[Playtest 2] HP thresholds

[KidSnide]

I agree with the general idea that hit point thresholds should be (a) current hit points instead of maximum hit points and (b) limited to physical effects. Hit points is a representation of physical toughness / luck / determination, and makes far more sense for physical effects than for mental effects.

For mental effects, hit dice are a better representation of abstract power. (They are also how spells like sleep worked in pre 3.x D&D.) But -- that having been said -- I'm not sure that hit dice are better enough to be worth a separate mechanic. Level + some mental stats is an ugly calculation, but is probably closer to an appropriate mental defense threshold.

-KS

 

[Warbringer]

Idea, yes.

Implementation, no.

Why this can't just be if the spell dc > the creature defense ( to use 3e and 4e parlance ) is beyond me. This then is basically *spell expertise* for casters.

.. And while we are at it make spell resistance an advantage to defenses vs magical attacks and effects (if it isn't already) ...

 

[BobTheNob]

It gives HP a role it shouldn't necessarily have

Should your maximum hit points be a better defense against spells such as suggestion and charm person instead of your mental stats? Should a creature with low INT/WIS/CHA saves be immune to abilities that a creature of the same challenge rating with higher mental stats, but with a lower CON score, isn't? I don't know, but it doesn't feel right to me. HP isn't always an accurate assessment of a creature's power. Trolls (level 6 elite monsters) have less HP than gelatinous cubes (level 2 solo monsters) for instance. I don't think it should be a habit players should adopt when figuring out how powerful a creature is.

Moreover, your own HP can be the deciding factor in how effective your abilities are. The playtest warlock can gain an advantage on social skills against a creature with a lower max HP than the warlock. How does that make sense? Why is the effectiveness of this ability determined by your CON score instead of, say, your CHA score or even your primary attribute, your INT?

This is what I have greatest difficulty with. HP is fine for measuring how much you have left to contribute to the fight, but threshold seems to turn it into a "super-defence". Dont have a great mental save? Dont worry, thanks to your fantastic HP pool, you dont have to roll a save! So forget everything else and just stack CON like a mental patient.

I just like the thought that HP are NOT the be-all and end-all of defending oneself. That every creature out there has a vulnerability. I like that I can mind control a giant as an alternative to trying to chip away at a massive HP pool. I like that I can stack Debuffs of a dragon to stop it insta-slaughtering the party. I like that HP was NOT the only facet in survivability, but one of many facets.

Its good that they put the idea out there, innovation does not occur without ideas, but this one just seems to have gone way further than I ever thought it would.

 

[1of3]

Most problems, I think, can be solved by using current hit points. That can also provide for interesting narration. Imagine a succubus with a few minions. The minions hurt the character. Suddenly the succubus' voice offering relief and bliss becomes so much sweeter.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the current HP thresholds, but not the maximum HP thresholds. The former are cool, because it allows you to beat down a powerful enemy and then finish them off with the spell. I can buy that a powerful creature is less able to resist magic when they're tired and injured. But Maximum HP thresholds feel false to me and introduce the metagame problems mentioned above.

Agree, this to me keeps the majority of the positives of the threshold idea and tosses most of the negatives.

 

[Ellington]

Agree, this to me keeps the majority of the positives of the threshold idea and tosses most of the negatives.

I also don't feel as bad asking the DM if the monster is currently under my threshold as asking him if its maximum HP is below my threshold.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think we ought to use the rule of thumb for passing skill checks automatically (which I note has been removed as a formal rule):

You automatically pass the saving throw if your ability is 5 more than the save DC.

or:

You only get a saving throw if your ability is 5 more than the save DC.

The former is better than the latter - though you could change either to 'if your ability is more than the save DC', given that most save DCs will start at 12-14 and not many things have an ability in the 17-19 range.

 

[howandwhy99]

To be fair, HD, Hit Dice Thresholds were in the game 30 years ago. Just not for traditional spells.

Turn Undead was based on Hit Die number. And there was a kind of metagaming when, for example, a cleric wouldn't even try to turn a wight because it was too powerful given the player having seen the table. (Of course the table was in the DMG, but that didn't stop everyone).

 

[RangerWickett]

I ran a one-shot this weekend with sorta made-up sorta 5e stats for the PCs.

For the sorcerer's "Charm of Ensorcellment," I had it so the target got a save if they had more than 13 HP (10 + the caster's Charisma modifier). If they succeeded, the spell was basically a 1-round dominate. If they failed, the spell charmed them for a few hours, and let you dominate them for 3 rounds. If they had 13 or fewer HP, they auto-failed the save.

For the fighter's Sword of Sharpness, you could activate it once per hour on a hit. It would delimb you if, after it dealt damage, you had 13 HP or fewer (10 + attacker's Strength modifier). If you had more HP, you'd make a save, and on a success you'd just be a little mangled, taking a penalty until you could properly rest (not that that would ever happen with most monsters).

It seemed to work pretty smoothly. Except I didn't have any "big bads" I had to worry about getting one-shotted. Oh, and that I hadn't defined "delimb," and a player kept joking that he was going to poke an enemy and his arms and legs would all fall off.

 

[RangerWickett]

Rather than saying "creatures with X hp or less get no save", I'd rather have "creatures with Intelligence 12 or lower get no save". That makes a lot more sense.

I thought one of the points of the system was to let you finish off high-level monsters once you've worn them down. So having success/fail be based on a static stat that doesn't change during combat wouldn't work.

I think ultimately you won't be able to have a single unified mechanic that works for every spell. If you're trying to a) allow for cool "take-downs," and b) protect high-level enemies from being gimped by a single bad roll, while c) making it so using one of your few spell slots for the day doesn't piss you off when it does nothing, then, well, things have to work in a lot of different ways.

Hold Person probably shouldn't be able to take down the main villain in the first round of combat, at least if you like dramatic climaxes. So you'd have something like: "The target is paralyzed if it fails a save. On a success, it is slowed for 1 round. If the target has more than 20 HP, then on a failure it is slowed, and on a success the spell has no effect."