D&D 5E HP thresholds and control: a custom system

[Olrox17]

I agree with your basic premise. In some ways it's like AC, but unlike AC that has boosts for foes in terms of natural armor and such, saves are basically flat. Increased stats for foes still leave plenty of openings in terms of saves not advancing, and usually obvious ones (don't use STR or CON vs. an ogre, but maybe CHR or WIS would be good.)

The solution you are putting forth seems more to address the symptoms (reducing effects if a save is failed) than the root cause (too many saves stay low vs. (slowly) advancing DCs and fail a lot).

But, that being said, I love the idea of adding in an additional level of tactics where it's far from the best to throw out "nova" spells at the beginning of combat. You now get a balancing point - do I wait until later in combat, granting actions but having a bigger effect, or go now.

This even carries for straight damage spells. Fireball early, with the most targets (and the least intermingling of your front-liners), knowing that many/most/all of the foes will take reduced effect vs. waiting until more are under the threshold - BUT with focus fire you may end up with several targets dead and others still above the threshold.

Now, this does make fighter type PCs and foes more resistant to magic simply by virtue of having more HP. CON, already one of the three big saves, now serves double duty in helping to prop up against all failed saves.

This makes lower level slots drop off even quicker in offensive usefulness since not only will they have less effect vs. more powerful foes being lower level but will have a lower threshold so more likely that lesser effect will be even more reduced. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is a balance changer when only a few highest level slots are available. Balance might be better suited by allowing spells of about 2/3 your max spell level are suitable against on-level opponents, allowing you to have a reasonable selection of slots that will affect your most common foes, and a few that will still work well when the encounters have fewer, more powerful foes.

It also seems to encourage throwing damaging spells first before debuffs in order to ensure that they are under the threshold. Mostly noticeable because it's not intuitive to the in-game narrative. "Burn them so that my prayer may bind them!"

It seems a straight-out weakening of non-support casters - at best they have by-the-book effects but they can also have them reduced. Do you see casters (of the various different tiers and types) as too powerful or should there be an offsetting bonus to them?

A pretty good analysis. While I do not think that casters ,as a category, are too powerful, I do feel that control spells tend to scale too well compared to damage spells. Some of the most notorious examples being phantasmal force, hold person and banishment. One of my friends jokingly says that if you can get all three of those spells, you can conquer the world. Thing is, he's not entirely wrong: with six different saves in the game, and their atrocious scaling, an high level caster will always have the right tool for the job.

As for the "Burn them so that my prayer may bind them!"...yeah, I can see how that could raise some eyebrows. But if you use the PHB definition of HP (a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck), I think the concept may hold up to scrutiny. When HP damage is a combination of injury, stress, fatigue, demoralization and luck running out, I think the concept of HP thresholds can shine.

 

[mellored]

Good point. I agree that control spells are useful in breaking the routine of "I attack, I hit, I damage". And that's why I decided early on that HP thresholds should NOT grant an immunity, but rather a reduced effect.

I'm all for reducing the binary win/waste that many control spells have...

but you're still nerfing casters. They need something to compensate.


Also, i'm partial to +1/2 your proficiency in all saves. I give extra spell slots to compensate.

 

[mellored]

But, that being said, I love the idea of adding in an additional level of tactics where it's far from the best to throw out "nova" spells at the beginning of combat. You now get a balancing point - do I wait until later in combat, granting actions but having a bigger effect, or go now.

You need to be careful of death spirals if you do that.

You would want something that applied evenly to all participants. Not just made the weaker more vulnerable.
Like everyone has +3 to saving throws and AC on their fist turn. And -3 on their third turn.

 

[Olrox17]

I think the high-level control spells are meant to be taken in the context of a very different sort of game than many of us are used to playing. The defining feature of high-level is, I believe, a shift away from tactics toward longer-term strategy with moves and countermoves. Hard control high-level spells need to be viewed through that lens, rather than the lens of a single combat encounter.

Also, this would magnify a verisimilitude issue that I have with sleep:

A monster who you've hacked and stabbed and burned down to the appropriate HP threshold is suddenly...what...more susceptible to a sleep spell? What the Rust Monster!?! That makes no narrative sense...if anything an unsuspecting monster resting at ease or caught off-guard listening to a bard playing a tune should be more susceptible to a sleep spell in the narrative.

That similar incredulity applies to other hard control spells you mention like maze or whirlwind.

To work, narratively speaking, it requires the DM to narrate attack/spell damage in very non-intuitive ways such as "hemming in an opponent by dealing 16 slashing damage, which by the way doesn't cause any noticeable bleeding besides maybe a scratch, it's more a blow to their morale, finding a chink in their armor for the right moment."

Funnily enough, the high level spells are not my main concern. Yeah, I can't stand the fact that maze and forcecage have no save, but, honestly? I can accept their existence just because of the fact they're not going to see much play in 5e. High level slots are few and precious.
The spells that I can't stand are the low level ones that still hard lock their target. Too easy to throw them around all the time.

I also absolutely get your narrative concerns. Yes, if HP = injury in your game, HP thresholds will make no sense in your game. Like, none whatsoever. In fact, I suggest you house rule the various 5e spells that DO use HP thresholds (like sleep) for your game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not the worst idea I've heard. I think it's a better solution than the 4E method, where control abilities also did damage and you were likely to kill people by trying to blind them.

 

[Olrox17]

I'm all for reducing the binary win/waste that many control spells have...

but you're still nerfing casters. They need something to compensate.


Also, i'm partial to +1/2 your proficiency in all saves. I give extra spell slots to compensate.

Mello, I remember you from the WoTC forum. I know you're good with crunch and optimization. What do you think would be a fair compensation to control-specialized casters under this system? Keeping in mind that this system only "nerfs" control focused casters, not damage or utility focused ones, so any buff should only target control specialists.

 

[Quickleaf]

Funnily enough, the high level spells are not my main concern. Yeah, I can't stand the fact that maze and forcecage have no save, but, honestly? I can accept their existence just because of the fact they're not going to see much play in 5e. High level slots are few and precious.
The spells that I can't stand are the low level ones that still hard lock their target. Too easy to throw them around all the time.

Which low-level ones?

I also absolutely get your narrative concerns. Yes, if HP = injury in your game, HP thresholds will make no sense in your game. Like, none whatsoever. In fact, I suggest you house rule the various 5e spells that DO use HP thresholds (like sleep) for your game.

Question: how do you narrate damage dealt (say through swords, arrows, and a fire spell) leading up to sleep being able to work on a monster that it didn't before because their HP are now low enough?

EDIT: Oh I proposed house-ruling sleep but my players at the time didn't like it. Basically the issue is that sleep refers to current hit points, instead of maximum hit points. If it were the later, there'd be no narrative dissonance whatsoever; it was simply strong enough to put down the goblin but not the ogre. None of this, "well a wounded ogre more easily succumbs to sleep magic, as we all know, so the best strategy is for us to wound the ogre, then cast sleep upon him, and stab him while he's down, hopefully killing him before he awakes, because you know, after all, there are many examples of this in fantasy fiction and it feels quite appropriately heroic."

 

[mellored]

Mello, I remember you from the WoTC forum. I know you're good with crunch and optimization. What do you think would be a fair compensation to control-specialized casters under this system? Keeping in mind that this system only "nerfs" control focused casters, not damage or utility focused ones, so any buff should only target control specialists.

I took the divination wizard's ability.

If someone saves against your spell, you recover an expended spell slot of lower level.

 

[Olrox17]

I can only speak theoretically about high-level play, so I don't know how much of an issue the OP's concerns would really be for me, but it looks like the proposed house rule does what the OP wants it to do (perhaps a little too well).

My main concern in using it (again, hypothetically), would be that it is way too complicated for me to want to run. I'll take a simple formula over multiple charts any day.

In this case, I wonder if sliding save-success-scaling further toward the savee, as was entirely the case in pre-3.x D&D, wouldn't address this issue much more simply.

It would work like this:

All save DCs would equal 10 + spellcasting ability mod. No proficiency bonus. (Same DC as normal rules at 1, probably 13. Cap of 15 DC instead of 19 for characters. Monsters might have higher.)

Saving throws would still work as-is. Or, add half proficiency to non-proficient saves, if you prefer. Simple.

Alternatively, if you don't want the spellcasting DC to scale at all (to turn that dial all the way toward pre-3.x saves), set a flat 14 DC for all effects that call for saves. Even simpler.

Haha, I admit that I have a fondness for charts. One of the things I like about 5e is that it's such a simple system that I can add a bunch of extra charts and layers and the game still remains quite light. Heck, my current 5e campaign already uses almost ALL the rules from the Adventurer, Conqueror, Kings System. And boy, that game is all about charts.

That being said, adding half prof to saves is a simple and elegant solution, but it doesn't solve my main issue: how low level control spells work against a CR 1 monster just as they work against a CR 20 monster. Damage spells have to deal with Hit Points AND saving throws; control spells can just bypass Hit Points (and sometimes saves too: damn you forcecage!).

 

[Olrox17]

Which low-level ones?

The worst offenders I can think of are phantasmal force, hold person, hypnotic pattern and banishment. Together, they cover a wide array of saves, they all carry devastating effects, and they're all cheap and excellent at high levels.

Question: how do you narrate damage dealt (say through swords, arrows, and a fire spell) leading up to sleep being able to work on a monster that it didn't before because their HP are now low enough?

EDIT: Oh I proposed house-ruling sleep but my players at the time didn't like it. Basically the issue is that sleep refers to current hit points, instead of maximum hit points. If it were the later, there'd be no narrative dissonance whatsoever; it was simply strong enough to put down the goblin but not the ogre. None of this, "well a wounded ogre more easily succumbs to sleep magic, as we all know, so the best strategy is for us to wound the ogre, then cast sleep upon him, and stab him while he's down, hopefully killing him before he awakes, because you know, after all, there are many examples of this in fantasy fiction and it feels quite appropriately heroic."

To put it simply, when a blow is enough to drop someone to 0 hp, I will narrate what happened as an injury. Every other instance of damage is narrated as scratches, bruises, narrow dodges, stamina-consuming parries...basically, if a creature takes damage but is not dying on the ground, my description will usually convey how the creature is getting tired and worn out.

Which, tbh, is also how it goes in most movie duels. You usually don't see the actors getting stabbed 10 times and collapsing at the eleventh time. You see them dodging, parrying and taking minor wounds until one gets stabbed and collapses.