Play-Testing Hold Person

[ren1999]

The purpose of an HP threshold is so that you don't end a fight as soon as you roll initiative. I win init, you're paralyzed, and we coup de grace you. That's a) not dramatic, and b) can sabotage fun for climactic fights.

That's one of the reasons we agreed that it shouldn't be maximum hit point damage and the held enemy gets to roll a save to break the hold after every hit. Maximum damage on a Coup De Grace or Helpless enemy or character is too powerful. And it could be explained that damage is the result of hitting someone in a critical area. Even if the person is not moving, you could still swing and do little damage.

All the enchantment spells are too powerful if we don't allow for normal damage and a chance to save after every hit.

Having the enchantment spells do different things based on current hit points isn't the best way to deal with this.

 

[RangerWickett]

Maybe 'hold person' as a low level spell shouldn't completely paralyze someone, but if there is a spell that paralyzes someone, and you coup de grace them, they should die. I don't want to play a game where I walk up and put a sword through the throat of a helpless foe, and he doesn't take "mortal damage."

Now, maybe he's high level and he has some sort of "ignore mortal wound" power, or regeneration, or he's a lich, or whatever. But that should be a power, not simply extra HP.

 

[BobTheNob]

Maybe 'hold person' as a low level spell shouldn't completely paralyze someone, but if there is a spell that paralyzes someone, and you coup de grace them, they should die. I don't want to play a game where I walk up and put a sword through the throat of a helpless foe, and he doesn't take "mortal damage."

Now, maybe he's high level and he has some sort of "ignore mortal wound" power, or regeneration, or he's a lich, or whatever. But that should be a power, not simply extra HP.

If we put aside the "Hit points affecting spells" debate and refocus on Hold Person itself, then yes.

Paralysis can be just as good as a flat out kill. If you manage to paralyse someone for the duration of a combat, then at the end of combat you casually just finish off that guy who still cannot move, isnt that just as good as an SOD?

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.

 

[FireLance]

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.

So give wizards spell resistance as a class feature, too:
For the purpose of resisting the effects of spells, you are considered to have twice your current hit points.

 

[BobTheNob]

So give wizards spell resistance as a class feature, too:
For the purpose of resisting the effects of spells, you are considered to have twice your current hit points.

This means wizards and fighters start on par, but the wizard suffers "double" degradation to spell resistance from damage. (e.g. if a fighter takes 4 damage his effective hp vs spells drops by 4, but if a wizard takes 4 points of damage then his effective HP vs spells drops by 8)

But quite aside from that, its not a great sign to be patching an idea before its even officially hit the table, and Im seeing alot of patching before this idea is workable.

 

[FireLance]

But quite aside from that, its not a great sign to be patching an idea before its even officially hit the table, and Im seeing alot of patching before this idea is workable.

Well, given that the alternative is patching the idea after it officially hits the table...

Shall we chalk this up to "another potential problem identified by the public playtest process", then?

 

[BobTheNob]

Well, given that the alternative is patching the idea after it officially hits the table...

Shall we chalk this up to "another potential problem identified by the public playtest process", then?

Absolutely.

FWIW, I think the intention of the idea is bang on.

 

[Loonook]

I do love the fact that a large portion of the community that accepts HP as an abstract system of measuring an individuals ability to continue fighting... Does not like the idea that when an individual is becoming incapacitated their ability to defend against spells and other effects decreases.

The Fighter lives in a society of live by the sword die by the sword. The Mage, who is throwing fiery death from the skies, has various illusions to protect himself, and do all sorts of wondrous other effects probably not going to be very unsquishy.

The fact is that I LOVE a Mage vs. Mage combat that causes the mages to protect themselves through their spellcraft or a meat shield to keep from being affected by spells. The threshold will, more than likely, vary, and as we are 2 years out and seen about 1/10 of what will appear in the text (of which there is no guarantee anything stays in the form we see) that we can draw out current spells to define our unfounded assumptions.

The Fighter is harder to freeze than the common man due to his martial training. Hell, knights from Araxis to Gilead, the Iron Throne to Khatovar live in societies where magic/psionics/otherworldly power exists and, while the magic is deadly, they persevere. Wizards are squishy... And if they hit and cannot roll the MULTIPLE WISDOM SAVES that they have access to?

Well then... Guess that intelligent, wise Wizard is just going to derp it up with the other lackwits.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Stormonu]

We haven't seen any solid information on their spell design, but one of the things I'd like to see, if they're going with hit point threshholds, is to allow you to slot a spell based on HP threshholds.

Say, just for the sake of example, something on the order the spell works on a creature whose hit points are at 5 x level of spell. (For the sake of discussion here, I'm going to use the term "circle" to distinguish the 0-9 spell levels vs. character/monster levels)

For example, you could slot a Hold Person as a 2nd circle spell (at 3rd character level) and it would affect someone at 10 hp or less. Up it to a 3rd circle spell (at 5th level) and it affects someone at up to 15 hp or less. Boost it all the way up to 9th circle (at 17th level) and you can hold someone at 45 hp or less.

You could also have spells broaden what they affect at higher levels. Maybe as a 0-3rd circle spell, it only affects one type of creature (humanoids, animals, outsiders, etc). At higher spell circles, perhaps you can broaden their effects. These can either be hard-coded into the individual spells, or made into a general rule (my preference).

This could also work for damage spells, as well as staking out DCs - as you place spells into higher level slots you reduce the need for spell chains that basically do the same thing

If spellcasters can do these sort of tricks naturally with spells, you can have metamagic without the need for feats to cover this sort of stuff. It also would cut down on some of the redundant spell chains - Charm This, Dominate That, Cure Some of This, Lesser Spellamabob, Mass Whatzit Spell, etc.

 

[Rogue Agent]

The conditions based on the hit points of the target get pretty tedious. I think we should dump that idea.

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

The held target should then get an opportunity to break the enchantment after every hit because of the motivation of pain. Otherwise, if not attacked, the target can roll a save at the beginning of its turn.

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.