HP Thresholds

[Oni]

Possibly.

It would be very interesting to see it tried though, even if it has to be by a 3rd party.

There are systems that handle magic in this fashion. Legends of Anglerre, for instance, basically handles going to 0 stress (HP) as losing narrative control. However there it is a lot more nuanced and there are degrees of effect and you can also lay down smaller status conditions as maneuvers. But for something like that to work the system would have to be revised from the ground up, the scaling of HP in D&D is too great. It would require more than an overhaul of the magic system, it would require an overhaul of the entire game system, it would need to be changed on a fundamental level to work IMHO.

 

[jadrax]

There are systems that handle magic in this fashion. Legends of Anglerre, for instance, basically handles going to 0 stress (HP) as losing narrative control. However there it is a lot more nuanced and there are degrees of effect and you can also lay down smaller status conditions as maneuvers. But for something like that to work the system would have to be revised from the ground up, the scaling of HP in D&D is too great. It would require more than an overhaul of the magic system, it would require an overhaul of the entire game system, it would need to be changed on a fundamental level to work IMHO.

Not sure it would tbh, as I understand it the idea was to just give spells an amount of damage they do, and an effect they do instead if you are on 0 Hit Points.

So Sleep (as an example) would do d10 Damage, but if it takes you to 0 Hit Points knocks you unconscious. If you wanted it to kick in earlier you could have a Hit Point Threshold (like the 5th edition sleep already has) or even just say it effects you at bloodied.

It would essentially mean you use your Hit Points to automatically avoid the spell, but at the cost of them being depleted, just like with normal attacks.

 

[BobTheNob]

Not sure it would tbh, as I understand it the idea was to just give spells an amount of damage they do, and an effect they do instead if you are on 0 Hit Points.

So Sleep (as an example) would do d10 Damage, but if it takes you to 0 Hit Points knocks you unconscious. If you wanted it to kick in earlier you could have a Hit Point Threshold (like the 5th edition sleep already has) or even just say it effects you at bloodied.

It would essentially mean you use your Hit Points to automatically avoid the spell, but at the cost of them being depleted, just like with normal attacks.

The thing that is missing in this for me is that the big hit point guys could still be taken down. Got that really tough looking fighter with triple figure hit points over there thats sending chills up your spine...hit him with a doom, or a sleep, or a hold person.

You didnt have to tackle him on his terms (his terms being a massive hit point pool). You could bypass his hit points and tackle him a different way. I remember in 2e when a mage appeared the fighters got scared! Not because he could throw fireballs (they had the HP to withstand those), but because he could shut them down.

My issue with basing spells on hit points is that now, HP is your spell resistance. What is suggested here is an alternate way of handling to what WOTC is pushing, but its still HP=Spell resistance.

Im just afraid with this that all players will need to do is stack every cheeseball loophole they can find (and they will find them) to stack HP, and your done. Thats your damage resistance AND your spell resistance all rolled into one.

 

[nomotog]

For me that's a +. I don't think you should be able to just bypass all those hitpoints. It's more critical with the flat math. The only real difference in defense between level 1 and 20 is your HP total.

 

[Oni]

Not sure it would tbh, as I understand it the idea was to just give spells an amount of damage they do, and an effect they do instead if you are on 0 Hit Points.

So Sleep (as an example) would do d10 Damage, but if it takes you to 0 Hit Points knocks you unconscious. If you wanted it to kick in earlier you could have a Hit Point Threshold (like the 5th edition sleep already has) or even just say it effects you at bloodied.

It would essentially mean you use your Hit Points to automatically avoid the spell, but at the cost of them being depleted, just like with normal attacks.

This opens up all sorts of weirdness.

You can heal sleep spells and charms.

You can make people more susceptible to charming by punching them in the face.

Should HP totals be hidden when you're essentially asking people to gamble their limited resources on trying to achieve a specific effect.

Why are wizards suddenly so much more susceptible to magic than everyone else?

Why does it matter what you cast when everything essentially has the same effect unless it's a finishing blow. At least fighters have maneuvers to choose from.

 

[BobTheNob]

For me that's a +. I don't think you should be able to just bypass all those hitpoints. It's more critical with the flat math. The only real difference in defense between level 1 and 20 is your HP total.

Really? I had just assumed that I wasnt alone on that. So interesting to hear that someone thinks its a good thing.

Just to verify, you LIKE that a fighter is more spell resistant than a cleric who is more spell resistant than a rogue who is more spell resistant than a mage. That a mage, the guy who knows magic better than anyone, is also the guy most vulnerable to it.

Thats what you like?

(Edit : Oh, and please read Oni's post directly before. His concerns are mine)

 

[pemerton]

I don't think you should be able to just bypass all those hitpoints. It's more critical with the flat math. The only real difference in defense between level 1 and 20 is your HP total.

Really? I had just assumed that I wasnt alone on that. So interesting to hear that someone thinks its a good thing.

I'm pretty sympathetic to nomotog on this. It's kind of lame if a 1st level kobold shaman can end run around a 20th level fighter's hp using a charm spell.

Just to verify, you LIKE that a fighter is more spell resistant than a cleric who is more spell resistant than a rogue who is more spell resistant than a mage. That a mage, the guy who knows magic better than anyone, is also the guy most vulnerable to it.

This could fairly easily be handled by a damage reduction mechanic, couldn't it? Which seems like it would model the mage's spell resistance quite well.

 

[nomotog]

Really? I had just assumed that I wasnt alone on that. So interesting to hear that someone thinks its a good thing.

Just to verify, you LIKE that a fighter is more spell resistant than a cleric who is more spell resistant than a rogue who is more spell resistant than a mage. That a mage, the guy who knows magic better than anyone, is also the guy most vulnerable to it.

Thats what you like?

(Edit : Oh, and please read Oni's post directly before. His concerns are mine)

I don't think one has to lead to the other. You can make the cleric/wizard more resistant to spells by giving them some kind of SR. It's safe money to bet that the cleric will get some kind ward spell well the wizard will get a counter spell.

I don't like how punching someone will make them easier to charm. It makes some kind of sense, but not enough sense. They can change the spell so it goes by maximum HP rather then current HP. I think charm spells are the only ones with this problem though. It makes perfect sense that punching someone to makes them easier to put to sleep.

 

[pemerton]

It makes perfect sense that punching someone to makes them easier to put to sleep.

I think I can squint and see what you're seeing, but it's not what I saw the first time I looked!

For balancing sleep, I prefer an approach that makes it depend upon how excited/energised vs weary/relaxed the target is. So it should be easy to sleep the guards goofing around throwing dice in their barracks, but hard to sleep the goblilns fighting for their lives. Even if they have been beaten up a bit, I feel that that makes them sore, not sleepy!

About 18 months ago I got hammered on an actual play thread where I described a skill challenge against a dire bear - two PCs intimidated it, two others soothed it, and the dwarf got hugged and beaten up by it. At the end of the skill challenge, the party succeeded, and I narrated a bear scared of two PCs, seeking solace with the other two, and needing to be kept out of sight of the dwarf (whom it still wanted to eat).

I thought this was fine, but as I said I got hammered in the thread for the unverisimilitudinous bear psychology displayed in my narration. And now I guess I'm doing the same thing - I'm just not clear what is going on, in the fiction, such that getting beaten up on makes you more susceptible to falling asleep. Are you envisaging something more analogous to being knocked out by a blow?

 

[BobTheNob]

I don't think one has to lead to the other. You can make the cleric/wizard more resistant to spells by giving them some kind of SR. It's safe money to bet that the cleric will get some kind ward spell well the wizard will get a counter spell.

I don't like how punching someone will make them easier to charm. It makes some kind of sense, but not enough sense. They can change the spell so it goes by maximum HP rather then current HP. I think charm spells are the only ones with this problem though. It makes perfect sense that punching someone to makes them easier to put to sleep.

Fair enough.

I fully sympathize with the whole kobold shaman shouldn't sleep a 20th fighter. This idea of toeing hp to effect has a noble intention. Maybe I will wait for the next play test, see whether they can pull a rabit out of the hat.

Won't hold my breath though...might loose hit points, then I won't be as resistant to someone trying to sell me a fat blasting abb crunchers.