D&D 5E Increasing spell power

[Tia Nadiezja]

Hold Person is a great spell as-is! It's one of level 2's better spells - a removal for at least a round (because the creature saves at the end of its turn, they've lost at least one turn regardless) that also vastly increases party damage output against the target. In a game where combat runs 2-3 rounds the vast bulk of the time, that's half to a third of the combat that the target is just straight-up out for, assuming that they make their first return save.

Throw in hitting monsters with low Wisdom saves (which is a huge section of the Monster Manual) with it, and you've quite likely disabled them for the whole fight. Hold Person doesn't need to get any better; it's one of the game's best uses for a level 2 slot.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hold Person is a great spell as-is! It's one of level 2's better spells - a removal for at least a round (because the creature saves at the end of its turn, they've lost at least one turn regardless) that also vastly increases party damage output against the target. In a game where combat runs 2-3 rounds the vast bulk of the time, that's half to a third of the combat that the target is just straight-up out for, assuming that they make their first return save.

Throw in hitting monsters with low Wisdom saves (which is a huge section of the Monster Manual) with it, and you've quite likely disabled them for the whole fight. Hold Person doesn't need to get any better; it's one of the game's best uses for a level 2 slot.

I have two problems with this:

One, the target gets an initial save, just as normal. "they've lost at least one turn" is not true.

"Choose a humanoid that you can see within range.
The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw
or be paralyzed for the duration. At the end of each of
its turns. the target can make another Wisdom saving
throw. On a success. the spell ends on the target."​

(Note my emphasis)

Two, and this is partly personal preference, our combats seldom run 3 rounds only. A three round fight is most often a very easy fight. Nothing wrong with very easy fights, but why would I spend a level two slot on a fight we're about to win in just a round or two?

That doesn't mean you can't like the spell. I just needed to respond to those two particular points, I don't want to argue taste otherwise.

 

[Scorpio616]

Best way I can see to rebalance save or suck is to allow those affected to tear themselves free, doing significant psychic damage to themselves.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

I have two problems with this:

One, the target gets an initial save, just as normal. "they've lost at least one turn" is not true.

"Choose a humanoid that you can see within range.
The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw
or be paralyzed for the duration. At the end of each of
its turns. the target can make another Wisdom saving
throw. On a success. the spell ends on the target."​

(Note my emphasis)

Two, and this is partly personal preference, our combats seldom run 3 rounds only. A three round fight is most often a very easy fight. Nothing wrong with very easy fights, but why would I spend a level two slot on a fight we're about to win in just a round or two?

That doesn't mean you can't like the spell. I just needed to respond to those two particular points, I don't want to argue taste otherwise.

I don't think I've yet had a 5e fight - including really rough ones that dropped 2 or more PCs to 0 HP and killed at least one outright - break 5 rounds in length.

And if you pick your target well - if you hit low saves - Hold Person has a greater than even chance to incapacitate a fairly powerful NPC for multiple rounds at the cost of a low-level spell slot. I don't see how it could ever be considered underpowered.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Might as well throw in some math here so we know what we're talking about.

The "save every round" thing in 5E basically makes durations grow exponentially with level. If the probability of passing a single save is N%, the expected duration of the spell once the initial save is failed is Sum(N^k, for k=0..infinity) = 1/(N/100). E.g. a creature with only a 20% chance of passing will be held for 1/(0.20)=5 turns on average, after the initial save is failed. It will always last at least one turn (from the enemy's perspective) once the initial save is failed because he doesn't get a new save until the end of his turn, at which point he has already lost his chance to take any actions or move.

Consider the CR 5 werebear, with a Wisdom save of +1. Here's what happens to Hold Person duration on a werebear as a notional caster increases in level.

Level 1 (Int 16, DC 13): Duration 1/0.45 = 2.22 rounds
Level 4 (Int 18, DC 14): Duration 1/0.40 = 2.5 rounds
Level 5 (Int 18, DC 15): Duration 1/0.35 = 2.85 rounds
Level 8 (Int 20, DC 16): Duration 1/0.30 = 3.33 rounds
Level 9 (Int 20, DC 17): Duration 1/0.25 = 4 rounds
Level 13 (Int 20, DC 18): Duration 1/0.20 = 5 rounds
Level 17 (Int 20, DC 19): Duration 1/0.15 = 6.67 rounds

Here's that same progression against a CR 13 Archmage (Wis save +6).

Level 1 (Int 16, DC 13): Duration 1/0.70 = 1.42 rounds
Level 4 (Int 18, DC 14): Duration 1/0.65 = 1.53 rounds
Level 5 (Int 18, DC 15): Duration 1/0.60 = 1.67 rounds
Level 8 (Int 20, DC 16): Duration 1/0.55 = 1.81 rounds
Level 9 (Int 20, DC 17): Duration 1/0.50 = 2 rounds
Level 13 (Int 20, DC 18): Duration 1/0.45 = 2.22 rounds
Level 17 (Int 20, DC 19): Duration 1/0.40 = 2.5 rounds

The question you want to ask yourself as a DM is, do those durations look about right for a 2nd level spell, or do you want them all to be longer? If you want it to be longer, do you want it to scale more sharply as the caster's level goes up, or would you rather just boost the low end while leaving the high end unchanged by adding a flat +1 to everything?

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you Hemlock. A good illustration of what I've been saying: the spell is weak when you get it, but becomes much stronger with level, since unlike previous editions you're supposed to fight low cr foes even at higher level.

Whether these numbers are enough for you to treat the spell as the old school "taken out of combat" spell I leave up to you.

One thing though, are your numbers assuming the initial save is failed? Because that's a big if - I believe the initial save should be included in the calculations rather than being assumed.

 

[CapnZapp]

The question you want to ask yourself as a DM is, do those durations look about right for a 2nd level spell, or do you want them all to be longer? If you want it to be longer, do you want it to scale more sharply as the caster's level goes up, or would you rather just boost the low end while leaving the high end unchanged by adding a flat +1 to everything?

While I would prefer the house rule that sets a fixed DC, neither suggestion fixes what I believe is the real issue with the spell.

The uncertainty.

What you want is a spell that when the save fails, you KNOW the foe is taken care of, so you can go do something else.

As long as there's a save each round, the spell is fundamentally unable to fulfill this want.

A houserule that fixes the duration to even only two rounds, no exceptions once you fail the initial (and only) save, would probably make the spell see much more use.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

hold person is a killer spell... as uch as I hated the change as a PC in 3.5 where it initially got the save each round mechanic, I like it more in this edtion.

Save mechanic as in 4e is a duration mechanic. All spells that still use save as a hit or miss mechanic are off the mark.

On the other hand, I could understand a rule that is: if you fail a save by 5 or more, your next saving throw is made with disadvantage or even completely nullified. Something to test.

 

[bgbarcus]

I'm curious, of the people who think Hold Person is nerfed by the save every round, have you really played the spell as written? The question isn't meant to be confrontational, I'm just curious because I've found the repeating saves less troubling than I expected.

I have one player who has used it three times across two different encounters. Twice, the the last encounter the target made the initial save. Lucky save rolls are the bane of every wizard. The other time the target was held for two rounds while the whole party focused attacks. That turned a deadly encounter into a cakewalk. For a second level spell is say Hold Person is working out just fine as written.

 

[Skyscraper]

This is a great discussion as a response to my question. Thanks to everyone who is participating. I like the diverging points of view, the analyses and the nuances that are brought about by posters.

I also like the multilple suggestions that are being carried over. Of them, two stick out as possible options that could be used instead of skipping a round:

1. Allow a single save at the end of the creature's next turn in addition to the initial save when the spell is cast; if the creature fails both saves, it's done for the duration.
2. Allow a single save when the spell is cast, and the duration of the spell is two rounds, no save at the end of each round.

One thing I like about these options is that they appear simpler to implement than the one I was contemplating.

****

On the topic of the uncertainty raised by [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], I actually think this is a feature of this spell as it now exists. As you note, whether this is something that we want out of it is then to consider.

****
[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION], thanks for the math! This is great stuff and certainly helps is being more concrete when ultimately taking a decision. I would be curious about the answer to CapnZapp's question: do these numbers include the initial save made when the spell is cast, or not?