D&D 5E WHAT IF... Spells didn't do damage?

[BookTenTiger]

Like Marvel's WHAT IF comics of old, I sometimes enjoy coming up with a crazy change to the structure of D&D and then thinking through the implications.

So here's one:

There are innumerable threads about martials vs spellcasters. I was thinking about the roles of each in combat, and I came up with a crazy idea.

What if spells didn't do direct damage? What if the only way to actually damage an enemy was to hit it with a weapon (or push it down a staircase, or set it on fire, etc).

I could see a few ways of adapting the 5e Spells to all be non-damaging...

One way would be through conditions. What if spells that deal damage instead created Conditions?

For example, you could have an On Fire Condition.

On Fire: Whenever a creature with the On Fire Condition takes damage, it also takes 1d6 fire damage per level of spell cast upon it. The creature casts bright light in a 15-foot radius, and flammable objects touching the creature catch fire.

So any spell that deals fire damage would instead, on a successful Spell Attack or failed Saving Throw, create the On Fire Condition. Maybe the condition would last for the Duration of the spell?

For cold spells, it could be something like...

Frozen: Whenever a creature with the Frozen Condition takes damage, it also takes 1d4 cold damage per level of spell cast upon it. The creature's speed is reduced to 5 feet.

Or you could even do a "pick your own condition" system. Like for an Acid Spell, you could do:

Corroded: When you cast a spell that successfully deals Acid Damage, choose instead one of the following effects, which lasts as long as the spell duration:

• Corroded Armor: The target's Armor Class is reduced by a number equal to your Proficiency Bonus.
• Blinding Acid: The target suffers disadvantage on Perception Checks, Investigation Checks, and Ranged Attacks.
• Slippery Acid: The target falls prone, and suffers disadvantage on Athletics and Acrobatics checks.

Anyways, those are just some wild ideas. What else could we do if we took the premise spells don't deal direct damage and applied it to 5e D&D?

 

[TheSword]

What If dandelions were red, or bees flew backwards.

I guess my question is… what is the benefit?

 

[Umbran]

For example, you could have an On Fire Condition.

On Fire: Whenever a creature with the On Fire Condition takes damage, it also takes 1d6 fire damage per level of spell cast upon it. The creature casts bright light in a 15-foot radius, and flammable objects touching the creature catch fire.

So any spell that deals fire damage would instead, on a successful Spell Attack or failed Saving Throw, create the On Fire Condition. Maybe the condition would last for the Duration of the spell?

But, if nothing else hits it, is stand there, on fire, taking no damage? That doesn't make a huge amount of narrative sense.

 

[Oofta]

Like Marvel's WHAT IF comics of old, I sometimes enjoy coming up with a crazy change to the structure of D&D and then thinking through the implications.

So here's one:

There are innumerable threads about martials vs spellcasters. I was thinking about the roles of each in combat, and I came up with a crazy idea.

What if spells didn't do direct damage? What if the only way to actually damage an enemy was to hit it with a weapon (or push it down a staircase, or set it on fire, etc).

I could see a few ways of adapting the 5e Spells to all be non-damaging...

One way would be through conditions. What if spells that deal damage instead created Conditions?

For example, you could have an On Fire Condition.

On Fire: Whenever a creature with the On Fire Condition takes damage, it also takes 1d6 fire damage per level of spell cast upon it. The creature casts bright light in a 15-foot radius, and flammable objects touching the creature catch fire.

So any spell that deals fire damage would instead, on a successful Spell Attack or failed Saving Throw, create the On Fire Condition. Maybe the condition would last for the Duration of the spell?

For cold spells, it could be something like...

Frozen: Whenever a creature with the Frozen Condition takes damage, it also takes 1d4 cold damage per level of spell cast upon it. The creature's speed is reduced to 5 feet.

Or you could even do a "pick your own condition" system. Like for an Acid Spell, you could do:

Corroded: When you cast a spell that successfully deals Acid Damage, choose instead one of the following effects, which lasts as long as the spell duration:

• Corroded Armor: The target's Armor Class is reduced by a number equal to your Proficiency Bonus.
• Blinding Acid: The target suffers disadvantage on Perception Checks, Investigation Checks, and Ranged Attacks.
• Slippery Acid: The target falls prone, and suffers disadvantage on Athletics and Acrobatics checks.

Anyways, those are just some wild ideas. What else could we do if we took the premise spells don't deal direct damage and applied it to 5e D&D?

Your on fire condition is still causing damage. You've just added a cross reference.

 

[BookTenTiger]

What If dandelions were red, or bees flew backwards.

I guess my question is… what is the benefit?

I guess the benefit would be further differentiating spellcasting vs martial play in combat.

Keep in mind this isn't something I've thought through, but is more of a thought experiment.

But, if nothing else hits it, is stand there, on fire, taking no damage? That doesn't make a huge amount of narrative sense.

I suppose you could describe it in more detail like this:

On Fire: When a creature has the On Fire condition, it is constantly in danger of bursting into flames. The creature spends its time slapping at its body or clothes, battling the embers, but when distracted by an attack flares up in gouts of flame. The creature suffers from the following effects:

• Weapon attacks deal extra fire damage equal to 1d6/spell level
• The creature sheds bright light in a 15-foot radius and dim light in a 30-foot radius.
• Flammable objects the creature is touching catch on fire.

Your on fire condition is still causing damage. You've just added a cross reference.

The idea is that the damage would only happen when a martial attack hits. This shifts the narrative damage from the spellcaster to the martial character.


Once more, this is just a wild idea I'm exploring. Feel free to add your own variations or ideas!

 

[TheSword]

I still don’t get the benefit. How is making spell casting fundamentally different to attacking good for the game?

What’s the virtue to this approach, or perhaps what’s the problem you’re trying to fix?

For what it’s worth, I can’t see a benefit and don’t see the point.

 

[Oofta]

If I were a spellcaster-fan in this scenario I'd just get a sling/bow/crossbow or whatever I'm proficient in and use that. So instead of casting a spell I'd roll to hit or possibly lob a fireball grenade. Slightly different flavor (which can be fun) but doesn't really change much.

I'd probably go the other way if the perception is that martial are on the losing end of the stick, I'd give martial type characters more options. So that flametongue sword can now be charged up and you have X charges to spend per day. Getting hit starts up the "on fire" status, with the number of die rolled being dependent on number of charges used. Once someone is on fire adding the status again doesn't change anything.

Changing the casters? Either you have to come up with a whole new system from scratch or it just changes the fluff of the spells.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I still don’t get the benefit. How is making spell casting fundamentally different to attacking good for the game?

What’s the virtue to this approach, or perhaps what’s the problem you’re trying to fix?

For what it’s worth, I can’t see a benefit and don’t see the point.

I guess what I'm seeing in my mind is creating a need for synergy between spellcasting and martial fighting... If spells create conditions that then benefit the martial characters, both are contributing to the flow and narrative of combat in different ways.

In my mind's eye I see a wizard casting a fireball that catches a bunch of enemies on fire- they're writhing around, trying to put out the flames... But it's the fighter who actually reduces their hit points to 0.

Or a dragon getting slowed down by an ice spell so that the paladin can close in and chop it down.

To me, taking damage out of spells would be an interesting way to create really different roles in combat. I'm not sure it would actually work, but it's fun to tinker with!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I guess what I'm seeing in my mind is creating a need for synergy between spellcasting and martial fighting... If spells create conditions that then benefit the martial characters, both are contributing to the flow and narrative of combat in different ways.

In my mind's eye I see a wizard casting a fireball that catches a bunch of enemies on fire- they're writhing around, trying to put out the flames... But it's the fighter who actually reduces their hit points to 0.

Or a dragon getting slowed down by an ice spell so that the paladin can close in and chop it down.

To me, taking damage out of spells would be an interesting way to create really different roles in combat. I'm not sure it would actually work, but it's fun to tinker with!

Personally, I don't think that a party should be required to have martials in any more than it should be required to have casters in.

Of all the various issues that compose the caster/martial power discrepancy, the damage that casters can do is a pretty negligible one.
Control abilities, out-of-combat utility and having general variety, fun and interesting options are things that I would regard way more important.

 

[GreyLord]

Finger of Death - instills the Death condition...