Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6740482" data-attributes="member: 12731">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 deal2) 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.</blockquote>

Verification