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

[Xeviat]

Sorry if someone else said it already, but I just changed the base DCs to 10+modifiers and gave everybody (players and npcs and monsters) proficiency in all saves. It's worked for me. Good saves become slightly worse by comparison, and bad saves become reasonable. I may go back and have proficient saves grant +2 to the save, but I haven't found it necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes, counters to control do exist. A carefully crafted group of PCs can be almost immune to control. A paladin for the aura, an abjurer for counterspelling, maybe a monk to stun and take out enemy casters. However, I don't feel like every PC party should be required to choose some very specific builds just to counter one element of the game. An element that, frankly, was just built over shaky math that lacks appropriate scaling.

That goes double for monsters. Yes, as a DM I can bestow condition immunities and legendary resistance on my critters every time I want to. But I feel like that's just a cheap way to tackle the problem. I think that the whole reason I started this project is that I think it's unfair to slap legendary resistance or a bunch of immunities on every other monster just to keep the game challenging. I wanted to do things differently, and HP thresholds is just what I happened to come up with.

Well, that's a great answer to my secondary point. And I fully agree with you about legendary resistance being cheap and un-flavorful.

However, you didn't address my primary point: Concentration.

Disrupting a caster's Concentration is the easiest, no-party-optimizing-needed, approach to end the control spells you described (e.g. phantasmal force, hold person, hypnotic pattern and banishment – all of which require Concentration). Why doesn't disrupting Concentration work in your game? Do you forget to enforce the rule? Something else?

(1) Right. From your signature, I get the feeling you're familiar with 4e. My players really liked the bloodied condition from 4e, so we kept it in 5e. So, basically, the monsters go through 3 phases: healthy, bloodied, and dying/dead. The bloodied condition usually helps the players a lot. Also, I always give hints if monster knowledge checks are successfully employed.

(2) I'll be honest, I never heard my players talking, let alone complaining, about that. I guess it just makes sense for them. Personally, I imagine it like this: picture yourself on the couch, watching the most boring movie ever. Are you going to fall asleep? If it's morning and you've just woken up, probably not. But after a long day of work, when you're low on energy (hit points)? Almost guaranteed!

Yep, I do #1 as well.

In regards to #2, it sounds like your conception of 5e's short combats is "combat is tiring and wears you down", is that right? And that's how you narrate it? In my games combat gets the player's blood pumping, it's fast and intense, and it's hard to imagine as combat making it somehow easier (or just possible at all) to sleep a creature.

 

[Olrox17]

The half proficiency bonus to saves was just a nonessential variant to the two versions of my proposed houserule. The main solution is on the other side of the scale.

In version 1, save DCs are derived without proficiency modifiers (and with a base 10+, instead of 8+, to partially compensate). This greatly reduces the scaling of DCs so that non-proficient saves can compete, although a proficient save with a good ability modifier will be even more likely to succeed at high levels.

In version 2, the save DC is flat, regardless of the source. This most closely resembles the role of saves in pre-3.x D&D as nothing more than a set of survival abilities.

If you want spell level to factor in, here's a third version:

All spell DCs = 12 + 1/3 spell-level, for a range of DCs 12-15 (assuming cantrips are level 0). This as granular as I can see to make it without having a DC range that is too extreme on either the low or high end.

Variation 1: Always round down. This makes all 2nd or lower-level spells DC 12, 3rd-5th level spells have DC 13, 6th-8th level spells have DC 14, and 9th level spells have DC 15.

Variation 2: Always round up. This makes cantrips DC 12, 1st-3rd level spells have DC 13, 4th-6th level spells have DC 14, and 7th-9th level spells have DC 15.

Variation 3: Round to the nearest whole number. This makes cantrips and 1st level spells DC 12, 2nd-4th level spells have DC 13, 5th-7th level spells have DC 14, and 8th-9th have DC 15.

Yeah, I think the third version (either variation) is the one I like the most, and might be what I'll end up using if I decide to ditch the HP threshold idea. Just out of curiosity, how do you handle DC scaling in your game? Are you ok with the default rules or do you use one of those houserules you proposed?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Disrupting a caster's Concentration is the easiest, no-party-optimizing-needed, approach to end the control spells you described (e.g. phantasmal force, hold person, hypnotic pattern and banishment – all of which require Concentration). Why doesn't disrupting Concentration work in your game? Do you forget to enforce the rule? Something else?

Having run a campaign that's lasted the better part of a year, I can count on one hand the number of times a PC has had their Concentration disrupted, with two fingers remaining.

As a general rule, PCs have high AC and good Constitution saves. The vast majority of attacks against them will fail to hit, and of those that do, few will force a save higher than DC 10.

 

[Olrox17]

Well, that's a great answer to my secondary point. And I fully agree with you about legendary resistance being cheap and un-flavorful.

However, you didn't address my primary point: Concentration.

Disrupting a caster's Concentration is the easiest, no-party-optimizing-needed, approach to end the control spells you described (e.g. phantasmal force, hold person, hypnotic pattern and banishment – all of which require Concentration). Why doesn't disrupting Concentration work in your game? Do you forget to enforce the rule? Something else?

Gotta admit: on paper, concentration looks like a huge balancing factor. I just find that in practice it doesn't matter all that often. Granted, when breaking concentration works, it makes a huge difference. But here's what usually happens at our table. A caster throws a powerful control spell, say hold person, and locks down several enemies. The caster then uses its movement to retreat far away, possibly behind a corner and a line of tough frontline allies. It's a very common tactic at my table, and I use it myself when possible. Once I (involuntarily) forced the party to surrender when an enemy cleric paralyzed 3 out of 4 members of the party with hold person and ran away. The bard just realized he had no chance alone and immediately started negotiating.

Yep, I do #1 as well.

In regards to #2, it sounds like your conception of 5e's short combats is "combat is tiring and wears you down", is that right? And that's how you narrate it? In my games combat gets the player's blood pumping, it's fast and intense, and it's hard to imagine as combat making it somehow easier (or just possible at all) to sleep a creature.

Have you ever watched the movie Troy? The fight between Achilles and Hector is a good example of what I mean. Hector doesn't get injured for the whole fight, but you can see him getting sloppier and sloppier as fatigue kicks in. The moment he gets finally injured, it's a fatal wound.

 

[Rune]

Yeah, I think the third version (either variation) is the one I like the most, and might be what I'll end up using if I decide to ditch the HP threshold idea. Just out of curiosity, how do you handle DC scaling in your game? Are you ok with the default rules or do you use one of those houserules you proposed?

The default rules haven't really be an issue for me at low levels. I was just spitballing, really. But now I'm thinking version 2 might be fun to try. Although I might bump it to DC 15 for aesthetic purposes. I think in that scenario, I would include half proficiency on non-proficient saves to further emphasize that saves equal survival competency.

 

[cooperjer]

I'm wondering if you're working to solve a problem that you perceive to be true, but have not seen in game play. The first post speaks mostly to high level spells causing significant change in an encounter. Later it's mentioned that lower level control spells are messing with an encounter. If you restated the concern in your second post with some detail on the level range that is causing problem, then I feel I would have a better grasp of what your real concern is.

Several things jumped to mind as I read through the proposal and the responses. 1. Are the PCs encountering monsters that are such a low level that their save capability is very poor? 2. Are the PCs encountering monsters that have a poor save in a specific ability (i.e. Giants are going to perform differently than Kuo-Toa). 3. The table seems cumbersome. Is there a way to simplify it? 4. What if we look at it from a players point of view and consider a rule design that results with a spell always doing something, even with a failed save.

Expanding on #4 may eliminate the table. It may require you to adjust the DCs of spells or increase the save ability of monsters. I'll suggest using a passive save. If the character exceeds the DC with the passive save then they are affected by the minor affect. If the passive save does not meet or exceed the DC then a roll can be performed to try and pass the DC. This reduces rolling, eliminates a table of HP look up, but would still require you to re-write control spells to include a minor effect. If you want you could use a value of 12, or any number of your liking, instead of 10 for the passive score starting point.

Once you implement the idea into your game please post how it went.

 

[seebs]

Gotta admit: on paper, concentration looks like a huge balancing factor. I just find that in practice it doesn't matter all that often. Granted, when breaking concentration works, it makes a huge difference. But here's what usually happens at our table. A caster throws a powerful control spell, say hold person, and locks down several enemies. The caster then uses its movement to retreat far away, possibly behind a corner and a line of tough frontline allies. It's a very common tactic at my table, and I use it myself when possible. Once I (involuntarily) forced the party to surrender when an enemy cleric paralyzed 3 out of 4 members of the party with hold person and ran away. The bard just realized he had no chance alone and immediately started negotiating.

That spell only has a 60' range and allows a save every turn...

 

[Blue]

I just had an alternate thought, one that doesn't rely on unintuitive narratives like if you cause the ogre pain it will be easier to charm.


After you do whatever buff to offset, why not give spells two saves. Fail one - limited result, fail both, full result.

Not even assuming monstrous ability score mods (higher than 20) that do was well as making a save trained, each monster would have 2 good saves of 6. Now, with one save, that's only 2 chance in 3 of a random spell going against a bad save, and you can make educated guesses and bring hat way up. But chance for a random spell to avoid both good saves would be (1-2/6) * (1 - 2/5) = 2/15. Even educated guesses will have a lot less options, much less a one size fits all,.

Now, I disagree that this is such a large issue that we need to revamp the whole system instead of look at a few problematic spells in the first place. But if you do want to revamp, this would fit your needs well.

 

[Olrox17]

After almost exactly a year of playtesting the HP threshold system, I'm back in this thread. I've edited the OP to match the current status of the system at this point.

Playtesting started on a group of 5 level 4 PCs, who are now almost level 9.
The PCs are a level 8 battlemaster, a level 8 assassin, a multiclass level 4 thief/4 shadow monk, a level 8 tome warlock of the fiend and a multiclass 7 lore bard/1 fighter.

They are not control specialists, but between the bard and the warlock they do have enough control to turn the tide of battle.
Up to this point, the threshold system has worked well. It doesn't come up often, which is great, but when it does come up, it makes a difference.

The latest example happened last session. The group encountered 2 chimeras, and the bard rolled high initiative. He cast hypnotic pattern on both chimeras, and both failed their save. Normally, that would've turned a challenging battle into a cakewalk. With the threshold system, the chimeras were just charmed, instead of incapacitated. So the fight went on, with the party fighting off one of the chimeras while the bard used his charisma and the charmed condition to keep the other chimera in check, eventually persuading it to go away (good thing he can speak draconic...).

Anyway, I'm aware that this system probably ended up being too cumbersome to be easily plugged into anyone's campaign. It's a complex solution to a complex problem, but it's working great for us, and I just thought I'd share our experience.