D&D 5E In Depth Critique of Part 3 of Basic Rules

[Pallidore]

Huh?

From page 90 of Basic D&D:

The target must make a Constitution saving throw. It takes 7d8 + 30 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

A humanoid killed by this spell rises at the start of your next turn as a zombie . . .​

That is not save-or-die. It's not even save-or-suck.

See my original comments on the spell.

In retrospect, I should have called them something else, as the classic 3E S-o-D situations have been altered in 5E. I was merely pointing out that even though there is an improvement by the likely need of an intervening step (some damage inflicted on the character prior), they can take on the same characteristic.

As someone mentioned before, WotC strove for the sweet spot vis a vis character power and character vulnerability, especially when the new emphasis on immersion, background, social interaction, and character non-power development is considered. Did they get it? I am pointing out some cautions. As I said in my review of Parts 1 and 2, 5E characters in the 5E environment appear to be more brittle, especially if they're newbie players, and that runs counter to the new emphasis.

 

[pemerton]

See my original comments on the spell.

You mean this?

At first glance, this spell seems underpowered compared to spells like Disintegrate. After all, it’s 1 level higher than Disintegrate. It too affects only one creature, but isn’t scalable like Disintegrate. Its partial damage from making the CON save is actually or potentially less than most of the other spells. But it has no material component or focus, and there’s no cap or limit HD wise. So it’s slightly askew, but probably not significantly; it’s merely a different version of trying to do the same thing. Where the potential trouble comes is where all these type of spells have their potential problems: those with poor CON saves not only have a far greater chance of buying the farm from failing the save, but typically have lower hit points anyway, and even if they make the save, depending on how things currently look, they may still be a goner. And the fact that if one is killed by this spell, that creature rises as a zombie under the caster’s control, makes only True Resurrection, a 9th level spell, possible to rectify things for the PC.

A 7th level Disintegrate does 13d6 + 40, or an average of 85.5. But zero damage on a save. Finger of Death does 7d8+30, or an average of 61.5. And half damage on a save.

Finger of Death obviously does more reliable damage than Disintegrate, Furthermore, if the chance to save is 9/20 or more (ie save on an 12 or less on the d20) then FoD does more expected damage than Disintegrate.

So I don't think your original comments are all that helpful. They imply that Disintegrate is subject to some sort of cap or HD limit. It's not. They imply that the absence of such a cap is part of what balances FoD at 7th level; it's not. What balances it is that for any target with a saving throw chance better than 40% (which will include most fighters, at least), it does more expected damage. And of course it can turn a target that it kills into a zombie. This would include any target reduced to 0 hp whom the GM deems to die at zero hp; or otherwise a target (including a PC) who takes surplus damage equal to their hit point maximum, which most of the time that would have to be a target with no more than 30-odd max hp.

Average hit points for a 13th level wizard will be 48 (12d6+6) or 54 (for the player who doesn't roll) before CON bonuses. Such a character's CON save, if unboosted by Stat or Feat, will be 18 (DC 8 + 5 stat + 5 prof for an attacking 13th level wizard). So expected damage from FoD is 57.8125 hp. The PC in question has a good chance of being knocked unconscious but is extremely unlikely to be killed by the spell. That's not SoD, and it's barely SoS (if the PC has a +1 CON bonus to hp then the PC's hit points increase by 13 to 61/67, and the expected damage drops to 56.25).

 

[KarinsDad]

Finger of Death is the other, but even Hold Person could be considered that in the right circumstances.

I probably should have called them Save/No Save and Die spells. Because the Power Words can be that, as I said, and are even more ideal because the target gets no save.

I readily acknowledge that a number of things are cleaned up from 3E. My main concern is a question: cleaned up enough? From a first look, it appears no. Massive damage spells (especially those with a twist) are great against monsters; they can be hell when used against characters.

I guess I have to answer:

Yes, cleaned up enough.


How is taking 60 points of damage with ANY spell a save or die situation? How is that a terrible thing when a fighter or monster can do three (or more) attacks for the same 60 points of damage? Sure, a spell caster can typically nova higher, but who cares? Spell casters are a lot more squishy than fighters and do less damage over the long run. That's called balance.


Even Hold Person gives a save every single turn. How is this Save or Die, or even Save or Suck? Big whoop, a PC is incapacitated for a few rounds. Yes, foes that melee attack such a PC will get advantage and auto-crit, but where is the problem? This is why PCs adventure in groups.

Do you want to play the game where it is all fairies and sunshine and happy places?

Sorry, but your argument doesn't make sense.

Save or Die means that the player either saves, or his character dies, regardless of how many hit points that PC currently has. Arguments about Power Word Kill (which just removes the unconsciousness buffer) or Power Word Stun (which gets a save every turn) or Finger of Death (where the PC is already dead in order for the zombie effect to occur) or Hold Person (which gets a save every turn) being SoD or SoS is pretty darn weak.


As for monsters using these spells, as a DM, if someone does not like it, they don't have to use them. Duh.

 

[Remathilis]

I have an easy solution for the op: ban all spells higher than cantrips. Hard to break the bank with 5 lb telekinesis, 1d8 fire damage bolts, and infinite 1 HP healing when you're unconscious. Although light on command might be too good compared to 1 cp torches.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How is taking 60 points of damage with ANY spell a save or die situation? How is that a terrible thing when a fighter or monster can do three (or more) attacks for the same 60 points of damage? Sure, a spell caster can typically nova higher, but who cares?

Anyone killed by the nova probably cares, imaginary as they may be. Players who anticipated participating in a thrilling battle and instead just roll initiative, watch an enemy vaporize, and then use their turns to poke around the lair looking for loot probably care, a little, too.

It's one of those things where the priorities of the player and character are very different. A soldier would /love/ to have a secret weapon that just sweeps the enemy from the field on hand, even if he gets zero credit for it and just watches and mops up the mess afterwards - it means he's not getting killed by the enemy, and that's a plus that's hard to beat. A player choosing a fighter, though, would probably like to get in some fights, even some tough fights that aren't foregone conclusions, now and then, and would maybe like to feel like his actions and choices (which, also brings up the fact he'd probably like a few of those, too), make some difference in the outcome of said fights.

 

[KarinsDad]

Anyone killed by the nova probably cares, imaginary as they may be. Players who anticipated participating in a thrilling battle and instead just roll initiative, watch an enemy vaporize, and then use their turns to poke around the lair looking for loot probably care, a little, too.

It's one of those things where the priorities of the player and character are very different. A soldier would /love/ to have a secret weapon that just sweeps the enemy from the field on hand, even if he gets zero credit for it and just watches and mops up the mess afterwards - it means he's not getting killed by the enemy, and that's a plus that's hard to beat. A player choosing a fighter, though, would probably like to get in some fights, even some tough fights that aren't foregone conclusions, now and then, and would maybe like to feel like his actions and choices (which, also brings up the fact he'd probably like a few of those, too), make some difference in the outcome of said fights.

You responded to my post about the wizard doing 60 points of damage whereas the fighter also does 60 points of damage, he just does it in 3 swings instead of one spell. Either way, both PCs (and hence both players) get to do 60 points of damage in a single turn.

Are you claiming that 60 points of damage in a single turn is too much for either the 11th level fighter or the wizard? Sure, these two nova PCs are doing that amount of damage, but the cleric is doing maybe 30. If there are 5 11 HD foes and the fighter wipes out one, the wizard another (with his single highest level spell) and the rest of the party take out a third and possibly a fourth. All of the players got to participate. All of the players, shy of missing and never being attacked in return, got to contribute to the battle in some way.

I don't see where this is a bad thing. The fighter probably takes 20 or 30 points of damage in return. There are down sides to being the up front melee fighter. The wizard no longer has his highest level spell. There are downsides to casting a PC's highest level spell. Pros and cons.


If the encounters are not challenging enough, then the DM can easily up them to get the thrilling battle that you were discussing.

But the point is, classes are different. They have different roles and different abilities. If they were all equally balanced with the same abilities and the same average damage and such, it would be a very boring game. Codzilla (and to a lesser extent mega 3.5 wizards) are gone. Save or die is mostly a thing of the past. Sure, dying is still possible, but it should happen very infrequently to the PCs with a single attack (it' might happen quite often to some NPCs with a single attack). The players still get to respond to bad things happening to them. Being able to nova once in a while is a good thing, just like being able to heal PCs whereas NPCs rarely have that option is a good thing. It distinguishes the PC's options from the NPC's options.

In combat, the PCs have to win every single time. The NPCs only have to win once. Being able to once in a while shift the tide of battle is a good thing because there are no players invested in the NPCs as much as there are ones invested in the PCs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You responded to my post about the wizard doing 60 points of damage whereas the fighter also does 60 points of damage, he just does it in 3 swings instead of one spell.

I was responding to the 'Nova' you implied would do more than that. If you didn't mean to imply or assert the desirability of such a thing, no worries.

But the point is, classes are different. They have different roles and different abilities. If they were all equally balanced with the same abilities and the same average damage and such, it would be a very boring game.

If they all had the same abilities, you wouldn't have real balance, you'd just have a lack of choices. Happily, that's never happened in any edition of D&D - not even close - and 5e does not appear to be in danger of that extreme (largely hypothetical) form of imbalance, at all. Rather, it's in danger of more traditional and comfortably familiar forms of imbalance.

If the encounters are not challenging enough, then the DM can easily up them to get the thrilling battle that you were discussing.

Not if the classes are too imbalanced. Dialing up the difficulty so that an ubercharacter doesn't erase the encounter in one round just leaves everyone else outmatched and unable to contribute meaningfully - they're still spectators, just spectators who might very well be killed.

Of course, that's a worst-case, 3.5-era out-of-control-optimization scenario that we don't yet know for a fact will be possible in 5e.

Codzilla (and to a lesser extent mega 3.5 wizards) are gone. Save or die is mostly a thing of the past.

Don't be so sure. Spell lists are always expanding in D&D. All it takes is one incautiously-written spell - a good self-buff that doesn't require concentration, an item/feat/feature/etc that makes maintaining concentration more likely, an SoD without a hp cap, etc... and we could be right back there, again.

 

[KarinsDad]

Don't be so sure. Spell lists are always expanding in D&D. All it takes is one incautiously-written spell - a good self-buff that doesn't require concentration, an item/feat/feature/etc that makes maintaining concentration more likely, an SoD without a hp cap, etc... and we could be right back there, again.

I'm thinking of limiting 5E to the core PHB for players, at least for a while.

Dragon magazine and later on Essentials were out of control. I hope to avoid that this time around.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm thinking of limiting 5E to the core PHB for players, at least for a while.

Dragon magazine and later on Essentials were out of control. I hope to avoid that this time around.

A good strategy. You saw 'core only' in 3.5 a lot, too (one reason WotC played the transparent "everything is core!" card). Games like D&D just have issues as they're added to.

 

[Pallidore]

I welcome the replies. I do hope we can avoid the vitriolic or ridiculing environment so much of our society, especially the virtual society, has lapsed into.

Concerning my post from last night, I was hoping that the rest of what I posted would be addressed, for I thought those points in need of discussion, but only some points were, and I guess I’ll chalk that up to time constraints. For instance, I really think there needs to be a discussion about the disconnect between immersion/character background/player investment vs. lethality, especially where new players and DMs are concerned. It seems to me the designers should have broken the game up from the get-go into high-risk/combat intensive games and low-medium risk/immersive intense games. Then people could make a knowing choice ahead of time and also know what type of experience they were agreeing to/getting into. Friends have already told me that the mortality rate for newbies in the starter 5E is fairly high, and even threads on this forum have chronicled such.

Pemerton: Very nice analysis of statistical probabilities of Disintegrate and Finger of Death spells. And I no longer remember my thought pattern when I wrote “cap or HD limit” and hereby withdraw that statement. My contention, however, is not from the straight one-shot damage, but that the character has been damaged first, then hit with one of these spells, from a caster that the character may not even be aware of, or, if aware, that he is a caster, or even if he knows he’s a caster, that he possesses one of these spells (or be able to do much about it, even if he knows).

KD: What about a scenario where the Hold Person spell is cast, target fails save, then caster sends in horde of mooks to finish off?

Large amounts of damage in a very short time can be devastating and sometimes moves too fast for PCs and their players. The period from “doing fine,” to “might die quick” can be compressed tremendously.

I agree with you that PCs are under the proverbial gun/knife/blade/etc. every time as opposed to one shot NPCs. But smart players are going to question the one-way train, where PCs get to do things to others, but are inexplicably immune to like treatment. Once again, when the intelligent new players catch on, the setting and gaming group (and game and hobby, really) have developed a problem.

Admonitions for DMs to refrain from using problematics is perhaps a “duh” for experienced DMs, but for newbie DMs? Hardly.

Too common Standard Operating Procedure patterns are symptomatic of game flaws, and also bore DMs and players alike and take the fun out of fantasy. Whack, then save-or-else (a better term) scenarios, while far less broken than combos of the past, could take on SOP characteristics.

I try to harken back to classic fantasy literature: how prevalent would a spell be? How often would it be used? What cost to the caster would there be? If the game is insufficient in answering those for newbie DMs and players, it seems to me there is a problem.

TV: “Spell lists are always expanding in D&D. All it takes is one incautiously written spell. Games like D&D just have issues as they’re added to.” Well said!

Still, I am hopeful that 5E will delightfully surprise me!