D&D 5E Let's talk power words!

[Ilbranteloth]

Not Gadget, but if I'm gonna spend my only level 9 slot on a single target spell...

... that target needs to be pretty much taken out of the fight guaranteed. And even then, only if we're facing a true BBEG. Exactly the kind of enemy the spell is the most useless against!

Wasting it on a run-of-the-mill CR 5 mook is a stupendous thought for me. I literally can't think of a single scenario why I would even want to prepare the spell, let alone ever use it.

So you’re expecting an instant kill of the BBEG at the start of the fight? That seems to be the exact thing that people complain about with broken spells, that it allows the PCs to avoid the encounter altogether.

For a bigger opponent I think a guaranteed 100 points of damage, either at the end of a round where the rest of the team has weakened the creature, or the start of the next if your initiative beats the rest of the team, is a pretty decent spell myself.

It sounds like a fairly safe and significant spell against a class of creatures that often have an ability to automatically succeed at a saving throw or three, you just have to plan its use a little. You may not know the exact hp of the BBEG, but most players at that level have s pretty good idea, and your group knows how much damage they’ve done already.

But based on your other posts, you seem to be a very numbers-based player when assessing abilities, and it tends to be either a “yes” or “useless.”

Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it does make you harder to satisfy than many others.

Did you have an opinion on my system shock idea?

 

[Gadget]

So what do you mean when you say “it cannot even deal with some CR5 creatures?”

Do you mean to say it should be able to kill them outright without them being reduced to below their maximum hit points?

Kind of. If there is a particularly beefy opponent, maybe not. I guess you would have to investigate the average HP per CR, to really look into it.

I guess that’s a question that needs to be addressed altogether - if you’re not happy with the effectiveness of the spell, what CR should the spell target? That is, creatures of this CR or lower are automatically killed.

Is it the 12 levels of difference? To look at it a different way, how many levels of difference does a fighter need to guarantee a kill in 1 round? Should the spell not be similar?

Does the fighter only get one of these attacks a day? I would like the spell to be worth consideration of the one and only 9th level spell slot a caster gets a day. I'm not sure it is, as written. Even setting aside the whole 'does the player know the current HP of the monster issue (personally, I would give the PC a pretty good indication), it is only useful as a 'finishing' move for most foes a 17th level plus caster would face. Is that enough? I don't know. How often does that come up? How often does it come up where you can't just spend another round or so with party dealing 100 damage to the target?

I guess it comes down to the fact that there is a highly asymmetrical relationship between monster & PC hit points, thereby making the spell very deadly for PC's much longer than for Monsters. Personally, when I get a game up to that level and it was problematic, I would just have the spell do 16d6 psychic (or maybe necrotic?) damage with a Wis Save for half on creatures of greater than 100 hp.

 

[iserith]

I think it would be a decent spell to use on a creature with magic resistance and/or legendary resistance. Get that ancient dragon down to 100 hp or less then finish it off with a PWK at range, no save. Scrooge McDuck in its hoard. Tell tales about how you told a dragon to die and it did.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Kind of. If there is a particularly beefy opponent, maybe not. I guess you would have to investigate the average HP per CR, to really look into it.

Does the fighter only get one of these attacks a day? I would like the spell to be worth consideration of the one and only 9th level spell slot a caster gets a day. I'm not sure it is, as written. Even setting aside the whole 'does the player know the current HP of the monster issue (personally, I would give the PC a pretty good indication), it is only useful as a 'finishing' move for most foes a 17th level plus caster would face. Is that enough? I don't know. How often does that come up? How often does it come up where you can't just spend another round or so with party dealing 100 damage to the target?

I guess it comes down to the fact that there is a highly asymmetrical relationship between monster & PC hit points, thereby making the spell very deadly for PC's much longer than for Monsters. Personally, when I get a game up to that level and it was problematic, I would just have the spell do 16d6 psychic (or maybe necrotic?) damage with a Wis Save for half on creatures of greater than 100 hp.

I suppose when I think about it, I'm looking for the opposite. The idea that a high level wizard has a spell that would allow them to automatically kill 1 BBEG (whatever that might be, such as the 1e dragons given in examples above) is way too overpowered from a world-building standpoint.

To consider it a different way, with a spell as powerful as it was, an evil wizard villain could simply teleport in (or use some other means of quick transportation), and kill the most powerful creatures of the land, one day at a time. Is it all that more deadly than an assassin with poison? Without a saving throw, I'd say yes.

To be fair, I generally have problems with the way high level magic scales in campaigns, and for that matter, high level adventurers. While 5e has reigned things in a bit with bounded accuracy, etc., it still roughly equates "high level" with "high hit points," both in the amount a creature has, and the amount an attack deals. Monsters have to have a higher hp value, because it's often 4 (or more) against 1, eventually. Since they stopped allowing spells to be disrupted in combat, and eliminated most of the risks associated with a lot of the spells, the balance has been off even more.

Within the context of a combat it's OK, but I just think there are better ways to potentially approach it. Regardless of that whole aspect, though, a spell that causes instant and unavoidable death still seems to be more power than I'd like. So as a whole I've never really been a fan of the spell in any edition. So with that being said, the 5e edition works pretty well for me from a design standpoint.

In terms of it being the one and only 9th level spell per day, I can certainly understand the desire for things to be balanced between spells. But I've never really worried about the level of a spell per se, or if the wizard's spell is just the "finishing" spell as [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] mentions. I've always viewed and played D&D as a group thing, that the group succeeding or failing is what's important. Not necessarily who did what with what level spell. If power word kill allows me to prevent the party from being subjected to additional damage or danger by taking out the last 3 hp of the BBEG, then cool. That was the point - I don't really care how much the others did or didn't do (as long as the spell worked). Although if the spell didn't work, that's just as fun anyway. It just leads into a new circumstance that has to be resolved.

The other thing I should mention is that we've never been focused on the numbers while playing, and a given combat is almost never the focus of the game. Combat is an obstacle on the way, not the focus. And I rarely have BBEGs. At least in the BBEG mold. There are key villains, but defeating them isn't always (or even usually) a combat scenario. And most of the time, they are just at the "pinnacle" of another layer. More importantly, they are usually a part of a much bigger organization, and it's kind of like toppling a dictator in a corrupt government, there's always somebody waiting to pick up where they left off. The types of challenges that characters in my campaigns face are often quite similar from about 5th level and higher. We rarely reach more than 12th level anyway, but even still, they are facing beholders, dragons, demons, liches, and all the fun stuff. It's far more satisfying when a party of 6th level characters devise a plan to destroy a lich or slay an ancient dragon.

So our circumstances are probably quite a bit different than a lot of the folks that don't like this particular spell because it's not powerful enough. I personally think it's a step in the right direction myself. Oh, and it is possible to disrupt spellcasting in my campaign...

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be fair, I generally have problems with the way high level magic scales in campaigns, and for that matter, high level adventurers. Since they stopped allowing spells to be disrupted in combat, and eliminated most of the risks associated with a lot of the spells, the balance has been off even more.

In terms of it being the one and only 9th level spell per day, I can certainly understand the desire for things to be balanced between spells.

The 'balance' is likely to be more in a 'right spell for the job,' way. Wish lets you do anything less powerful than a 9th level spell, the other 9th level spells each do their thing. Power Word Kill's thing is that it's a Power Word. Which used to count for something when short casting times (theoretically, the exact mechanics were iffy) made a big difference.

I've always viewed and played D&D as a group thing, that the group succeeding or failing is what's important.

That shifts the balance consideration from "is character A able to pwn character B" to "does having character A in the group tend to obviate the contributions of character B to the group" It's not as big a shift as it sounds. 'Spotlight' balance is still important in 5e whether it's because you're all grandstanding rivals or because you're all trying to make meaningful contributions to your success as a team.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The 'balance' is likely to be more in a 'right spell for the job,' way. Wish lets you do anything less powerful than a 9th level spell, the other 9th level spells each do their thing. Power Word Kill's thing is that it's a Power Word. Which used to count for something when short casting times (theoretically, the exact mechanics were iffy) made a big difference.

That shifts the balance consideration from "is character A able to pwn character B" to "does having character A in the group tend to obviate the contributions of character B to the group" It's not as big a shift as it sounds. 'Spotlight' balance is still important in 5e whether it's because you're all grandstanding rivals or because you're all trying to make meaningful contributions to your success as a team.

Yeah, spotlighting has never really been a thing in our games. Don’t know why. My players are happy to be a participating spectator if they are killed or otherwise disabled (actually generally insist on it unless there’s a good option in the story for an alternative, and they have the power to make that decision).

I’m sure that everybody does get the spotlight, it’s just not something that we focus on, it just happens. It’s not uncommon for a character to hope that the others take care of the combat because they (the character) dislike combat for whatever reason. So if spotlighting is a thing at me table, it’s not play time, ability, combat, or talk time based. I’m not really sure what it is.

 

[SkidAce]

In terms of it being the one and only 9th level spell per day, I can certainly understand the desire for things to be balanced between spells. But I've never really worried about the level of a spell per se, or if the wizard's spell is just the "finishing" spell as [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] mentions. I've always viewed and played D&D as a group thing, that the group succeeding or failing is what's important. Not necessarily who did what with what level spell. If power word kill allows me to prevent the party from being subjected to additional damage or danger by taking out the last 3 hp of the BBEG, then cool. That was the point - I don't really care how much the others did or didn't do (as long as the spell worked). Although if the spell didn't work, that's just as fun anyway. It just leads into a new circumstance that has to be resolved.

My reason for resurrecting the thread was the incredible difference I discovered depending on who is casting the spell, PC or NPC.

So you enter the evil liche's throne room, during combat he Power Word Kills the party's cleric...

During the battle with the pit fiend magus he uttered the desecrating Power Word Kill and slew the paladin....

You finally kill the evil dark wizard of the void, after he Power Word killed your rogue for backstabbing him...you find his spell book....

Later as you assault the fortress of Doom, you utter Power Word Kill at the werebear leader....it fails to kill your foe...

In the forest of utter swamps, you cast Power Word Kill at the evil lich...it fails to kill your foe...

For fun, while at the beach you try to Power Word Kill a giant shark....it fails to kill your foe...

 

[Gadget]

I suppose when I think about it, I'm looking for the opposite. The idea that a high level wizard has a spell that would allow them to automatically kill 1 BBEG (whatever that might be, such as the 1e dragons given in examples above) is way too overpowered from a world-building standpoint.

The opposite of what? balanced? You seem to be saying that the only options are: have the spell not be to particularly useful for its level, or instantly pawn almost any foe. There are other ways. Perhaps it could have a lesser effect (stun, slow, etc.) on foes with greater than 100 hp. IIRC 3e had something like this over several categories of HP ranges. Or the spell could just do a boatload of damage to those who's HP total exceeded the limit, as I proposed above. Or even a casting time of a bonus action or reaction.

To be fair, I generally have problems with the way high level magic scales in campaigns, and for that matter, high level adventurers. While 5e has reigned things in a bit with bounded accuracy, etc., it still roughly equates "high level" with "high hit points," both in the amount a creature has, and the amount an attack deals. Monsters have to have a higher hp value, because it's often 4 (or more) against 1, eventually. Since they stopped allowing spells to be disrupted in combat, and eliminated most of the risks associated with a lot of the spells, the balance has been off even more.

They did more than bounded accuracy, but you are referring to the action economy, which is what Legendary Creatures with Legendary Resistances, Legendary actions, Lair Actions and such were designed to mitigate, with varying degrees of success. Or you could just have more foes; numbers count more in this edition, and 'taking out' (not that the spell has to do such) one out of four or so tough opponents is less of an "I win button."

I just did a quick perusal of OGL Monsters for 5e (a pitiful small sample of the whole, non-OGL field, mind you) and it seems that by CR7 or 8 most monsters are not outright 'taken out' by this spell, with a few exceptions like Arch Mage and such. A fair bit of CR 6 and a few CR 5 are not affected either. I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing per se, just presenting a data point.

Within the context of a combat it's OK, but I just think there are better ways to potentially approach it. Regardless of that whole aspect, though, a spell that causes instant and unavoidable death still seems to be more power than I'd like. So as a whole I've never really been a fan of the spell in any edition. So with that being said, the 5e edition works pretty well for me from a design standpoint.

From a design standpoint, I would say it depends on cost to benefit. If it costs enough, it could merit the benefit. A fireball could be instant and unavoidable death for a lot of creatures, particularly upcast (or pick other heavy damage spell).

In terms of it being the one and only 9th level spell per day, I can certainly understand the desire for things to be balanced between spells. But I've never really worried about the level of a spell per se, or if the wizard's spell is just the "finishing" spell as [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] mentions. I've always viewed and played D&D as a group thing, that the group succeeding or failing is what's important. Not necessarily who did what with what level spell. If power word kill allows me to prevent the party from being subjected to additional damage or danger by taking out the last 3 hp of the BBEG, then cool. That was the point - I don't really care how much the others did or didn't do (as long as the spell worked). Although if the spell didn't work, that's just as fun anyway. It just leads into a new circumstance that has to be resolved.

Of course it is a group effort! Very few of us (I would imagine) do player vs player. It is a matter of contributing effectively to the success of the team/party that many of us are concerned with. I realize some are more number crunchy or 'gamiest' than others. Some more story oriented etc., but the above seems to translate into "I don't care a wit about balance, you might as well not even have spell levels and such, as long as we can just play along." That's a great attitude and fun play style, but it makes it hard to have a meaningful conversation about balance and design, though it is a play style to keep in mind when designing the game to avoid over-complicating things.

D&D also has a strong strategic and (perhaps less so in this edition) tactical element. Resource management and expenditure is a thing, and though I think it wise to avoid playing in such a way that things are 'balanced' to within a hair on a spreadsheet like stock analysts at the stock exchange, some consideration should be given here.

The other thing I should mention is that we've never been focused on the numbers while playing, and a given combat is almost never the focus of the game. Combat is an obstacle on the way, not the focus. And I rarely have BBEGs. At least in the BBEG mold. There are key villains, but defeating them isn't always (or even usually) a combat scenario. And most of the time, they are just at the "pinnacle" of another layer. More importantly, they are usually a part of a much bigger organization, and it's kind of like toppling a dictator in a corrupt government, there's always somebody waiting to pick up where they left off. The types of challenges that characters in my campaigns face are often quite similar from about 5th level and higher. We rarely reach more than 12th level anyway, but even still, they are facing beholders, dragons, demons, liches, and all the fun stuff. It's far more satisfying when a party of 6th level characters devise a plan to destroy a lich or slay an ancient dragon.

Sounds fun. I would think in such a campaign, 'knocking off' a BBEG would be less of an issue than others. But I'm not advocating instant death for everyone though.

So our circumstances are probably quite a bit different than a lot of the folks that don't like this particular spell because it's not powerful enough. I personally think it's a step in the right direction myself. Oh, and it is possible to disrupt spellcasting in my campaign...

Interesting, perhaps making the spell a bonus action to cast in your type of campaign would give the spell (otherwise unchanged) a nice and useful niche by making it harder to disrupt. Or not, I guess it would need to be play tested.

 

[SkidAce]

So how about "slays anything 100 hp or less, and does 100 damage to everything else?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Not Gadget, but if I'm gonna spend my only level 9 slot on a single target spell...

... that target needs to be pretty much taken out of the fight guaranteed. And even then, only if we're facing a true BBEG. Exactly the kind of enemy the spell is the most useless against!

The spell bypasses all conventional defences: Saving throws (including legendary resistances), AC, regeneration, anything that activates on 0 hp etc.
I don't think that giving even a 9th level spell the capability to just flat-out drop an end-of-campaign-level BBEG is a good idea. Not in terms of pacing, and not in terms of balance.
If you're going to raise the HP threshold to the point where this could be feasible, I would suggest that a creature with legendary resistance can use it to avoid the effects.

Another route to take to adjust the spell would be to change the level: Make it perhaps a level 6 spell, and allow upcasting to increase the threshold by 25HP/spell level?