D&D 5E Levitate on an unwilling creature

[Harzel]

Thank you all for your responses. Several have pointed out that there are a lot of situations in which Levitate doesn't work at all, and a lot more where it only helps some. I agree that is true, but there are also a lot of situations in which it is an I win button, and I haven't seen any comments that say it doesn't work like I think it does in those cases. I don't think that is desirable, regardless of the number of situations in which that is not the case.

The expedient of allowing a save every round would, IMO, suffice to rein the spell in enough, but it feels really heavy-handed; I don't generally like departing from RAW that much. However, in this case it feels like the most straightforward solution.

 

[Harzel]

Powerful. Yes. But hold person is not a lot worse. Especially brutes without ranged weapons tend to have good constitution and bad wisdom. Also you don't impose all those terrible conditions that make hold person so powerful. If you want to compare it, compare it to phantasmal force which is about as dangerous as levitate. And then I'd say, both are rather powerful spells if used right.

The point about Phantasmal Force is interesting. However, PF feels a lot more situational to me, and it requires at least some creativity to come up with an appropriate illusion. Also, its effectiveness may depend on the reaction of the target, which is probably not predictable, and it allows (although does not guarantee) repeated saves.

Levitate on the other hand can be used in a very formulaic way - if an opponent is < 500 lbs, has limited ranged capabilities, and comprises a significant fraction of the threat in an encounter, then Levitate it and it is effectively eliminated.

 

[Harzel]

And yet, against some even lower level creatures, sleep is a die without a save.

Yes, and not surprisingly, I don't much care for Sleep either. Its use also tends to be very formulaic. Fortunately, it loses applicability pretty rapidly after opponents get to be CR 1 or so.

 

[Harzel]

Edit: and by the way, against monsters without ranged capabilities, a simple expeditious retreat is a first level no save and die spell. You can keep your distance and fire cantrips at your target. Ray of frost may be the best choice.

Kiting is a video game thing that generally won't work at my table, at least for killing things. Even a creature with only animal intelligence will not generally obligingly follow an uncatchable opponent who is showering it with ranged attacks. If the creature was attacking you as a potential meal, yes, that's probably an effective way to avoid it while driving it off. But if for example the creature is guarding something you need to get to, it is very likely there will be cover available and it won't come charging after you just because you get 'aggro'.

 

[Harzel]

I'm not saying it is better.

And I didn't say that you said it was better. The exchange was about your claim about what the designers have said. You referred to it as a guideline from the designers. I don't think it is unfair to say that you were implying that the designers were imputing some sort of goodness to having 6-8 encounters per day. If not, then what does it mean for something to be a guideline?

My post merely indicated that attrition is part of the game and having fewer encounters than perhaps what the designers intended will affect play. Do you disagree with that assessment?

I agree that attrition is part of the game, and that different numbers of encounters per adventuring day will make the game play differently.

Usually, when someone mentions "6-8 encounters per adventuring day", they are referring to a particular passage in the DMG, and implying that in that passage the designers say that the game is designed around having 6-8 encounters per adventuring day. My claim is that that is a misreading of that passage, and a fairly obvious misreading at that. If you had some other source in mind for 6-8 encounters per adventuring day being a guideline from the developers, I apologize for the assumption, and I would be eager to know about the source.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The point about Phantasmal Force is interesting. However, PF feels a lot more situational to me, and it requires at least some creativity to come up with an appropriate illusion. Also, its effectiveness may depend on the reaction of the target, which is probably not predictable, and it allows (although does not guarantee) repeated saves.

Levitate on the other hand can be used in a very formulaic way - if an opponent is < 500 lbs, has limited ranged capabilities, and comprises a significant fraction of the threat in an encounter, then Levitate it and it is effectively eliminated.

And you need to maintain concentration and again: less than 500 lbs effectively means medium size max. I think it would habe been nice if it was spelled out. I am not sure everybody knows how to calculate weight.

 

[Satyrn]

The expedient of allowing a save every round would, IMO, suffice to rein the spell in enough, but it feels really heavy-handed; I don't generally like departing from RAW that much. However, in this case it feels like the most straightforward solution.

Just remember that you only need to make this change if the spell is actually hurting the game. To me, that point isn't reached until the other players - or even the spell caster - starts bemoaning its use. And at that point you will have their support for the change.

If it doesn't actually get abused, or even if that abuse is creating fun, then you don't need to change anything.

 

[Ristamar]

It's not so useful that every caster will have it prepared at all times. And it's okay for players to hit the "win" button once in awhile when they do have it prepared in the right situation.

 

[Sadras]

You referred to it as a guideline from the designers. I don't think it is unfair to say that you were implying that the designers were imputing some sort of goodness to having 6-8 encounters per day. If not, then what does it mean for something to be a guideline?

So the purpose of the designers defining an Adventuring Day as x encounters per day is what in an attrition-based game?

Guidline is defined as below on the interwebs...which sub-description do you take issue with?

guideline
noun

• a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.
  "the organization has issued guidelines for people working with prisoners"
  

  synonyms:

  recommendation, instruction, direction, suggestion, advice; regulation, rule, requirement, specification, prescription, precept, principle, guiding principle; standard, criterion, measure, gauge, yardstick, benchmark, touchstone; procedure, parameter, constraint, limit

I agree that attrition is part of the game, and that different numbers of encounters per adventuring day will make the game play differently.

Well then we agree.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

The 6-8 encounters a day guideline in the DMG, regardless of whether that's actual game designer intent, is nonsense and is probably the biggest shortcoming of the 5E D&D ruleset.

Over the past 3 years, I've played two hardcovers to completion, plenty of AL games, a couple of 3rd-party softcovers, and at least five different home games. 6-8 encounters between long rest is a thing that simply does not happen. 80% of my adventures stopped at three or fewer resource-draining encounters between long rests. I have never had more than 5 encounters between long rests. And it's not like the team and I abuse things like Leomund's Tiny Hut and dungeon escapes and Rope Trick and whatever. It's just that the natural pace of the game rarely calls for more than four encounters between long rests. Hell, I've had more one-encounter workdays than I've had three-encounter workways.