D&D 5E Increasing spell power

[Xaelvaen]

My House Rule on this issue:

For all (save at end of turn) mechanics that otherwise end the spell, I allow the caster to invoke disadvantage on the save once per creature affected. The caster chooses when that disadvantage applies, giving them the power (and thus intellectual decision-making) of risk/reward.

So, a caster who -really- wants that spell to stick immediately, can use it on the first save, and ensure that the creature is affected at least one round. A caster who is more interested in a long-term effect, can save that disadvantage to be used on the second round or later.

In any event, -before- I roll the monster's save, the caster must tell me whether or not they will apply their one disadvantage. I've found it is a good balance between the core concept, and duration-based spells that outright work after a save.

 

[Skyscraper]

I'll try to bring up some points that were not discussed here, to hopefully positively participate to this brainstorming.

@Mouseferatu: I agree that thinking about the effects of the spell on both sides of the screen is indeed important, and although I did not think about all consequences of this potential rule change, I indeed stopped to think about what this would mean for players and for monsters.

In this respect, players have the advantage of having a party, and counter-measures can be used if the rule is changed.

The cleric spell Lesser Restoration now appears like a very useful spell, allowing one to get rid of conditions generally.

Back in the days of 1E, I recall that our partys would never go about without having at least one "remove paralysis" prepared. We also ideally had "counter spell" scrolls (e.g. remove poison, cure disease, ....: those were rarer occurences and a scroll was enough). And, of course, clerics and wizards also inevitably had Dispel Magic prepared. We just about never saw PCs "sit out an entire battle" because they were simply paralysed. At most, it took a round to get someone back in because the cleric or magic-user (as they were then called ) needed to move towards the paralysed ally.

I think that it is more on the monster side that this spell becomes powerful. Because while a party of, say, 4 PCs is likely to have one or two casters capable of removing paralysis, most NPC opponent groups will not have that party composition. At least, not in my games where casters are not frequent adversaries (I like for casters to be scarce and to mean something).

But again, I like that spells become interesting.

*******

Another point is: what other spells would be thusly affected by this rule change? I browsed the list quickly for potential examples, but did not find any (melf's acid arrow lasts a limited number of rounds; cloudkill is systematic but you can leave the area; sleep works differently). Any other examples that some posters here would know about?

*****

Here's another thought: I do not plan on allowing ability score increases at every 4th level. Instead, we'll play with the feats optional rule being mandatory. I do this to hopefully have higher scores become more meaningful. Character creation aside, this will likely limit the DC increase as PCs level up. Plus, I doubt we'll play beyond 10ht-12th level really.

*******

What about another houserule: taking away the automatic crits against adjacent paralysed enemies? Would this alleviate the consequences of being paralysed for many rounds, and perhaps even the "target sign" effect discussed by some posters?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Yes, those are the numbers AFTER the initial save fails. I tried to make that clear; sorry if it wasn't clear enough. I believe that's an appropriate measure because it lets you compare the spell duration with old-style duration like one round per level. But if you're trying to calculate the expected value of casting the spell in the first place you need to multiply by the probability of failing that first save. Different metrics serve different purposes in an analysis.

 

[the Jester]

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.

And that's more powerful than a 2nd level spell, IMHO. Those effects start about 3rd level, with hypnotic pattern.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

With many damaging spells if the initial save is made you still do some damage, with the more control focused spells there is a good chance of having no efect at all of the initial save is made.

Maybe some spells like hold should have a efect on a sucesfull save, maybe halving the targets movent speed untill the end of it's next turn.

 

[bgbarcus]

Considering that Hold Person is in all, or nearly all, class spell lists and only second level, it is one spell I would be very cautious about boosting. It would be easy to imagine a party that has enough second level casting slots available to just hold an entire group of enemies. Four people casting Hold Person in the first round of combat could make short work of an otherwise dangerous encounter. They could do it with the official wording of the spell too but with less certainty.

 

[CapnZapp]

And that's more powerful than a 2nd level spell, IMHO. Those effects start about 3rd level, with hypnotic pattern.

I'm taking the discussion to cover all save-each-turn-spells, not just Hold Person.

But if we're changing the subject (since you're talking about "how powerful should a 2nd level spell be" rather than the "how much power does Hold Person lose because of its save-per-turn" the rest of us were having), let me say there's a case to be made that if you avoid ALL save-each-turn spells that ALSO require your Concentration, you're simply better off. Yes, your spell selection shrank, but at least you're free from one of the more obnoxious restrictions on spellcasters added by 5E.

 

[bgbarcus]

I'm taking the discussion to cover all save-each-turn-spells, not just Hold Person.

But if we're changing the subject (since you're talking about "how powerful should a 2nd level spell be" rather than the "how much power does Hold Person lose because of its save-per-turn" the rest of us were having), let me say there's a case to be made that if you avoid ALL save-each-turn spells that ALSO require your Concentration, you're simply better off. Yes, your spell selection shrank, but at least you're free from one of the more obnoxious restrictions on spellcasters added by 5E.

Comparing spell powers isn't necessarily changing the conversation. What I see with 5e spells is they are often very different from previous editions. Hold Person is an excellent exemplar of the change because it has been in the game through all editions. In B/X it held multiple targets for over an hour, each got one save at casting time. Not even Maze of that powerful in 5e.

The reason to compare them is to demonstrate that spells are intended to be different in 5e. They are generally less powerful as attacks but they do very well at shaping the battlefield and making melee characters more effective. Even the weakened Hold Person has a lot of power with the 5e action economy when compared to other 2nd level spells.

However, the standard old trope applies, YMMV. Some games expect low level casters to be big guns so modifying the 5e spells will be a way to achieve that goal. As with all modifications, it is a good idea to communicate to the players that the changes are done on a trial basis and will be reviewed later to determine if further changes are appropriate.

 

[jodyjohnson]

My main problem with Hold and Sleep spells is that they are used contrary to every genre except the 'D&D' genre.

The 5th edition version is balanced with how they are normally used in the D&D genre (spells we cast on enemies to make them easier to kill - often at no risk). Often as an indicator of 'smart' or 'clever' play.

The issue is primarily one where they were IMO originally added as iconic spells in the Fantasy genre where if you wanted to kill someone with magic, you did so directly (with a literal 'save or die' spell). Sleep and Hold were for when you didn't want to kill (at least not immediately).

It is more difficult to balance for both since the genres play differently. My preference would be to make the spell behave in a way that rewards Fantasy genre play while still allowing D&D genre play (despite my distaste for what feels like anti-fantasy play).

The concept is referenced in the DMG under the Inspiration point section for rewarding adherence to genre conventions.

 

[Skyscraper]

My main problem with Hold and Sleep spells is that they are used contrary to every genre except the 'D&D' genre.

The 5th edition version is balanced with how they are normally used in the D&D genre (spells we cast on enemies to make them easier to kill - often at no risk). Often as an indicator of 'smart' or 'clever' play.

The issue is primarily one where they were IMO originally added as iconic spells in the Fantasy genre where if you wanted to kill someone with magic, you did so directly (with a literal 'save or die' spell). Sleep and Hold were for when you didn't want to kill (at least not immediately).

It is more difficult to balance for both since the genres play differently. My preference would be to make the spell behave in a way that rewards Fantasy genre play while still allowing D&D genre play (despite my distaste for what feels like anti-fantasy play).

The concept is referenced in the DMG under the Inspiration point section for rewarding adherence to genre conventions.

This is an interesting point. Do you have an example of how the spell could work according to your preference?