D&D 5E Will magic be problematic at latter levels?

[Stormonu]

You also have the issue with HP thresholds with the 100 hp fighter and 50 hp wizard that the wizard, who is accustomed to magic, is far easier to affect than the fighter.

I think I'd like to see spell DCs based off the spell level, but not modified by the caster's spellcasting ability. High level spells are still harder to resist, but doesn't compound with high ability scores. Have the spellcasting modifier affect something else - duration, area, damage or in some cases, the effect (say, for color spray - use modifier instead of HD/level).

Of course, this also makes me think that high strength possibly shouldn't add to hit chance for weapons - but still add to damage. Similar for Dexterity and have it only grant a bonus to AC and not to ranged weapon to-hit.

 

[RangerWickett]

Nah, I like stat vs. stat attacks and defenses.

So okay, the ideal D&D system has all characters at any given level possessing an equal number of HP. Tough guys like barbarians might get DR, armored guys are harder to hit, nimble guys can hide to avoid attacks or have a decent dodge, but wizards are straight-up squishy. HP scales from, say, 5 at 1st level to 100 at 20th.

(I'm not sure how to do big monsters? Do they just have double or quadruple HP, and thus take longer to take down?)

Spell DCs are 10 + caster's ability score modifier.

Spells with takedown effects have HP thresholds. Some people have suggested the options be "1. fail when you're below, 2. save to reduce (w/fail) or negate (w/success) if above threshold." I personally prefer "1. Save when you're below to either fail (w/fail) or reduce (w/success), or 2. save when you're above to either reduce (w/fail) or negate (w/success) if above."

Swords should be best for killing individuals. Swords can also kill multiple people up close. Spells can finish weakened foes or make life bad for tough foes. And spells can kill swaths from afar.

 

[Sadrik]

Hp thresholds are not that good. IMHO, a level mechanic works better. Something like, save: really bad or somewhat bad. If you are high enough level then save: somewhat bad/no effect.

Example: sleep spell. Might affect up to 3HD if you are 3HD or less save for falling asleep or be fatigued for duration. If you are 4HD or more fatigued on a fail for duration only and no effect if you make it. Then a caster can memorize the spell at a higher level to raise the HD limit. This I think is a good way to handle these types of effects. Similar to HP threshold but not as ticky tacky. The ability to wound someone and then slap them with an effect does not sit right with me. In some cases this is in fact the opposite. Charm person, should work where they are not injured for instance, I can envision sleep being similar.

 

[Sadrik]

Another point too, I am firmly in the camp of high level characters should save better as they improve. In 1e/2e this concept mitigated the powerful effects of higher level. With a ring of protection or cloak you could resist almost anything. That said I can see spells themselves applying the scaling themselves. Cast charm person on someone and the defender might get +1 per level the target is.

 

[BobTheNob]

For what its worth, Im more for a level mechanic than thresholds. Maybe even instead of binary that there is a spell failure link with it, or maybe something like creatures over certain levels getting advantage.

Something like
"Turn into Jelly"
Save : Constitution
Effect : Your target turns into a big bowl of jelly. Targets of level 6 to twelve have advantage to save vs this effect. Jellys and oozes are unaffected by this spell.

But even then Im clutching at straws a little.

The thing that I hate about thresholds is that characters all have different hit points, and thresholds mean that HP=Spell Resistance. So a high hit point barbarian is more spell resistant than a wizard? Arguable to and for, and certainly not conclusive. You could tweak the lore to make this effect make sense, but you could just as easily tweak it so that the result is totally nonsensical.

Its this result that makes me turn my thumb down to thresholds, that spell resistance inadvertently goes to certain classes (arguably the wrong ones) and high constitution characters.

I liked the days back in 2e when a spell caster entered the fray and the first thing that the martial character players said was "GET THE MAGE!"...because they knew the mage was something to be feared, but if they could hack it fast enough they had a chance. I dont want a situation where they say "Oh, Mage, thats ok, I have alot of hit points".

On another, Note Ranger Wickets last post touched on the one thing that might make it tolerable for me which is that everyone has the same hit points and we model durability in different ways (such as damage reduction). But even then, sorry, thresholds just isn't for me.

 

[RangerWickett]

Having a level threshold, like classic Sleep, makes the spell useless at high level.

I prefer these sorts of spells to be useful for either dealing with low-level foes in non-violent way ("Stop, guys. Don't kill the baker. I'll just mind-control him.") or as a 'finishing move' against a tough foe (The blackguard sags, and the fires of hell that were empowering him gutter and die. He raises his sword for one last defiant strike, but then the wizard snaps his fingers and snaps his head off.).

I dont want a situation where they say "Oh, Mage, thats ok, I have alot of hit points".

I'll just jump off this 40 ft. ledge. I can take the falling damage.

Hm, 8 goblins with spears? I'm 7th level! I can totally take them.



Should a fighter be more afraid of a wizard who wears a hat saying, "I'm an enchanter" than one with a hat that says, "I'm an evoker?" I mean, the evoker just deals HP damage, so the fighter isn't really afraid of him because he has a sense of how long he'll last in combat. But the enchanter can just take him out with one spell.

 

[gideonpepys]

Should a fighter be more afraid of a wizard who wears a hat saying, "I'm an enchanter" than one with a hat that says, "I'm an evoker?"

The fighter should be very afraid of any wizard with head big enough to wear such a hat. Just imagine how many spells he could fit in there!

 

[n00bdragon]

There are some game tables, such as mine, that don't allow the players to access the MM at the table and/or don't use fixed/average monster hit points.

There are some game tables, such as mine, that require players to wear pointy prosthetic ears if they are playing an elf. I hardly see how this is relevant to what rules should be in a new edition of D&D.

 

[BobTheNob]

Wicket, I get it, you like thresholds. I can accept that. I dont like thresholds, plain and simple.

This is a forum. I dont like thresholds, I was only try to make myself understood why. If my last post came across as argumentative then Im sorry...I only meant it to be a clarification of my position, not a denunciation of yours

But I know Im not alone in loathing thresholds, just as I know your not alone in supporting them. This is a fairly divisive design decision.

So thanks for your last post, it helped me understand you are coming from a bit better.

 

[kerleth]

[MENTION=6689371]n00bdragon[/MENTION], I understand your point and will try to explain mine more clearly. You are saying that if the players REALLY want to know, they can figure it out. I agree. That is scenario #1.
Scenario #2 involves players (like those I used to play with and myself) who find it more fun to not be completely sure. When in "competitive" mode and trying to make our characters survive and succeed, we might be tempted to use such knowledge. However, we have realized that in general we enjoy ourselves more without doing this so it's a sort of gentlemen's agreement not to. Informing them that a monster is at half hp is because we agree that the characters would have some idea about how beaten up it is getting.
If it is hard baked into the rules that everyone is told monster hp so that hp thresholds work, then scenario #2 isn't going to be a very viable one. However, if it is not hard baked in, then those who enjoy more of a scenario #1 playstyle can still do that at there own table while those who enjoy scenario #2 get what they want to. i hope that explained my viewpoint better.