turn or winning. High risk would be if these spells had ranges of "touch" and there wasn't a way to boost your range, or they applied some additional effect on you afterwards making protracted defense or mobility harder.

Assuming, of course, that you don't get to resolve the entire plot or kill the Big Bad just like that. The thing is: don't assume the PCs are fighting one monster. Assume they're fighting ten, and suddenly it's much less of a problem if they petrify one of the monsters.

The issue doesn't change when you add more guys, but okay, they're fighting ten guys. The Wizard player spends 1 resource to instagib 1 guy, but his mechanically identical counterpart the Rogue is fighting will require him to spend 4 times as many resources fighting him before he dies, with the same amount of resources the Wizard could kill three more guys (assuming they fail their saves). That's why I said "disproportionate effort", because the effort expended for effect gained is vastly undercost, at best. And if everyone has them, so they aren't undercost, you've created a game where if an enemy doesn't have explicit immunity to SoLs they are mooks.

Now using SOL spells against PCs does need more thought, because the DM declaring that "you cannot fight now" is not good for gameplay (although it would surely be mitigated if combats play out much faster, or if other PCs have decent countermeasures).

Mitigated sure, but that's not going to make it better design, it's just going to make the bad design less tedious. Short of designing the game so that the player is never removed from play, he just has different options available to him, you're never going to be able to solve the player agency issue that SoLs by default cause.

[Kurald Galain]

High risk?

To people who point out that such spells may cause your entire turn to be wasted, yes it is high risk. Oh noes, you're wasting a turn! You're attempting something that has a chance of failure! What is the world coming to?

TLDR: If you get to use hyperbole, then so do I

The issue doesn't change when you add more guys, but okay, they're fighting ten guys. The Wizard player spends 1 resource to instagib 1 guy, but his mechanically identical counterpart the Rogue is fighting will require him to spend 4 times as many resources fighting him before he dies, with the same amount of resources the Wizard could kill three more guys (assuming they fail their saves).

It's not the same amount of resources, though. The wizard is limited in how many 'kill spells' he has per day, whereas the rogue is not limited in how often he can stab. The key to making SOL mechanics work is ensuring that the PCs can't do it every single round.

Mitigated sure, but that's not going to make it better design, it's just going to make the bad design less tedious.

That depends, really. I don't think that e.g. being able to Stun player characters is bad design. In 4E, it is problematic to be stunned for a single round because (1) combat lasts only a few rounds, and (2) rounds last a long time in real-time. So being stunned just once immediately leads to you missing 25% of the combat, and having to sit around doing nothing for 20 minutes.

On the other hand, if combat can be expected to last 15 rounds, and rounds play in one minute each, then being stunned for a round or two is no big deal.

[TuggyNE]

I would say that the problem with SoD/SoS working outside the Hit Points is primarily co-operative one. If attacks, whether spells or physical primarily deal hit point damage, all members of the party contribute towards the same goal: to bring the foe's hit points to zero. However, if a SoD/SoS spell does not deal hit point damage or is in no way dependant on creature's hit points, any hit point damage done by other members of the party before casting of the spell becomes irrelevant if the SoD/SoS spell succeeds. The wizard is practiaclly encouraged to outside the group, because if the SoD/SoS ignores the hit points, it nullifies any prior effors from the rest of the party once it succeeds.

That's an excellent point; however, don't fall into a false dichotomy, thinking that the only two options are "wizard doesn't cooperate with party because spells can bypass HP" and "all powers and abilities do HP damage primarily with no exceptions". There's at least one other main possibility, and that's to have certain spells (and, ideally, martial maneuvers or whatever) do damage to some other progressive defense; damaging ability scores are one possibility, and other pools (as I mentioned earlier) are another: having charm person whittle down Will Points instead of Hit Points seems entirely sensible. Of course, this strategy stands or falls primarily on whether all party members can attack the same pool(s), and to some extent on linking the pools together.

There's also another aspect or two: SoDs can be anti-climactic, and they're hard to defend against without outright immunities. Neither of these is a game-breaker on its own, but the combination is pretty nasty.

(What I'd consider an "aesthetic difference" between spells is if Silent Image's effect read "You create a vision so horrible it destroys the sanity of whoever sees it. Choose a point within 50 feet of you. Each creature within 20 ft. of that point must make a Wisdom saving throw. A creature takes 5d6 Psychic damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one." Using the image to lure enemies into a trap that deals 5d6 damage is only superficially similar to tossing a fireball, because you have to prepare the trap in advance (or have it already available in the environment) to use it this way, and Silent Image can be used for a bajillion other things aside from just killing things.)

That's a pretty good point, and an excellent example of something I heartily don't like: where you sacrifice interesting options for a thin veneer on top of sameness in the name of balance.

[Noldo]

That's an excellent point; however, don't fall into a false dichotomy, thinking that the only two options are "wizard doesn't cooperate with party because spells can bypass HP" and "all powers and abilities do HP damage primarily with no exceptions". There's at least one other main possibility, and that's to have certain spells (and, ideally, martial maneuvers or whatever) do damage to some other progressive defense; damaging ability scores are one possibility, and other pools (as I mentioned earlier) are another: having charm person whittle down Will Points instead of Hit Points seems entirely sensible. Of course, this strategy stands or falls primarily on whether all party members can attack the same pool(s), and to some extent on linking the pools together.

I definitely agree that the solution to the issue does not need to be that all abilities deal primarily HP damage, I just wanted to bring up an additional angle to the discussion.

As noted by tuggyne, having a different scoreboards, i.e. separate pool of available hit points and will points, does not resolve the issue entirely unless foes generally have option to link the pools together or all members of the party have ability to target either of the pools somewhat effectively. If the pools are entirely separate, a pool of will points would just enable the wizard to eat through his/her target score (the will points) little by little while the rest of the party would try to carve through the enemy’s hit points.

Even if one does not want to degrade SoD spells to do just hit point damage, one solution could be that they would not entirely bypass Hit Point damage, but require that the target has already been subjected to attacks/effects before (sufficient Hit Point damage, a specified condition, etc.). Spell perhaps having some but significantly lesser effect, if the spell is used before the required condition is met (petrify making the target slow, phantasmal killer stunning the target briefly, etc.). That way (1) the wizard would benefit from the actions of the others (“Great, now that the fighter has knocked the foe down [trip, bulrush], I can cast Bigby’s Crushing Hand to draw it underground [SoD]” instead of “I cast Bigby’s Crushing Hand to hold the enemy in place for one round”) and (2) even if the conditions are not yet met, the wizard could use those powerful spells to help the party to solve the problem old fashioned way by getting most out of those secondary effects.

[navar100]

I would say that the problem with SoD/SoS working outside the Hit Points is primarily co-operative one. If attacks, whether spells or physical primarily deal hit point damage, all members of the party contribute towards the same goal: to bring the foe's hit points to zero. However, if a SoD/SoS spell does not deal hit point damage or is in no way dependant on creature's hit points, any hit point damage done by other members of the party before casting of the spell becomes irrelevant if the SoD/SoS spell succeeds. The wizard is practiaclly encouraged to outside the group, because if the SoD/SoS ignores the hit points, it nullifies any prior effors from the rest of the party once it succeeds.

Hmm, perhaps have all save or die work like 3E's Power Word Spells. Now, they couldn't be based on flat hit points. "Hold Person works if target has 10 or less hit points, save to negate." However, to borrow a 4E term, perhaps when the target is bloodied Hold Person can then be used, its target being a bloodied humanoid.

Maybe Hold Person can still be tried when a target is not bloodied, but the target gets a large bonus to his save. Being bloodied lowered his defenses to make him more vulnerable. Alternatively, his saving throw was already high but being bloodied gave a penalty to the save. This means warriors are helping the spellcasters to prepare for save or die use by hacking away hit points with pointy sticks, and damage spells become more valuable as well. As an interesting side effect, since the same thing can happen to PCs in combat healing becomes more valuable to prevent such vulnerability from enemy save or die effects.

[Stubbazubba]

The problem of having multiple pools of defenses to eat through is how it destroy's a group's ability to work together. Unless every class can contribute against every defense, or alternatively, unless each defense can be exchanged for another at some rate, then the optimal strategy in each battle is to focus fire on the enemy's weakest defense, and those who can't contribute waste their actions attacking some other defense which won't actually contribute in any meaningful way to the group's effort of bringing him down. And if every class can contribute against each defense, or each defense can be converted to another at some exchange rate, you may as well just take out the needless complexity and make it all one defense. The strategies become very complex for anything more than two defenses which work together, but you don't actually gain much in terms of player engagement or breadth of viable options.

Re: SoD/SoLs. You have to try and satisfy several gameplay requirements when finding the role of SoDs in your game. One is party synergy; if the mundane's contribution to the combat can be obviated by a single die roll, I think he can be reasonably upset. You've either got to mitigate this or avoid it entirely. This brings us to Noldo and Navar's suggestion of making enemy HP thresholds a prereq for full SoD effects. This is a pretty good idea, I think, but it means 1) each fight now only lasts as long as it takes to get enemy HP to the threshold + as long as it takes to land a SoD, and 2) the caster will never just be able to turn someone to stone cold, if you will. Ideally, SoDs would work against minions, however those are represented in the game. One way to make it work while avoiding a designated 'minion' version of a monster would be to give Advantage on saves for non-Bloodied targets. This, combined with sufficiently high defenses relative to level-appropriate spellcaster DCs, would mean a caster facing an on-level threat would save his SoDs until the target is Bloodied, but on a mob of much lower-level threats could have a decent chance to drop fools cold. I don't know how well this would jive with bounded accuracy, but that's another issue.

I also second PairO'Dice's most excellent spell ideas and might steal one or both of them in the future.

To people who point out that such spells may cause your entire turn to be wasted, yes it is high risk. Oh noes, you're wasting a turn! You're attempting something that has a chance of failure! What is the world coming to?

You've got to read what he wrote, though; every other spell takes a turn to cast, as well, so relatively speaking, it's not high risk, it's the exact same risk. Low chance of success =/= high risk.

[Kurald Galain]

Unless every class can contribute against every defense, or alternatively, unless each defense can be exchanged for another at some rate, then the optimal strategy in each battle is to focus fire on the enemy's weakest defense,

If you're fighting several enemies, though, it works much better. The wizard attacks the enemy who is weaker to mental attacks, while the fighter tackles the opponent who is weaker to physical attacks. Actually I like that; it means that focus fire is no longer the universal best strategy in all cases.

A problem with saying that (e.g.) Hold Monster only works on monsters below 15 hit points, is that you generally don't need to cast such spells on monsters that are near death anyway.

You've got to read what he wrote, though; every other spell takes a turn to cast, as well, so relatively speaking, it's not high risk, it's the exact same risk. Low chance of success =/= high risk.

Low chance of success means high chance of failure means high risk. Now I'm all in favor of spells that have a chance of backfiring on the caster, but I doubt that would be popular within a D&D setting.

[Stubbazubba]

Low chance of success means high chance of failure means high risk.

No. Risk is defined by a chance of loss, not just a chance of failure to win. I realize that's a subtle difference, but it's there. If you're not potentially worse off than how you started, there is no risk. Therefore you measure levels of risk in how much you lose to obtain a given reward. SoD's take 1 turn and 1 spell slot, the same as any other spell, ergo it has the same risk as any other spell of its level, and is not high risk, high reward.

[Kurald Galain]

No. Risk is defined by a chance of loss, not just a chance of failure to win.

Let's put this in context - that other poster was suggesting that if you cast a SOL and the enemy saves, your entire turn is wasted! So the risk is clear: your character loses time. Magic Missile and Fireball have no such risk, since they either don't miss ever, or still do something on a miss.

Anyway, this is just arguing semantics. The point is, it's fine if some spells have a more powerful effect with a lower chance of success than others. Doing that can still be balanced, and not doing that cuts off a large part of design space.

[Stubbazubba]

Let's put this in context - that other poster was suggesting that if you cast a SOL and the enemy saves, your entire turn is wasted! So the risk is clear: your character loses time. Magic Missile and Fireball have no such risk, since they either don't miss ever, or still do something on a miss.

Anyway, this is just arguing semantics. The point is, it's fine if some spells have a more powerful effect with a lower chance of success than others. Doing that can still be balanced, and not doing that cuts off a large part of design space.

You're right, I'm letting myself be distracted. The point that he makes, though, is that a SoD potentially obviates the contributions of the other characters in a single roll, which is a vastly disproportionate reward for the risk. It is fine if some spells have a more powerful effect with a lower chance of success than others, but not for all levels of more powerful. When one spell, which is just one fraction of one of your class features, marginalizes an entire other character's build, or worse, several other characters' builds in your party, you've got an unreasonably powerful effect for what its costing you.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

*headdesk*

*headdesk*

*headdesk*


In what way is that not HP damage? Are you seriously attempting to counter, "deal damage to something" with "deal damage to something in a marginally different fashion"? Because if you are, then quite literally any respect for the rest of your side in this argument is thrown right out the window, that's how poorly you've managed to screw up this counter argument.

As Craft said, I didn't claim at all that I don't like killing things via HP damage, but rather that I don't want every spell to rely on HP to deliver their effect. First of all, I would much rather do something that involves multiple weaker resources (low level spells and hirelings in this example) and requires interesting tactics (fooling people with illusions) than stacking everything I have onto one boring straightforward damage spell and killing things with that, and if every spells is just a different coat of paint on top of "deal X damage over Y time period" that gets boring fast.

Second of all, if all illusions are just of the sanity-destroying psychic-damage dealing variety, that doesn't incentivize creativity at all--you don't need to be creative in your use of them, make them believable, and so on, you can just cast an illusion of a big monster that scares people to death and it's just another refluffed fireball.

Even if one does not want to degrade SoD spells to do just hit point damage, one solution could be that they would not entirely bypass Hit Point damage, but require that the target has already been subjected to attacks/effects before (sufficient Hit Point damage, a specified condition, etc.). Spell perhaps having some but significantly lesser effect, if the spell is used before the required condition is met (petrify making the target slow, phantasmal killer stunning the target briefly, etc.). That way (1) the wizard would benefit from the actions of the others (“Great, now that the fighter has knocked the foe down [trip, bulrush], I can cast Bigby’s Crushing Hand to draw it underground [SoD]” instead of “I cast Bigby’s Crushing Hand to hold the enemy in place for one round”) and (2) even if the conditions are not yet met, the wizard could use those powerful spells to help the party to solve the problem old fashioned way by getting most out of those secondary effects.

Depending on how they do conditions in 5e, this could be a good alternative to a condition track-type setup (where damage lowers saves to make spells better). One idea I had for achieving partial effects for SoLs was to standardize all the various conditions into "tracks" like shaken -> frightened -> panicked -> cowering is in 3e, since that provides plenty of "hooks" to hang mechanics on as we've seen in 3e and it would provide several degrees for each of the SoL conditions. Instead of "Will save or be asleep," you might have to go through impaired -> fatigued -> exhausted -> unconscious; instead of "Will save or be paralyzed" you might have to go through entangled -> prone -> immobilized -> paralyzed; or similar with better names.

That way, all SoL spells would have something like your suggestion built-in. If hold person makes you one step less mobile (or however you want to phrase it) each round, then a wizard could either cast it and wait for four rounds, or have his druid buddy cast entangle on his target and wait for four rounds, or have his fighter buddy trip the target and wait two rounds or grapple and immobilize it and wait one. Then you can add on the individual triggers like the prone -> BIGBY SMASH! one for nonstandard effects.

Talking instead of fighting is fine. Saying something inane and rolling diplomacy isn't, and neither are the 3.5 diplomacy RAW. Dropping heavy objects deals HP damage. Mind controlled enemies deal HP damage, usually, with the bonus that they're not dealing that HP damage to your side. Silent image to hide an ambush is also HP damage, and 5e will actually do that better because the low level archer swarm will actually be able to hit on less than a 20. Using tricks to help deal HP damage, or stop your side from taking it, is pretty much what 4e leaders and controllers are all about, and you won't find me arguing that its a bad idea.

"Whoever reduces the other side's HP gauge fastest wins" does not preclude creativity, it just gives you a way to keep score. The thing I don't want to play is "whoever rolls a 1 first loses." Multiple condition tracks risks a "you must be this magical to ride" restriction that leaves the fighter and wizard playing the same game with different scoreboards.

So conceivably dealing enough damage via boulders or minions to one-shot things is fine, as long as you're "keeping score," but using spells normally is "cheating"?

It seems that peoples' issue with SoL is that it's perceived as being too easy. An ubercharger can also kill you based on a single roll, as can the mailman (and in the mailman's case that one roll might not matter!), as can a flying wizard with lots of boulders, as can a buffed up bunch of mooks, and so can plenty of other strategies, but SoL spells are the focus because they kill things when used as intended while the other stuff requires effort and creativity. But those examples should show that neutering SoLs to be just another HP damage effect isn't the answer, because enough of that will still serve as a SoD; disintegrate in 3.5 went from being a SoL to "merely" 2d6/CL damage, and it still kills plenty of things.

The measure of an effect's "fairness" isn't the means by which is achieves its effect, but by the chance of it landing based on its strength, how easy it is to defend against it, and how well it plays with others. Blasting was better than SoL in AD&D because saves were much higher, HP was much lower, and there were really no ways to pump up SoL spells, so the very same spell text was lackluster in 2e where it rocked in 3e. 4e and now 5e are trying to solve the wrong problem by making SoL spells less SoL-ish (oh no, one failed save dooms anyone!) when they need to solve the underlying problem with that instead (oh no, it's too hard to resist and get defenses against SoL for noncasters!).

[1337 b4k4]

If the DM has to tell you afterwards that what you killed really was the big bad, is that really that good of a story?

Absolutely it is. Because it means it was unexpected. It means your players didn't really think it would work, but wanted to try it anyway because it would be damn cool if it did. That is a great story, and those players will remember it long after they kill BBEG #25 by whittling down his hit points.

Should vampire hunters just carry lots of scrolls of dispel evil and wait for a 1 on the save?

I'll admit I'm biased toward 4e here. I've come to consider hit points as simply a way of keeping score, nothing to do with wounds or real damage at all. Winning without reducing the enemy to zero feels a bit like cheating.

It's no more cheating than the vampire hunter who waits for daylight and stakes the vampire through the heart in his coffin. As the linked article said, bad guys die like chumps all the time, in fact I would go so far as to say in many cases the BBEG dies like the biggest chump of all compared to his minions. Consider say LOTR, Sauron himself doesn't even get a swing in edgewise, instead he dies when a little furry man throws his ring in a volcano.

Besides, this is D&D, you don't win by beating the BBEG, you win by surviving. There's always a bigger BBEG so how you defeat any particular one is, in the long run, no more important than how you defeat any one of his mooks.

It strikes me that the main problem with SODs in the hands of PCs is them one-shotting a boss monster. I'm fine with PCs one-shotting mooks, because there can always be more mooks. I'm also fine with certain boss monsters just being flat-out immune to most or all kinds of anticlimactic death - it happens in fiction all the time.

I've never really understood what's wrong with this. I mean I get it intellectually from a DMs point of view, but as players, getting a lucky one shot or some other "anti-climactic" death on the BBEG is usually pretty damn awesome (provided they're not routine).

As an example, I played in a home brew campaign once where we went up against this BBEG and the DM built the whole thing up. It was huge, it was ugly, it could squish us flat, and we were scared. Combat begins and one player has a freezing potion, which they throw at the BBEGs head. It lands and now the BBEGs head is encased in ice. Sure this helps us a little, but the BBEG is ready to knock it off. The DM rolls ... and fumbles. So the BBEG in attempting to knock the ice of his head pretty much hit himself hard enough to do crit damage to himself. Everyone stops, looks at each other, and suddenly we have a new plan. Protect the guy with the freezing potions and try not to get hit. The player keeps getting lucky, and amazingly the DM keeps fumbling while trying to knock off the ice. Essentially the BBEG beat himself into submission within about 5 rounds. The DM hated it, felt really bad about how anti-climactic it was. Every one of the players thought this was one of the coolest things to happen in the game. That event was nearly 8 years ago now, and it still comes up all the time as a CMoA. Not bad for an anti-climactic battle.

No the problem is systemic. "Save or Die/Lose/Suck" forces combat to revolve around the save. Win and you've won with disproportionally less effort than any other class or build, lose and your entire turn was wasted. And that's the player's side, on the GM's side SoD/L/S abilities essentially are a "do you get to play this combat" save and that if you fail, tune out and go do something else while you wait to play again, or win and the monster's entire turn was wasted. It's one of those instances where existing design is almost always bad design, no matter the perspective.

This is only problematic if your entire encounter is designed around one monster or enemy. One thing 4e got very very right was encouraging encounter design based on rolls for different monsters. SoDs are much less of a game breaking moment when the BBEG is surrounded by his strongest body guards.

Mitigated sure, but that's not going to make it better design, it's just going to make the bad design less tedious. Short of designing the game so that the player is never removed from play, he just has different options available to him, you're never going to be able to solve the player agency issue that SoLs by default cause.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, SoDs do not cause player agency issues by default any more than any other trap, ambush or environmental hazard causes. Player agency is about players having options and making decisions and then those decisions have real consequences in the game world. The medusa having SoD is not agency destroying provided a player can prepare for and counter the SoD and the player has the opportunity to do so (even if they fail to take it). It's only if nothing the player can do will mitigate his exposure to the SoD effect that there is a player agency issue.

Player agency doesn't mean the players never have options removed from them, or that nothing sucky ever happens to them.

This brings us to Noldo and Navar's suggestion of making enemy HP thresholds a prereq for full SoD effects. This is a pretty good idea, I think, but it means 1) each fight now only lasts as long as it takes to get enemy HP to the threshold + as long as it takes to land a SoD, and 2) the caster will never just be able to turn someone to stone cold, if you will. Ideally, SoDs would work against minions, however those are represented in the game. One way to make it work while avoiding a designated 'minion' version of a monster would be to give Advantage on saves for non-Bloodied targets.

What about adding a bit a granularity in. As you point out, get to bloodied and then the SoD hits is sort of boring, so let's abuse the dis/advantage mechanic a bit. When a monster has >=75% of its max HP value, it has advantage on saves for SoD effects. When it has between 25% and 75% it saves as normal, and when it has <=25% it has disadvantage. If you want even more granularity, you could replace that (or if you want it tougher to get an SoD augment it) with a bonus to the save equal to the value of current HP/10 round down. So a monster with 56HP has a +5 to save vs the SoD, but with only 18 HP as a mere +1. Doing one of these two ways would also mean monster effects can behave the same way against PCs.

Alternatively, what if we borrowed a page from 4e's nerfing of SoDs, but fixed what I consider to be 4e's fatal flaw, the multiple save. Imagine if SoD effects gave you a single save, and then imparted a series of permanent and ongoing draining conditions. So for example, with Flesh to Stone, if the enemy fails their save, FtS imparts ongoing 5 or 10 damage with no further saves. In addition, we now have the option to make some of these SoD effects have real effects to, so FtS would also impart an ongoing +1 to AC (to represent the target turning to stone) and a ongoing -5 or -10 to speed (to also represent the target turning to stone). The target is fully stone once HP is reduced to 0 or speed reaches 0 whichever occurs first. In this way, the SoD has an SoD effect without being purely instantaneous, but also without making them feel useless or like they don't do what they say they do (as the 4e sleep spell does, and yes I know, "still considered powerful" etc etc etc, but it doesn't feel like a sleep spell and most of the time, no one falls asleep). The only way to cure SoD ongoing effects would be their standard D&D cures, remove curses and the like. Now SoDs become as dangerous as their literary counterparts, while still being "rescuable" (with the right tools). And due to the time dilation that is a combat round, it also means that for outside combat applications, SoD effects would be effectively instantaneous.

Edit:

Since I complained about reducing SoDs to direct damage spells, I figured I should provide an example of how my last suggestion might work in that case as well. So let's consider the sleep spell. Rather than draining HP, I imagine that the sleep spell would impart an ongoing -1 to AC, and also a -1 drain on STR and DEX. The target falls asleep when STR or DEX reach 0.

[Craft (Cheese)]

4e and now 5e are trying to solve the wrong problem by making SoL spells less SoL-ish (oh no, one failed save dooms anyone!) when they need to solve the underlying problem with that instead (oh no, it's too hard to resist and get defenses against SoL for noncasters!).

I'm gonna take the side against SoL here. The underlying problem is that SoL spells aren't fun for the victim and, when the initial high from the power trip wears off, not fun for the caster either. I don't think the solution is to make SoL spells less reliable (when compared to other methods of winning a combat) so casters want to use them in fewer situations.

I hate to bring it up but really the best example I can think of to illustrate my point is the Yugioh card game. For many years now the main problem with high-level competitive play is the extreme prevalence of what I like to call "bomb plays." Combos, or in some cases single cards, that once you pull them out your opponent has no practical chance of recovering and they may as well surrender right now. A game of high-level YGO play is essentially a race to see who can drop their bomb fastest.

Now, this isn't a problem by itself. You could make an interesting game around counter moves and counter-counter moves to jockey for the position to make a single killing blow. But unfortunately that's not how Konami actually responds to the problem: Instead, they release carte-blanche "No" buttons like Solemn Warning and Effect Veiler (there might be some more recent ones, I haven't kept up with new card releases in a while). If you draw them, you can just throw them down to delay your opponent's bomb by another turn or so. If you don't draw them, then you're just screwed. There's no actual strategy involved in countering your opponent's moves and no choices to be made, it's just a countdown to see who runs out of defenses first.

The problem with your proposal is that, just like Konami's No buttons in YGO, making SoL spells simply less likely to succeed (either by buffing the numbers directly or making defenses and immunities easier to get) doesn't actually give either side any opportunities for interesting choices, it just makes the optimization problem (Will Lightning Bolt or Finger of Death, on average, require fewer repeated castings to bring down this boss?) more complicated.

[RedWarlock]

I had the SoL problem for my PCs this last sunday. I had seven players, more than my usual party average. At random, I decide to pull out Basilisks, first a pair of normal ones as a warm-up (They're APL 9, the basilisks were around a CR 7-8), then as soon as the little ones get wiped out, an Abyssal Greater (CR 12, tough but doable, especially for an oversize group) pops out behind them and roars, drawing everyone to look at him. They took out the little ones without any trouble, nobody even got FTS'ed, but the AGB took out three of the seven in that first turn. It became a very tough fight for the remaining players, but those three players, for failing their saves first turn basically had to sit out of combat.

Luckily I used a player's suggestion of making basilisk blood a natural stone-to-flesh salve, or I would've had three players out of the game entirely, since they were on the start of a new day, just rested, and no way to retreat easily and get them recovered.

In this case, I really wish I had used different mechanics for the petrification. Just watching the out players, I could tell they weren't enjoying it, and I regret that.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm gonna take the side against SoL here. The underlying problem is that SoL spells aren't fun for the victim and, when the initial high from the power trip wears off, not fun for the caster either. I don't think the solution is to make SoL spells less reliable (when compared to other methods of winning a combat) so casters want to use them in fewer situations.

[...]

The problem with your proposal is that, just like Konami's No buttons in YGO, making SoL spells simply less likely to succeed (either by buffing the numbers directly or making defenses and immunities easier to get) doesn't actually give either side any opportunities for interesting choices, it just makes the optimization problem (Will Lightning Bolt or Finger of Death, on average, require fewer repeated castings to bring down this boss?) more complicated.

I'm not suggesting that SoLs be balanced by only having a 5% chance to obliterate the enemy or something like that, just that the current balance point seems to assume that all spells have a 50+% chance of landing and SoLs are being balanced around that when that doesn't have to be the case.

In 2e, at high levels an enemy may save against spells on a 3+, say. That's a 15% chance for a finger of death to work or a 15% chance to deal full damage with a fireball; if it only takes two half-damage fireballs (which will happen 100% of the time) to kill a BBEG in conjunction with your fighter and rogue also reducing his HP, then it makes more sense to go with the fireballs than to spam finger of death and hope it works. By contrast, in 3e at, say, 15th level, a wizard might have a DC of 10+8 level+8 Int = 26 for his highest-level spells while an enemy's weak save might be +5 base plus +4 resistance plus +4 secondary stat = +13, so a finger of death now has a 60% chance to work while you need 3-4 full damage fireballs to finish it off with your partymates.

The text of both spells is practically identical between the two editions, but due to HP inflation and the save DC changes, which one is drastically more effective has changed. No special restrictions are put on SoL in 2e--no DC penalties, no disadvantage on saves, nothing like that--but players naturally tend toward other spells because that's the game's equilibrium. The 5e devs seem to be trying to assert a 50/50 or so success rate with spells and balance SoL around that, which obviously doesn't work because if two SoL end the combat there's no reason not to spam them, when instead they could just improve defenses across the board and slightly nerf SoL instead of turning into just better special effects for the same ol' damage spells.

[Excession]

So conceivably dealing enough damage via boulders or minions to one-shot things is fine, as long as you're "keeping score," but using spells normally is "cheating"?

Getting that many minions in place seems like it would be a sub-lot in itself, that many boulders is also going to be pretty tough for a boss creature. I have no problem with expending significant effort expended generating significant results. If the effort expended is one PC using one daily spell slot it starts to feel not so good, and I think is less fun for the players.

I would also note that your definition of "normally" seems to be based on 3.5; it isn't my normal. My normal can be a purple worm going down in four rounds because the players rolled extremely well and it didn't, but it also can be a desperate running battle as the remaining two of four PCs try to kill the white dragon and keep it slowed with ranged attacks before it can reach them and eat them too.

It seems that peoples' issue with SoL is that it's perceived as being too easy. An ubercharger can also kill you based on a single roll, as can the mailman (and in the mailman's case that one roll might not matter!), as can a flying wizard with lots of boulders, as can a buffed up bunch of mooks, and so can plenty of other strategies, but SoL spells are the focus because they kill things when used as intended while the other stuff requires effort and creativity. But those examples should show that neutering SoLs to be just another HP damage effect isn't the answer, because enough of that will still serve as a SoD; disintegrate in 3.5 went from being a SoL to "merely" 2d6/CL damage, and it still kills plenty of things.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Uberchargers, mailmen, and stacking buffs are just more things that are broken to me. All of them are "too easy" if that's the word you want to use. Finding a way to break shrink item (or however you're carrying those boulders) isn't that much better. If fly is a spell, organised enemies would have defences against it, such as archers ... or side-stepping.

Seriously though, for that use of boulders each one probably just becomes a Dex-vs-AC that does HP damage, and which cost you a lot of resources or time in shrink item rituals. That's ok though, significant resources for significant effect again.

The measure of an effect's "fairness" isn't the means by which is achieves its effect, but by the chance of it landing based on its strength, how easy it is to defend against it, and how well it plays with others. Blasting was better than SoL in AD&D because saves were much higher, HP was much lower, and there were really no ways to pump up SoL spells, so the very same spell text was lackluster in 2e where it rocked in 3e. 4e and now 5e are trying to solve the wrong problem by making SoL spells less SoL-ish (oh no, one failed save dooms anyone!) when they need to solve the underlying problem with that instead (oh no, it's too hard to resist and get defenses against SoL for noncasters!).

I'm not sure there is a sweet spot where SoL isn't either a cheap win button or a trap option. Thinking about it, I suspect my problem is the randomness, the all or nothing one-shot nature of them that I personally dislike. I will remain hopeful that WotC employs professionals that are better at this stuff than I am, and provide feedback when the next packet comes out.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I would also note that your definition of "normally" seems to be based on 3.5; it isn't my normal.
[...]
I'm not sure what your argument is here. Uberchargers, mailmen, and stacking buffs are just more things that are broken to me. All of them are "too easy" if that's the word you want to use. Finding a way to break shrink item (or however you're carrying those boulders) isn't that much better.

That "normal" was referring to using abilities as intended: It's intended that finger of death one-shots things because that's what the spell is written to do, but not "intended" that you kill a dragon by levitating a shipful of shrunken boulders up and crushing it with them, for instance.

My point was that if you see normal use of overpowered tactics as cheating, you should also see overpowered use of normal tactics as cheating--changing SoL spells to use the same "scoring" system that blasting spells do doesn't make them less unfair, it just changes the source of the problem.

[Sabbatini]

to much philosophy

[Excession]

That "normal" was referring to using abilities as intended: It's intended that finger of death one-shots things because that's what the spell is written to do, but not "intended" that you kill a dragon by levitating a shipful of shrunken boulders up and crushing it with them, for instance.

My point was that if you see normal use of overpowered tactics as cheating, you should also see overpowered use of normal tactics as cheating--changing SoL spells to use the same "scoring" system that blasting spells do doesn't make them less unfair, it just changes the source of the problem.

I think I do find them equally bad. I would be happy to remove RAW abuse along with SoDs. There is, though, a difference for me between RAW abuse and "creative use in-world mechanics and tactics". Defining that difference is the hard bit.

If you somehow have access to a shipful of shrunken boulders, then by 4e rules you have to have spent something on the order of hours within a day's journey of a dragon casting rituals to shrink them all, then find a way to carry what is still a fairly large and heavy load to the dragon. A dragon that is smarter than you, paranoid, and capable of leaving whenever it feels like it.

I think we should probably stop here though, this thread has more than enough off topic stuff as it is. Shall we wait and see what comes out in a playtest packet for these spells?

[Stubbazubba]

Extra Credits did an episode on a relevant topic a few weeks ago, "Counter Play."

The main thrust of the idea is this:

"When designing an ability or a mechanic, you can't only be thinking about how to make that ability or mechanic interesting for the player who gets to use it, you also have to think about how its interesting for the players its used on. And on a more rigorous level, it's the idea that a mechanic or ability in a multiplayer game should increase the number of meaningful choices available both to the player using it and the player its being used on."

TTRPGs are not considered multiplayer games, but the psychology and importance of this principle is true because at the combat round level, they function exactly like one; the DM is one player controlling a single monster on any given turn (mostly), and the player is controlling their one character, and they are slinging these abilities back and forth in a way that is essentially indistinguishable from a competitive multiplayer game.

EC goes on to make the point that abilities that are an interesting tactical option for the user but not for the target is a good way to create frustrated targets. However, when you consider both sides of that equation, you create a richer play experience for both. So the question of whether or not SoDs are cool for the SoD-user is not the only consideration we have to take into account when designing SoDs. We also have to account for the SoD receiver's experience and what options SoDs provide to them. Obviously, the only tactical implication of a traditional SoD for a target is "jack up that save modifier in your build!" That is one-dimensional (it's not really a choice if it's the only way) and irrelevant in combat (the decision is made outside of combat and nothing in combat will change it). This is not an enriching option as-is.

So SoDs need to be counter-able by the party, whether that's by beginning an SoD at the end of one turn and then casting on the next where taking any damage in-between either negates or greatly diminishes its effect if cast, SoDs only working on targets below a certain HP threshold, or something else that gives the opposing party/character an actual tactical option it can take in the midst of combat to attempt to prevent or counter it.

A third consideration for these mechanics in a TTRPG, I would say, is how it interacts with the user's allies. You want abilities that interlock with the roles/actions of others, and gives them interesting options on their turns, too. The mundane half of the party's contribution to the battle can't be meaningless with one successful SoD. The mundanes have to contribute to SoDs somehow, whether that's as simple as protecting the caster from having their concentration broken during casting, or contributing to meeting the necessary HP threshold for the spell to work, or some other combination of tactics.

Also, giving mundanes SoD abilities certainly couldn't hurt, either. At some point a rogue should be able to just sneak up and stab a guy through the heart, and the fighter should be able to cut off the monster's head with one mighty blow, so long as those have tactically interesting mechanics backing them up.