D&D 5E Increasing spell power

[Skyscraper]

I wish to get some feedback on a house rule idea, having only a few sessions of 5E actual gameplay experience (but plenty of RPG and other D&D experience).

I find the "save at end of each turn" to be a bit too weak for non-damaging spells (such as hold person). I was thinking of perhaps allowing saves to be had only after the second round, i.e. on your first turn affected by a spell that allows a saving throw, you don't get a save; and then on the second and ulterior rounds, you get a save.

I understand that this would increase the power of spellcasters in non-insignificant way. I actually like that. I like that a party wants to get to the wizard at the back, because he's a dangerous opponent.

Any thoughts on this tweak?

Have any of you toyed with this rule or other similar ones?

Any comments welcome. I'm not deadset on this idea, just mildly thinking about it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think reverting spells to earlier versions or different edition mechanics is not broken in the mechanical sense.

It may be broken in the 'unbalanced' or 'not fun for someone' sense but if they were fine in X edition that way, they are 'fine' in 5th edition that way.

Sounds like once you fail and Hold save you'd automatically lose 2 rounds (the first and get a save at the end of the second round).

An alternate two saves mechanic is actually one I've considered as well (the immediate save and then 1 or 2 more then full effect). After 2 or more fails you probably deserve it.

5th edition still let's one recover from petrification, poison, death, insanity, disease, paralysation, etc. so there's still nothing that will absolutely end your game. When you look at the Optional Injury rules in the DMG and can lose an arm or leg after a crit - getting held for a minute after failing 2 saves looks tame.

Just give everyone a heads up.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Being disabled for most of a fight with no chance of breaking free isn't very much fun. Having a saving throw each round keeps the player engaged despite their inability to act and gives them something to look forward to on their turn. The player at least has some hope. Absent that, the player will just sit there bored and frustrated.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I had the player who likes to cast hold suggest the same thing... it took 1 fight he completely sat out for him to change his tune...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think the easiest way to judge whether this is a change you want to make or not is to ask yourself if you find a guaranteed full round of turns that could be spent getting advantage on attack rolls and all hits (within distance, sure, but that is easily gotten if desired) counted as critical hits to be a pro or a con.

 

[werecorpse]

Hold person is a spell that has changed completely with the save again mechanic. You have to think about them very differently than in earlier editions.

In 1e if you cast hold on an enemy and they failed their save you would essentially ignore them until the end of the fight. They were out and only became a threat if an ally magicked them back.

In 5e you know it's only going to last a short time, maybe only 1 round, and during that time melee combatants get advantage, every hit is a critical and the victim gets no dex or str save. So the tactically what you get is a short window to maximise your beat down on an enemy. Everyone who can piles on and beats the crap out of the held guy. Plus they have no reaction so you can conga line past them without repercussions.

I suspect your players are still in the 1e mind set (mine are just beginning to shift) and they see a held person as out of the fight rather than as a guy with a great big target on them.

Any option that makes a target "weak now but likely to return to full strength very soon and certainly before the fight is over" likely will mean the party piles on.

I think part of the reason for this is that the creators don't want PC's to be out of the fight for a long time (probably because 3e & 4e fights last forever) which I totally understand - but it has consequences.

In 1e when a pack of say 5 ghouls attacked you feared it at any level because they got three chances to paralyse you and then you might be dragged off and eaten. In 5e ghouls have learned to attack sequentially - if ghoul 1 paralyses someone ghouls 2-5 run over and tear the paralysed victim apart.

 

[CapnZapp]

Being disabled for most of a fight with no chance of breaking free isn't very much fun. Having a saving throw each round keeps the player engaged despite their inability to act and gives them something to look forward to on their turn. The player at least has some hope. Absent that, the player will just sit there bored and frustrated.

I believe the OP is looking at it from the opposite perspective: playing a spellcaster who casts hold person successfully only for the target to break free after one turn.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I believe the OP is looking at it from the opposite perspective: playing a spellcaster who casts hold person successfully only for the target to break free after one turn.

That may be, but one still has to take both perspectives into account. Even if the rules change is initially made with the PC in mind, sooner or later the situation's going to come up in the other direction. Unless the DM plans to have the spell work differently when used by the PCs vs against them--which is a valid way to play, I guess, but not what most of us would recommend or prefer, I think--those implications have to be considered.

 

[CapnZapp]

My point is that when you're frustrated because your spell doesn't stick, you probably don't want to consider the situation when the spell is used against you. That may be now, or it may be never, but Falling Icicle's reply still amounts to changing the subject.

You start your reply with "That may be" but hold it there. Is it or is it not?

That, I believe, is what the poster wants to discuss.

And your post is just another example of the reluctance to discuss the overall issue, namely "has save or suck spells been nerfed a bit too hard?"

The fact you don't want one of those spells in your own face is kind of beside the issue. You may be saying "I don't want to strengthen these spells because I don't want to suck myself" but what you aren't doing then is discussing the topic, which is "if save or suck spells are weakish, why should I use them? Why not use damage spells or summon spells or whatever instead?"

To take this to the really interesting part straight away:

How far can you take this? How much can you cater to players disliking the "suck" part of these spells before the players abandon them for their own use?

Moreover, what this discussion is saying is "hold person isn't really a save or suck spell anymore, it is a damage dealing spell".

So the question the becomes: since defeating monsters by other means than whittling down their hp is inherently unbalanced, has D&D finally removed the option to truly bypass the hp pool as a means to defeat your targets (including player characters)?

 

[MarkB]

My point is that when you're frustrated because your spell doesn't stick, you probably don't want to consider the situation when the spell is used against you. That may be now, or it may be never, but Falling Icicle's reply still amounts to changing the subject.

It really doesn't. The subject is the potential effects of changing the spell save mechanics. The only way to have a balanced discussion of those effects is to consider them from both sides - from the viewpoint of both caster and subject.

To take this to the really interesting part straight away:

How far can you take this? How much can you cater to players disliking the "suck" part of these spells before the players abandon them for their own use?

It's a fair question, but it's already been answered at least once. According to the third reply to this thread, for one group it was precisely until the player in question was the one on the receiving end.

Moreover, what this discussion is saying is "hold person isn't really a save or suck spell anymore, it is a damage dealing spell".

More like a strong party-buffing/enemy-debuffing spell. But it can still end a fight - even a single round is long enough to disarm and hogtie an enemy if the party work together.

So the question the becomes: since defeating monsters by other means than whittling down their hp is inherently unbalanced, has D&D finally removed the option to truly bypass the hp pool as a means to defeat your targets (including player characters)?

It's certainly greatly restricted such options, which is very welcome.