Play-Testing Hold Person

[Chris_Nightwing]

I like the flavor of the HP threshold, but it does create a weird situation where lower-HP characters are weaker against spells that don't necessarily have anything to do with CON.

For example, based on the HP progression for leveling on the playtest characters, the wizard won't hit 40 HP until level 13, while the fighter hits it at level 5. (And both of those characters have 14 CON, although Pelor knows what it's doing for the wizard given that he's only gaining 2 HP per level.) The fighter also (for some reason) has a higher Wisdom score than the wizard, so he even has a better shot at making the saving throw.

This is kind of the opposite of what I'd expect. Shouldn't a wizard be better against mental domination than a big dumb fighter? What does HP (whatever it represents) have to do with his ability to shake off mental spell effects?

From what I understand, spell DCs aren't tied to spell level in 5e, so even cast as a second-level spell, this will continue to be deadly against squishy units into the paragon levels. Without seeing higher-level characters, we can't really say that this is overpowered, but it seems like an odd trendline compared to, say, the direct-damage spells that clearly taper off in relative power pretty quickly. (Would a 12th-level wizard EVER prepare Arc Lightning when he could use the same spell slot for Hold Person?)

By the way, does "cannot move" in the spell description just mean you can't take move actions, but you can still cast spells, etc?

Using Level or Hit Dice as a threshold creates the can't-use-on-a-boss problem, and removes that tension of getting them when they are low on HP. Using HP will affect Wizards more easily than Fighters, yes, but then I can see defensive spells that effectively boost your HP for the purpose of spell effects (magic resistance could be expressed entirely as temporary hit points, for instance, putting you over thresholds and absorbing damage from fireballs etc).

Given that you get a saving throw (and should do in all cases) then it will really come down to your abilities, and, generally, Wizards have better mental saves than Fighters (though I admit there could be more incentive for them to have good Wisdom and Charisma).

 

[Sir Brennen]

Using HP will affect Wizards more easily than Fighters, yes, but then I can see defensive spells that effectively boost your HP for the purpose of spell effects

So, instead of 3e Feat taxes, we'll have 5e spell taxes?

(magic resistance could be expressed entirely as temporary hit points, for instance, putting you over thresholds and absorbing damage from fireballs etc).

So, a fighter hacking at a demon is chopping away the demon's spell resistance whenever he hits?

Given that you get a saving throw (and should do in all cases) then it will really come down to your abilities, and, generally, Wizards have better mental saves than Fighters (though I admit there could be more incentive for them to have good Wisdom and Charisma).

Except that the higher HP fighter has infinitely better mental saves (i.e., doesn't even need to make one) than the wizard if he is above the HP threshold and the wizard isn't. It's like fighters have spell resistance as a class feature.

On the surface, HP thresholds for spells and effects like a medusa's gaze do seem like a cool narrative device, but unless PC classes are suddenly given the same HP progression and Con isn't factored in, it just fails at being fair, fun or logical for PCs.

 

[Uller]

Maybe I have missed something...do we have any known monster powers that have a hp threshold? 4e established that PCs and NPCs don't follow the same rules. I don't know if that will be the 5e way but I haven't noticed any of the monsters/NPCs stats and powers looking anything like a pc. Iti

 

[BobTheNob]

Im pretty much the Sir Brennan's observations.

The whole HP threshold approach just doesnt work for me. When designing a system (and I work in system design for financial services) there is a great truth which is that every time you introduce a new mechanism into an existing system, for every problem you fix, you create new and different problems. New problems will arise, the trick is to take all care to minimize problems arising from from the change.

The issue I have with HP threshold effecting spells is that I see problems. Lots of problem s. Irrational problems. (See Sir Brennans post) If I follow my rule of thumb that if there are that many issue before you even begin implementing, there is no way I would commit resources to its development.

This issue is more than just something I disagree with, its something Im distressed by. Its like looking at a train wreck 5 minutes before its going to happen, and no-one believes you.

 

[keterys]

I actually think the hp thresholds are a pretty fantastic idea. They'll need some tweaking and experimentation, but they're a lot more interesting to me than the old style "1 HD = unconscious, 2-3HD=paralyzed, 4H=stunned, 5+ HD = unaffected'

 

[RangerWickett]

Okay, a possible solution:

All classes get the same HP.

Warriors, who wear armor, get DR against physical attacks, making them more resilient in combat.

Now we can have HP thresholds.

 

[BobTheNob]

You make a very good point. HP thresholds are the way forward. What are your thoughts on scaling these thresholds (presuming spells can be prepared in different slots, which we er, haven't seen yet despite it being talked about once)? I think it's important that they do so linearly, but at different rates depending on spell power (10hp per spell level for sleep, 5hp per spell level for dominate or something).

The thing Is, I get what we are trying to do. We are trying to stop the "Paralyse round 1, end fight" issue. Good. Great. Excellent. We need to stop it.

But I dont think HP thresholds are the solution. For all that they stop that issue, they introduce new issues for us to deal with.

"Hey, look at that war elephant over there. It has massive Hit Points and is covered in barding so it has a really high AC. He is really hard to take down with weapons, but its ok, at least we can slow it down with mental attacks!" Well, no. Even though its got absolutely no reason to be able to resist my mental attacks more than anything else on the field, it has high HP, so its nigh invulnerable to any number of mental attacks. In fact, its better off than the low HP guy with the high wisdom save? Thats just weird = Because its big, its mentally resistant?

Its not only unbelievable, its takes away from the coolness of capabilities that bypass HP considerations. I always liked that HP's werent the be-all-and-end-all of tolerance. That even when you faced off against some creature with high physical tolerance, there were still ways to trump him. Now, with this rule, no. Pull out your swords boys, cause you spells arent going to work till we have chipped at him.

Its not that literal...you could pull out your damaging spells. Hope you didnt make an enchanter, cause he is going to have to wait till the later half of the fight before his spells work.

So yes, I see why they are doing it. I have read the justifications from WOTC and their thinking. The things is, whilst a solution is needed to the opening-nova-end-the-fight-spell issue, this brings more problems than it solves.

 

[MarkB]

If we are going to see a lot of this "beat the monster down to a hit point threshold" mechanic before letting loose certain spells or powers, it raises an obvious question: How transparent are hit point scores?

If you're waiting for the hobgoblin leader to dip below 40 hit points so you can go for the paralyse with Hold Person, can you tell whether the fighter's last attack did the job, or left it at 41? Do you, in fact, have any idea of its numerical hit point total, beyond "it's looking badly wounded at this point"?

That will make quite a difference to the effectiveness of these tactics.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Maybe I have missed something...do we have any known monster powers that have a hp threshold? 4e established that PCs and NPCs don't follow the same rules. I don't know if that will be the 5e way but I haven't noticed any of the monsters/NPCs stats and powers looking anything like a pc.

The idea was brought up in one of Mike Mearls columns shortly before the public play test, with the medusa being an example. Plus, it makes sense that if they're going to do it for spells, it would be used for creatures with spell-like/magical abilities.

The monsters in the playtest have already been acknowledged as not even close to being final versions.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Okay, a possible solution:

All classes get the same HP.

Warriors, who wear armor, get DR against physical attacks, making them more resilient in combat.

Now we can have HP thresholds.

Shall I help you fend off the pitchforks or the torches?