D&D 5E Why the HP Threshold on Spells is a Bad Idea

Falling Icicle · Sep 25, 2012

the Jester said:
Imma let you finish, but let me just interrupt for one second here- how would you feel if the mechanic remained but was linked to CURRENT hit points instead of maximum?

It's still very problematic, and most of the problems I brought up still apply. You still have to guess what a monster's hp are. You still have some classes being favored over others due to having higher hp totals. And then you end up with odd situations like beating people up until you can charm them. In short, I still don't like it.

the Jester said:
Well, I don't think that each pc should necessarily have a good round every round, personally; if you never miss, the challenge drops away a lot.

I didn't say they should. But there is a big difference between failing because a creature made its save, and failing automatically because the creature just happened to have too many hit points, when there's not really any legitimate way you could have known that at the time.

the Jester said:
This is potentially problematic, depending on the range of effects that come with no save through the hp threshold mechanic. I think, kept within reason, it's quite fine, though- the idea of autocharming the barmaid (for instance) doesn't bother me, especially because she will remember everything (the party wizard might certainly get a reputation that way!).

It bothers me. I'm glad that charmed people remember being charmed, as it helps prevent abuse, but I still don't think wizards should be able to go around auto-charming people. Success shouldn't be guaranteed.

the Jester said:
Also, I think you are overestimating what charm person can do- all the charmed condition does is make you unable to attack your charmer and give the charmer advantage on social interactions with you. So it can't make you attack your allies or commit suicide at all.

I know charm person can't do that. I was just mentioning such limitations as ways of balancing enchantment type spells in general.

Falling Icicle · Sep 25, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
Low-level spells should not remain useful at high levels. High level spellcasters shouldn't have low level spells at all.

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 their 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.

Falling Icicle · Sep 25, 2012

ppaladin123 said:
I'd replace the HP threshold with a Hit Dice threshold. This gets rid of the problem of low level fighters being more resistant to mental attacks than high level wizards.

I wasn't a big fan of the HD threshold in 3.x either. That said, I wouldn't be totally opposed to a HD threshold so long as the spell still has some effect, rather than granting complete immunity. Sleep might make the creature drowsy instead, charm might grant you a bonus to Charisma checks against the creature instead of making it outright friendly, and so on. I just don't want to see things like 3e Sleep, where it becomes useless after a certain level.

Ratskinner · Sep 25, 2012

steenan said:
HP threshold would be fine for me (even more: would be my favorite spell design pattern) if:
- thresholds were compared to current, not maximum, HP
- thresholds were randomized, not constant
- each spell had at least a minor effect on targets above the threshold

This way, is should be possible to have save-or-die (or even die-with-no-save) spells without unbalancing the system and ignoring the HP track. A caster would be able to do awful things to 1st level NPCs and to powerful enemies that have been severely weakened by earlier attacks, but wouldn't be able to one-shot what was intended as a challenge for entire party.

I've suggested that such magical effect deal special damage. So Sleep deals 2d8 (or whatever) "sleep" damage. If its more than the target's current hp, they fall asleep instead of getting injured. Might need some tweaking for some of the other effects, but basically...

billd91 · Sep 25, 2012

slobster said:
I'm having trouble reconciling your first paragraph with your second. On the one hand, only rolling dice for stats is fair (according to you, and using a strange definition for fair - if everyone being subject to the whims of chance is fair, how is everyone having the power to assign points to stats in the same way not fair?). On the other hand D&D is a tool kit and players should be able to decide for themselves what is best for their campaign. Interesting.

Yes, rolling dice is, I believe, more fair than point buy - particularly in a game in which there are some classes that are based on more stats than others. It's also true when mixing power gamers with non-power gamers as well as inexperienced and experienced players. It also works better with the rules than point buy (particularly when you consider the stat dependency differences of classes).

Point buy would be fairer than it is under 3.5, PF, and even 4e if all stats were treated equally among all classes. But they are not. In all of these editions (heck, in all editions to date), some classes value more stats than others do and point buy, while lauded for leveling the playing field based on lucky stats, actually skews it in favor of single-stat dependent classes.

It seems clear to me that random distribution is and has always been the main method of D&D designers. And I believe they are right. Even now, would anyone have really countenanced the human +2 to one stat, +1 to all of the others when primarily embracing a point buy method of generating stats? I don't think so.

But this really is a tangent for an alternative thread.

BobTheNob · Sep 25, 2012

Falling Icicle said:
I wasn't a big fan of the HD threshold in 3.x either. That said, I wouldn't be totally opposed to a HD threshold so long as the spell still has some effect, rather than granting complete immunity. Sleep might make the creature drowsy instead, charm might grant you a bonus to Charisma checks against the creature instead of making it outright friendly, and so on. I just don't want to see things like 3e Sleep, where it becomes useless after a certain level.

Im not overly fond of the HD mechanic either (though I VASTLY prefer it to the HP mechanic)

Though oddly enough, in 5e it would work far better than ever before. Why? Flattened Math.

One of the stated advantages of flattened math is that creatures dont become trivialized as you progress. Remember that 3 HD orc who challenged you at level 1? Well, he is still a a feasible opponent at level 10. So, lets look at sleep (and for arguments sake, lets say it has the "creature over level 5 are immune" stipulation). Is sleep still usefull? Against the level 8 troll, no, but against that band of level 3 orcs the DM threw in, yes.

So your low level spells can retain releveance NOT because we need to define ways for them to work against high level creatures, but because low level creatures dont dissapear altogether.

Ahnehnois · Sep 25, 2012

Why the HP Threshold on Spells is a Bad Idea

Because it assumes you're using hit points.

slobster · Sep 25, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
Because it assumes you're using hit points.

I think that's a safe assumption in D&D. If you aren't using hit points, then every weapon, every offensive spell or ability, every feat that interacts with damage or hp is likewise making an "assumption".

If you are converting D&D to play without hp, then hp thresholds are the least of your problems.

Falling Icicle · Sep 25, 2012

BobTheNob said:
Im not overly fond of the HD mechanic either (though I VASTLY prefer it to the HP mechanic)

Though oddly enough, in 5e it would work far better than ever before. Why? Flattened Math.

One of the stated advantages of flattened math is that creatures dont become trivialized as you progress. Remember that 3 HD orc who challenged you at level 1? Well, he is still a a feasible opponent at level 10. So, lets look at sleep (and for arguments sake, lets say it has the "creature over level 5 are immune" stipulation). Is sleep still usefull? Against the level 8 troll, no, but against that band of level 3 orcs the DM threw in, yes.

So your low level spells can retain releveance NOT because we need to define ways for them to work against high level creatures, but because low level creatures dont dissapear altogether.

That's a good point, but still, why would I prepare spells with a HP/HD limit when I could instead prepare spells like Grease, Burning Hands, etc. that can be useful against creatures of all levels? Sure, I might fight low level orcs that day, in which case sleep could be useful. Or I might fight higher level monsters that day, in which case it'd be a waste of a spell slot. I'd rather prepare the spell that will work in both cases, rather than the spell that will only work in one of those cases.

Ahnehnois · Sep 25, 2012

slobster said:
I think that's a safe assumption in D&D. If you aren't using hit points, then every weapon, every offensive spell or ability, every feat that interacts with damage or hp is likewise making an "assumption".

If you are converting D&D to play without hp, then hp thresholds are the least of your problems.

Given the modularity they've hyped, I would expect multiple alternate health systems to be supported in the initial release. At the very least, some version of anything that's in Unearthed Arcana (i.e. vp/wp, injury by failed save, reserve points, altered massive damage thresholds...).