D&D 5E Increasing spell power

[pming]

Hiya!

Being disabled for most of a fight with no chance of breaking free isn't very much fun.

Casting a spell and having it only work for one round with no chance of it disabling the bad guy isn't very much fun.

See? Two can play that game.

In my next 5e game/campaign, my house rule is that if the spell has a "X time, up to Y duration", the spell lasts until Y unless a save is made. A save is rolled as the spell is cast. The target can re-roll his save each turn, but the spellcaster gets to roll a "spell attack"; if the casters spell attack roll is equal or higher than the targets re-roll, then the target is till affected. This goes up until the caster stops concentration or the Y duration is reached. If there is no Y, then it lasts until the caster fails his spell attack to keep the spell on the target, or the caster otherwise stops. And yes, this will count as a "Concentration" spell.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

I think that would be perfectly fine. Although I would probably make it a feat:

Insidious Spell

• Gain +1 casting stat.
• When you cast a spell with an ongoing save, the target automatically fails it's first round ongoing save.

 

[bgbarcus]

Perhaps there is room for a Hold Person that does not give advantages to attacking the victim, but in return makes the victim unable to participate in the combat for longer?

That spell is Banishment. 5e combats move so fast and the effect of removing a single opponent is big enough that the power to take a big enemy out of the combat moved from 2nd to 4th level.

Hold Person is still pretty decent for a 2nd level spell as long as the caster communicates with his party to have them focus attacks on the held opponent. Its effectiveness also depends on the initiative order - best to target a monster that already had its turn and has to wait through several attacks before repeating the save.

 

[werecorpse]

A potential solution to making the spell one where the casters side feel comfortable to leave the victim alone is to either extend the time before saves are allowed or make the saves to break out be at disadvantage. If you also want the spell to be like old times when it was considered to "take someone out of the combat" not "invite a beating" you could make it the if the victim takes damage the spell ends.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it's really a big bother, perhaps letting the player choose from two variants on casting. Variation 1 is as normal. Variation 2 is "the target cannot attempt to save on the first round, but any damage dealt to it will break the effect." Exchange the "one-ish round beatdown" for the older-style "ignoring this enemy" effect" for two-ish rounds.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think some people are underestimating just how powerful it is to paralyze a monster for even 1 round. It isn't just taking away the creature's ability to fight, it's also giving your party advantage on attacks against it and automatic critical hits in melee, and the creature automatically fails strength and dexterity saving throws. That can be a death sentence for a monster.

The extra damage you're indirectly contributing by letting your allies hit more often and upgrading their normal hits to critical hits is huge. It can end up being far more damage than what you would have done with a scorching ray or other direct damage spell. If the spell ends up lasting for more than 1 round, the gap in effectiveness between a hold person and a scorching ray grows even wider. The same holds true at higher levels for hold monster compared to 5th level direct damage spells.

It's important to remember that many creatures aren't proficient with wisdom saving throws, so the likelihood of failure increases as the spellcaster's save DC grows. By the time a caster has a save DC of 19, there are many monsters that are doomed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think some people are underestimating just how powerful it is to paralyze a monster for even 1 round. It isn't just taking away the creature's ability to fight, it's also giving your party advantage on attacks against it and automatic critical hits in melee, and the creature automatically fails strength and dexterity saving throws. That can be a death sentence for a monster.

The extra damage you're indirectly contributing by letting your allies hit more often and upgrading their normal hits to critical hits is huge. It can end up being far more damage than what you would have done with a scorching ray or other direct damage spell. If the spell ends up lasting for more than 1 round, the gap in effectiveness between a hold person and a scorching ray grows even wider. The same holds true at higher levels for hold monster compared to 5th level direct damage spells.

It's important to remember that many creatures aren't proficient with wisdom saving throws, so the likelihood of failure increases as the spellcaster's save DC grows. By the time a caster has a save DC of 19, there are many monsters that are doomed.

That was why I suggested the "give the caster the option of making it a delayed save, but breakable by damage." You can get a single crit--which COULD kill it--or you can keep it locked down for minimum 1 round plus an ever-decreasing chance of additional rounds. Sometimes, the bigger concern is preventing enemies from ganging up on you; sometimes, the bigger concern is ganging up on a particular enemy.

 

[Sunseeker]

Fair enough.

How many rounds do Hold Person need to "stick" for the casting to be worthwhile?

If the spell is used to deny the opposition the target's actions, I would say three. If everybody can and will gang up on the target, perhaps two.

I think it depends largely on what you're holding. The Evil Lord that could kick the party's collective butts if they're not held for a couple rounds? Yeah, I can see more rounds, but then, the Evil Lord is tougher, so it is naturally less likely to stick, I think that makes sense. Holding off a guard or two for a round? Really came in hand tonight. Guard was held off for one round, bought us some time.

Thing is with the new edition the spell becomes better with level, since your save DC outpaces the monsters saves. At least if you cast intelligently, meaning at low-wis targets.

That's really the trick to spells with saves. Getting a good feel for your enemy and making sure to use your good DCs vs their bad saves. Frightful presence is great against foot soldiers who typically have low Wisdom. Strength saves/grapple checks (Evards Black Tentacles for example) are less so, same with clouds of poision forcing con saves.

The alternative to good DCs v. bad saves is simply forcing a LOT of saves. Like the Monk burning ki to force con saves. You can force 4 con saves in a single round if you're 5th level of higher. Statistically, they're likely to fail one of them. Great way to waste legendary resistances.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nah. The more of a mook a particular foe is, the less I want to waste a Hold Person on it. Guards, goblins, anything we can "just kill" is a bad use of the spell.

When I bring out a mainline spell, instead of just cantrips, it's to contain a significant threat.

Your example might not be the most representative - of course a simple guard can present a significant threat by the threat of sounding the alarm etc... but if we are to have a general discussion, we should discuss the general case: a small-scale skirmish between around 4 PCs and 2-8 foes where the only two real outcomes are "the party wins" and (to be honest) "the party wins but expends significant resources".

In most fights, I want to cast Hold Person to save resources. To do that, the alternative must be to use up even more spell slots, healing etc. And I simply don't see that happening.

The problem is that Hold Person (and similar spells) has been attacked from all directions: save each round, I must keep concentration, significant foes are likely to be proficient in saves (if not having legendary resistance!)...

It makes Hold Person a very niche spell: it's good against high-damage high-hp bruiser foes with bad Wisdom.

That's quite a narrow selection.

The situation improves at high levels, when
1) one casting of Hold Person is no longer a significant part of your spellcasting power, thus making "wasting " one much less of a big deal
2) the already low chance of making the save is lowered even further, because monster save bonuses don't keep up with your save DC.

Again, all of this assumes the "classic" view of the spell, where you use it to remove a dangerous foe from the combat until you have dealt with its pesky allies.

If you instead view it as a damage multiplier spell (and everybody in the party is aboard on this thinking, that is they are ready to focus fire), then the situation both becomes more clear and less certain. This is because now the spell's value can be measured directly, simply by counting the damage it enables when everybody whales on the target with advantage. The spell's value is equal to the damage of all misses-turned-into-hits (plus criticals I guess). If this damage goes high enough, it has been a worthwhile use of the spell slot.

Note that since the spell saves you some healing too. But I'm not counting this in my comparison of the two viewpoints, since that part is constant. (Whether you attack the held person or not, the number of prevented attacks during the spell's duration stays the same).

Of course, by downing the foe early you gain one thing and lose another: you gain the potential attacks the foe could have made after breaking free from the spell. You lose the potential number of rounds the spell could have held the foe while you attacked somebody more... urgent.

And that is really the crux of it... the uncertainty.

What is good for a player (having a chance of being freed each round, having a chance of your allies breaking the enemy caster's concentration) makes the spell super-bad to plan around. It all but forces this new viewpoint, where you focus on the held foe to take it down before the spell breaks.

As a player you would love a spell that takes out a foe for N rounds guaranteed.

 

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

While I can appreciate that a paralyzed target is in for a world of pain if you've a couple of melee fighters nearby, I stay away from the recurring save spells, if all possible. At higher DCs they're much better though, many will stick for a round or maybe two. With respect to 2nd level spells, one could trade their concentration slot for levitated enemy (Con save), a clever use of Phantasmal Force (Int save), or a non-concentration 6d8 Sleep (No save). None of which have a re-save. Hold Person doesn't really measure up, even in a higher level slot, as you'd simply use the no re-save Hypnotic Pattern instead.