Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's talk power words!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7398832" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>The opposite of what others seem to want, which is a more powerful spell. I'm fine with it as is, and like it better than the AD&D version which was stronger in comparison because of the lower hit points of monsters.</p><p></p><p>I have suggested a modification to force a system shock check when used against creatures that have more than 100 hp. At a minimum the creature can't take reactions until the end of their next turn, it has a 20% chance of imposing disadvantage on their attack rolls, a 20% chance of stunning them, and a 30% chance of dropping them to 0 hp (which in many cases would be the instant kill that others seem to want against more powerful creatures). I also like the variability of this approach, rather than a fixed effect.</p><p></p><p>The game has traditionally been balanced via hit points, and starting with 2e they started inflating the hp of more powerful monsters so they'd last longer against a group of PCs. When PC abilities and damage output started increasing, the hp inflated more. Part of the reasoning behind this approach that has been stated by designers is that "it's not fun to miss." But there are other ways to balance besides inflating hit points. Resistance effectively increases hp (but adds math, simple as it is), but much of the alternatives would revolve around misses and reducing damage.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I'm referring to bounded accuracy. The idea that hit points and other abilities are spread over a smaller range so that low level creatures still have a chance against higher level creatures. This is a direct reversal of the 4e approach where each level represented an increase in damage output and hit points, to the degree that low level creatures had to have their stats inflated to keep pace. The town guard you met at 1st level had no chance of defending the town against 10th or 15th level threats. I agree that it was too easy to slay the "toughest" challenges like dragons, etc. so I wouldn't go back that far, but 5e is still a bit inflated for my tastes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's what I was wondering. First, what it would impact, and now what others think about that result. I, personally, am fine with the idea that it kills a CR5ish creature outright, but you need to do some damage first to more powerful creatures. It seems like others here expect it to take out higher level creatures, but I don't think I've seen any sort of threshold mentioned as acceptable to them. Is CR10 enough? CR 12? </p><p></p><p> Yes, and the 5th level jump in damage output is significant because of things like fireball (although fireball is also an outlier since it does more than other 3rd level spells for some reason). There uses to be more risks to using things like fireball, not just killing others, but destroying treasure, and the mechanics behind the original made it harder to hit exactly what you wanted. Again, I don't particularly have any issue, other than as the range of hp went up between 1st and 15th level characters, the impact of such spells varies more depending on the CR.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There has been a trend for some time for (some) folks to focus on things like party roles, spotlighting (intentionally, rather than it just being part of the game), which has moved into the character build concepts. There are lots of threads here and elsewhere where people will complain that a given rule (or house rule, proposed change, etc.) steps on their character's toes. Often to the degree that people will declare that it either ruins a class, makes it useless, or they wouldn't play in a game with that rule. For example, I've seen a great many threads where people complain that one of the other players decided to make a character of the same class, and that has ruined the game for them, with lots of others in agreement that it's "not cool" to do that. </p><p></p><p>For us, it has more to do with the character contributing "as a person" rather than specific abilities. That within the context of the setting and story, this character provides whatever it is they do, and it's almost never about combat-related things. For us, it's more a big picture thing than specific moments in specific combats (unless it's a certain circumstance, like a <em>Princess Bride</em> or <em>Pirates of the Carribean</em> style duel). So there are several more combat-oriented characters (the fighters, rangers and paladin being obvious ones), and in many combats it's a question of who is left, who they can't take care of, since they're the muscle. Sorcerers and wizards tend to prefer utility spells, and things that function outside of combat, except for aoe spells to address larger groups of enemies. They feel that it's much more beneficial than helping take out an enemy one or two rounds faster.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, those are huge things in our campaign. Our combat rules are redesigned in a way to allow more strategic and tactical options, to work in the context of a one-on-one duel and a regular battle between 4-8 PCs, potentially some allies, and a couple of dozen orcs, all the way up to slaying a dragon. Resource management extends to things like fatigue, including within the course of a battle and being able to wear down your opponent, etc. </p><p></p><p> In general, it is. I don't have a problem with the BBEG dying (or being defeated) quickly. My issue is knowing that a certain percentage of people in the world can instant kill daily. I have the same issue with the idea that a certain percentage of the population can raise creatures from the dead daily. And since there are a number of spells at several levels that do this, they could raise several people each day. The 5e approach to limiting this was to limit the spell slots. I'm OK with that, but it still doesn't explain why, in a world where there are at least thousands of people that can cure disease, neutralize poison, and raise dead, that these abilities wouldn't be used more frequently, that they wouldn't be well organized, and that folks would be anything other than a cleric, for example. We've taken a number of different approaches, such as raising the level of magic needed to cure disease, or modifying how resurrection magic works, and that there are risks involved. In other words, we tend to approach it from an in-world perspective. That is, "if I were an evil wizard and once per day I could use <em>power word kill</em> to take out a hated rival or enemy, why wouldn't I? What would stop me from doing that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, as others have pointed out, that was one of the big advantages of the spell in AD&D, that it was much more difficult to disrupt. It also allowed you to instantly kill multiple lower level creatures (one creature with 60 hp, or multiple creatures of less than 10 hp, to a max of 120 hp). I think it was used more to instantly kill a dozen minions than the BBEG. Another thing to remember, though, which I haven't seen mentioned here, is that some creatures in AD&D had magic resistance. This gave you a flat percentage of failure before any saving throw came into play. So a spell with no saving throw was more powerful, but not to the level it is in 5e where resistance gives you advantage on your saving throw. It definitely would take out many powerful creatures, though, liches and dragons didn't have magic resistance, and a lich could be in the 60-point range from the start (and dragons pretty close), Again, from that standpoint, I think the spell was too powerful even then. </p><p></p><p>We don't actually have bonus actions (or reaction), but shortening the casting time to that of a 1st level spell has the same effect. As in AD&D, you have probably one character that has a chance to disrupt it, instead of several.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7398832, member: 6778044"] The opposite of what others seem to want, which is a more powerful spell. I'm fine with it as is, and like it better than the AD&D version which was stronger in comparison because of the lower hit points of monsters. I have suggested a modification to force a system shock check when used against creatures that have more than 100 hp. At a minimum the creature can't take reactions until the end of their next turn, it has a 20% chance of imposing disadvantage on their attack rolls, a 20% chance of stunning them, and a 30% chance of dropping them to 0 hp (which in many cases would be the instant kill that others seem to want against more powerful creatures). I also like the variability of this approach, rather than a fixed effect. The game has traditionally been balanced via hit points, and starting with 2e they started inflating the hp of more powerful monsters so they'd last longer against a group of PCs. When PC abilities and damage output started increasing, the hp inflated more. Part of the reasoning behind this approach that has been stated by designers is that "it's not fun to miss." But there are other ways to balance besides inflating hit points. Resistance effectively increases hp (but adds math, simple as it is), but much of the alternatives would revolve around misses and reducing damage. No, I'm referring to bounded accuracy. The idea that hit points and other abilities are spread over a smaller range so that low level creatures still have a chance against higher level creatures. This is a direct reversal of the 4e approach where each level represented an increase in damage output and hit points, to the degree that low level creatures had to have their stats inflated to keep pace. The town guard you met at 1st level had no chance of defending the town against 10th or 15th level threats. I agree that it was too easy to slay the "toughest" challenges like dragons, etc. so I wouldn't go back that far, but 5e is still a bit inflated for my tastes. That's what I was wondering. First, what it would impact, and now what others think about that result. I, personally, am fine with the idea that it kills a CR5ish creature outright, but you need to do some damage first to more powerful creatures. It seems like others here expect it to take out higher level creatures, but I don't think I've seen any sort of threshold mentioned as acceptable to them. Is CR10 enough? CR 12? Yes, and the 5th level jump in damage output is significant because of things like fireball (although fireball is also an outlier since it does more than other 3rd level spells for some reason). There uses to be more risks to using things like fireball, not just killing others, but destroying treasure, and the mechanics behind the original made it harder to hit exactly what you wanted. Again, I don't particularly have any issue, other than as the range of hp went up between 1st and 15th level characters, the impact of such spells varies more depending on the CR. There has been a trend for some time for (some) folks to focus on things like party roles, spotlighting (intentionally, rather than it just being part of the game), which has moved into the character build concepts. There are lots of threads here and elsewhere where people will complain that a given rule (or house rule, proposed change, etc.) steps on their character's toes. Often to the degree that people will declare that it either ruins a class, makes it useless, or they wouldn't play in a game with that rule. For example, I've seen a great many threads where people complain that one of the other players decided to make a character of the same class, and that has ruined the game for them, with lots of others in agreement that it's "not cool" to do that. For us, it has more to do with the character contributing "as a person" rather than specific abilities. That within the context of the setting and story, this character provides whatever it is they do, and it's almost never about combat-related things. For us, it's more a big picture thing than specific moments in specific combats (unless it's a certain circumstance, like a [I]Princess Bride[/I] or [I]Pirates of the Carribean[/I] style duel). So there are several more combat-oriented characters (the fighters, rangers and paladin being obvious ones), and in many combats it's a question of who is left, who they can't take care of, since they're the muscle. Sorcerers and wizards tend to prefer utility spells, and things that function outside of combat, except for aoe spells to address larger groups of enemies. They feel that it's much more beneficial than helping take out an enemy one or two rounds faster. Oh, those are huge things in our campaign. Our combat rules are redesigned in a way to allow more strategic and tactical options, to work in the context of a one-on-one duel and a regular battle between 4-8 PCs, potentially some allies, and a couple of dozen orcs, all the way up to slaying a dragon. Resource management extends to things like fatigue, including within the course of a battle and being able to wear down your opponent, etc. In general, it is. I don't have a problem with the BBEG dying (or being defeated) quickly. My issue is knowing that a certain percentage of people in the world can instant kill daily. I have the same issue with the idea that a certain percentage of the population can raise creatures from the dead daily. And since there are a number of spells at several levels that do this, they could raise several people each day. The 5e approach to limiting this was to limit the spell slots. I'm OK with that, but it still doesn't explain why, in a world where there are at least thousands of people that can cure disease, neutralize poison, and raise dead, that these abilities wouldn't be used more frequently, that they wouldn't be well organized, and that folks would be anything other than a cleric, for example. We've taken a number of different approaches, such as raising the level of magic needed to cure disease, or modifying how resurrection magic works, and that there are risks involved. In other words, we tend to approach it from an in-world perspective. That is, "if I were an evil wizard and once per day I could use [I]power word kill[/I] to take out a hated rival or enemy, why wouldn't I? What would stop me from doing that? Yes, as others have pointed out, that was one of the big advantages of the spell in AD&D, that it was much more difficult to disrupt. It also allowed you to instantly kill multiple lower level creatures (one creature with 60 hp, or multiple creatures of less than 10 hp, to a max of 120 hp). I think it was used more to instantly kill a dozen minions than the BBEG. Another thing to remember, though, which I haven't seen mentioned here, is that some creatures in AD&D had magic resistance. This gave you a flat percentage of failure before any saving throw came into play. So a spell with no saving throw was more powerful, but not to the level it is in 5e where resistance gives you advantage on your saving throw. It definitely would take out many powerful creatures, though, liches and dragons didn't have magic resistance, and a lich could be in the 60-point range from the start (and dragons pretty close), Again, from that standpoint, I think the spell was too powerful even then. We don't actually have bonus actions (or reaction), but shortening the casting time to that of a 1st level spell has the same effect. As in AD&D, you have probably one character that has a chance to disrupt it, instead of several. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's talk power words!
Top