Hold Person variant: Balance issue

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm reskinning a bunch of spells for a planned dungeon I'm creating, and was wondering what the consensus was on a change to Hold Person:

Instead of having a set (or randomly determined set) duration for the spell, how would giving victims of the spell another saving throw each turn affect the power level? Would this make it stronger (and raise it a level) or weaker (and lower it a level) or leave it about the same, except when the victims get a few unlucky rolls?

(The spell's visual will also change, with the victim turning into a toad or frog during the duration, instead of being paralyzed, allowing them, theoretically, to hop away in a panic.)

 

[GX.Sigma]

Doesn't it work this way in 3e and beyond?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It works that way in 3.5, but taking the save is a full-round action.

If there was an equivalent in 4e ... there sort of is ... you would get a save per turn, but as "no action" at the end of the turn.

This would weaken the spell in 3.0 or earlier, but at least in 3.0 that's a "needed" nerf. While it's still pretty crippling in 2e and earlier, between no save DCs and paralysis not putting you at a huge defensive disadvantage, it might be worth lowering the spell level (from Wiz 3 to Wiz 2). Then again, you could target multiple people with the spell in 2e, so maybe no level debuff is needed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It weakens the spell. To sort of compensate, for a single-target version, I'd forgo the initial saving throw: the spell always takes effect against a given opponent, but can be thrown off in subsequent rounds.

A multi-target version could keep the initial saving throw, and do a saving throw every round, and probably still be strong enough to be worth taking. Because "skip your turn" is a pretty potent effect.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It weakens the spell. To sort of compensate, for a single-target version, I'd forgo the initial saving throw: the spell always takes effect against a given opponent, but can be thrown off in subsequent rounds.

I think I'm going to go with a single target version, with a saving throw. This is going to be the signature spell for an enemy caster NPC on the easiest level of a dungeon. (After she turns targets into frogs, a flunky will then try to catch said frog and throw them into a boiling cauldron.)

Making the spell relatively low level is appropriate here.

Thanks, folks. I'll throw up a rough draft later.

 

[n00bdragon]

I think I'm going to go with a single target version, with a saving throw. This is going to be the signature spell for an enemy caster NPC on the easiest level of a dungeon. (After she turns targets into frogs, a flunky will then try to catch said frog and throw them into a boiling cauldron.)

Making the spell relatively low level is appropriate here.

Thanks, folks. I'll throw up a rough draft later.

Clearly you have an idea of what you want to do. Take a page from 4e and just make the effect do whatever you want. It's not necessary to modify the hold person spell (much as it needs a massive nerf just like 90% of the save-or-suck spells in D&D, though they are by no means the most broken things). Just dictate that the person has a the power to turn people into frogs. The PCs can't get the power.

 

[Ferghis]

Just dictate that the person has a the power to turn people into frogs. The PCs can't get the power.

I would do just this. You're the DM. If you want something to happen, just say it happens. There is no need to frame it in some rule or another.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm reskinning a bunch of spells for a planned dungeon I'm creating, and was wondering what the consensus was on a change to Hold Person:

Instead of having a set (or randomly determined set) duration for the spell, how would giving victims of the spell another saving throw each turn affect the power level? Would this make it stronger (and raise it a level) or weaker (and lower it a level) or leave it about the same, except when the victims get a few unlucky rolls?

I think that it weakens and therefore actually improve the spell (for the game's benefit, not the caster's benefit obviously).

But it doesn't fix the main problem of the spell, which is that of being a save-or-suck i.e. essentially a save-or-die in disguise (just combine it with coup-de-grace for instance). It's too low level for that, IMHO no low level spells should be save-or-die.

What would really fix the problem with save-or-suck spells such as Hold Person/Monster and Sleep, would be to make them so that if anybody attacks the spell's victim, the spell ends immediately. Then, Hold Person will really be used to Hold a target, and Sleep will really be used to put someone to sleep, not to kill it.

 

[Starfox]

If it is not a full-round action to try to throw off the spell, then you would have to fail two saving throws to have ANY effect.

Basically, you make your save on your round to see if you get to act NEXT round (you also stop being helpless). If you could roll this save as a free action, you'd need to fail the initial save AND the first round of effect save to actually lose an action (you'd still be helpless between failing the inital save and the beginning of your next turn).

Hope this helps.