Play-Testing Hold Person

[I'm A Banana]

I have always felt that hold person was inappropriate as a 2nd level spell. Always thought that if you are going to paralyze someone (given how potent and effect that actually is) , it should have been higher level.

Let me introduce you to my good friend Sleep. Killing entire rooms full of goblins since 1st level in 1e.

Actual paralysis for one person is tame by comparison, and should totally actually happen with the spell.

The HP threshold thing still weirds me a little, because I don't like the idea of "fighting it until I can affect it," but when applied to creatures whose max HP is already below the threshold...it kind of works OK.

Personally, I kind of like the idea of some kind of "weakness" you need to apply first, some sort of opening you need to be able to do it, that isn't related directly to HP, but stuff like that isn't very D&D and is a bit complex. But you'd think of it as a chain of events. Say, the enemy the priest wants to Hold first needs to be Chastised, then Punished, and then, after three actions, the priest can Hold them.

 

[FireLance]

Personally, I kind of like the idea of some kind of "weakness" you need to apply first, some sort of opening you need to be able to do it, that isn't related directly to HP, but stuff like that isn't very D&D and is a bit complex. But you'd think of it as a chain of events. Say, the enemy the priest wants to Hold first needs to be Chastised, then Punished, and then, after three actions, the priest can Hold them.

Heh, that reminds me of the "three tangents to full contact" system for telepathic psionic powers in 2e (which I kind of liked, and which, alas, has never exactly been replicated in any subsequent edition).

Having something similar might require giving spellcasters some kind of "wear down mental defenses" at-will attack (maybe divine malediction for clerics, curse for warlocks and enchant for wizards?), and the target can only be affected by a spell such as hold person after the spellcaster has "hit" with the attack often enough.

Alternatively, maybe for such spells, the target needs to fail a certain number of saving throws before it "takes". Until the target fails his last save, the spell is not expended, and the spellcaster may choose to re-cast the spell or switch to another one. The interim failed saves can have an at-will spell level effect, e.g. for hold person, maybe on the interim failed saves, the target must choose to either lose its move action or get disadvantage on its attacks until the end of the spellcaster's next turn.

 

[BobTheNob]

Let me introduce you to my good friend Sleep. Killing entire rooms full of goblins since 1st level in 1e.

Actual paralysis for one person is tame by comparison, and should totally actually happen with the spell.

The HP threshold thing still weirds me a little, because I don't like the idea of "fighting it until I can affect it," but when applied to creatures whose max HP is already below the threshold...it kind of works OK.

Personally, I kind of like the idea of some kind of "weakness" you need to apply first, some sort of opening you need to be able to do it, that isn't related directly to HP, but stuff like that isn't very D&D and is a bit complex. But you'd think of it as a chain of events. Say, the enemy the priest wants to Hold first needs to be Chastised, then Punished, and then, after three actions, the priest can Hold them.

I play Diablo 3...Im not familiar with sleep

 

[ren1999]

Agreed. They're not interesting, their inconsistency screws with system mastery, and they seem to be completely unnecessary.

I would be happier not giving them the save at the beginning of their turn: Save if they get hurt. Save if somebody takes an action to "snap them out of it". Otherwise they're held for the duration.

It gives the spell a legitimate non-combat use; it becomes tactically more interesting; and it can now be used to facilitate retreats.

Good ideas. I'll see how that plays out.

 

[Bagpuss]

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

I don't think it is a good idea to reintroduce the problems DR causes. To try and fix problems caused by another system that has been introduced.

I also don't like the hit point caps, how does a DM convey that information to a player so they aren't just wasting spells on creatures with 11 hps, without breaking into game mechanics?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

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

Er, no more so than having to cast Mage Armor to improve your AC.

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

Obviously only damage from magical sources would apply to these temporary hit points.

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.

Sure, at the start of combat, but the Fighter is always the one to absorb the most damage. Wizards rarely get hit, even in 4th edition where their hitpoints and AC are closer to the rest of the party.

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.

I agree, if hit dice range from d4 to d12 there is a large disparity, but a recent L&L mentioned a range from d6 to d10, reducing this, particularly if you hand out average HP. Con factors at first level but becomes less important as you increase in level, even accounting for the minimum dice roll effects. I'm not saying HP thresholds are perfect, but I don't think they suffer as badly as you portray.

The alternatives would be level or hit dice thresholds, which don't change during combat. Perhaps a new statistic could be introduced, but this then becomes complicated. With flat math, HP/damage are currently the most scalable feature after actual level, so mechanics that use them should be considered.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think the threshold argument comes down to two questions:

1) Should you be able to affect targets easier with certain spells/effects if they have been damaged in combat?

2) Should the available targets of a spell be limited by creature 'level'?

1&2 is covered by absolute HP thresholds (with the premise that anything with high HP is higher 'level').

1&!2 is covered by relative HP thresholds (bloodied for instance)

!1&2 is covered by traditional HD or level thresholds

!1&!2 reduces it all to saving throws

My problem with !2 is that, under flattened math, saving throws don't change much between low and high level creatures. I completely accept if some people don't like 1 though.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Say, the enemy the priest wants to Hold first needs to be Chastised, then Punished, and then, after three actions, the priest can Hold them.

So, like, you'd have to cast Vanish on the bad-guy, first, before you cast X-Zone?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, like, you'd have to cast Vanish on the bad-guy, first, before you cast X-Zone?

Sort of!

I was thinking more Break-Topple-Daze, but I've been playing a lot of Xenoblade these days.

 

[eamon]

"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?

I don't think that in the D&D next paradigm an elephant would necessarily have lots of hit points. Being a quantity that scales with level, it represents skill & training and just generally level more than massive size.

So, at levels in which a war elephant is no more than a mount, its hit points might not be very impressive compared to those of the party.

Also, traditionally, hold person affects... people. If that's sustained, then confounding effects from size might not be an issue.