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

[Sadrik]

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

Memorize or cast at a higher level the need for a spell like deep slumber disappears. It can raise the level it affects. I would be fine if sleep only affected a 3HD creatures or less. As a first level spell. I would also be fine if sleep could not be used in combat. Sneak up and put the guard to sleep. If they make their save they are fatigued for a 1d4 rounds, so it is not a bianary on/off effect. Then if the wizard memorized it as a 2nd level spell it might raise the threshold to 5HD. Memorized as a 9th level spell it could affect 19HD. Seems a good way to go. Another important thing though is it should not be spell resistance if they are over the HD. Instead they should get the lesser effect on a fail, fatigued 1d4 rounds on a fail.

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

Using a stupid D&D ism to argue for mechanics whether good or bad is not a strong argument.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.")

I definitely like this.

BTW, why does the game needs save-or-suck spells at low levels?

Why couldn' Sleep, Charm Person and Hold Person be all ruled so that if you try to attack or do something hostile against the target, the spell immediately ends (before the attack)?

This would allow these spells to exist without any threshold and therefore remain useful at all levels.

Characters would use Sleep or Hold Person either to avoid a fight, to momentarily keep one of the foes out of the fight so that they can deal with less foes at the same time, or in out-of-combat situations. Sound still very useful to me, with no level cap.

So the fundamental question... why does the game really needs to have 1st-level (or low level) spells that allow the party to effectively render a target dead with one single spell?

 

[Szatany]

Memorize or cast at a higher level the need for a spell like deep slumber disappears. It can raise the level it affects. I would be fine if sleep only affected a 3HD creatures or less. As a first level spell. I would also be fine if sleep could not be used in combat.

Agreed. IMO sleep should be split into two separate spells.

1. Sleep
casting time 2 actions.
range 30 ft.
You put a 1 HD creature that is not fighting or otherwise agitated to sleep. It sleeps for one hour and has disadvantage on saves to awaken.
At higher levels: If you cast sleep at higher level than 1st, you may affect multiple targets. All targets' HD combine must be within spell's limit. For each spell level above first, HD limit increases by 2.

1. Mind Blast
casting time 1 action
You stun a 1 HD creature within 30 ft. At the beginning of its turn, stunned creature makes a Wisdom save to break the effect.
At higher levels: If you cast mind blast at higher level than 1st, you may affect multiple targets. All targets' HD combine must be within spell's limit. For each spell level above first, HD limit increases by 2.

 

[Kinak]

This would allow these spells to exist without any threshold and therefore remain useful at all levels.

I'm not sure they're trying to have spells remain useful at all levels, at least in combat.

Or, if they are, they're doing a sort of half-way job with it. They've specifically removed the level-based scaling on damage spells, so only the inherent scaling on save or suck effects has stayed in.

Which, in my opinion, is really backwards. Laying out some extra damage may overshadow other party members, but won't generally ruin encounters. Infinitely scaling save or suck effects overshadow other party members and ruin encounters.

Anyway, most of that isn't speaking to your point about low-level save or die effects, but I don't really know where they're trying to go with spells. It's just sort of a mess at this point.

So the fundamental question... why does the game really needs to have 1st-level (or low level) spells that allow the party to effectively render a target dead with one single spell?

It doesn't. There's an argument they're traditional, but that's all I've got.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Bluenose]

This is why we have playtesting, to make sure we go from a general idea to an actual balanced effect.

But if the wizard is concentrating on that spell, he's not casting another spell. It's like that scene in Conan the Destroyer where the two wizards glare at each other, one trying to telekinetically open a mouth-shaped door, and the other to keep it closed.

If the target gets out of range or line of sight, or if he attacks the concentrating wizard, he disrupts the spell. My idea was to balance risk and reward, and if it's not balanced that doesn't mean the idea itself needs to be tossed out; the numbers and odds and consequences just need to be tweaked.

And while no, I don't think weapon attacks should have an effect on a miss, I think they should be threatening. I mean, a 20th level wizard should be terrified of a fighter who gets in his face.

If a 100 HP fighter and a 50 HP wizard face off, the wizard casts a save-or-die spell that does nothing because the fighter has more HP. Then the fighter runs up and chops the wizard to bits.

Polymorph (4th level) has a hit point limit. It's 150. While turning someone into a cactus for one minute is not strictly Save-or-Die, it's pretty good at making a threat easier to manage. Then you Ray of Frost the cactus till it dies.

 

[KidSnide]

BTW, why does the game needs save-or-suck spells at low levels?

Why couldn' Sleep, Charm Person and Hold Person be all ruled so that if you try to attack or do something hostile against the target, the spell immediately ends (before the attack)?

Personally, I like the idea that a low-level wizard can (occasionally) be super-effective against a group of weak opponents. It's a super-traditional part of D&D, and getting to make the big impact is the part of the fun of having a limited daily resource.

That said, I don't see why Sleep needs to be particularly effective against higher level targets. I think the whole point of the spell is that it's a resource-efficient method of dealing with a large number of low-level targets. In D&DN, a couple dozen orcs is supposed to remain a threat, so preparing sleep remains a reasonable choice even at higher levels. If you prepare Sleep and don't run into any groups of lower-level opponents, you can use one of the other spells you prepared. It's supposed to be a niche spell.

For a spell like Sleep, I think the key is to have a very weak effect (i.e. "drowsy") that applies if you are above the HD threshold. Drowsy would have some utility use (i.e. if you're trying to sneak by an opponent), but wouldn't be particularly valuable in combat. I would allow the spell to scale, but the effect of casting it at a higher level is mostly to increase the number of HD it affects. I would only increase the HD threshold by a small amount. Even if you are casting Sleep as a 6th level spell, the point of it is to neutralize a whole squad of orcs (or other individually-weaker-than-you-opponents). If you want to neutralize a balor, you should be picking a different spell.

-KS

 

[airwalkrr]

You know one of the reasons I think 1st edition works so well is that saving throws scale with level while the caster doesn't necessarily improve the required number to resist their spells. There are a handful of spells that indicate the target takes a -X to its saving throw but these are the exception, not the rule. So a 20th-level magic-user can be tossing save or suck spells, but by 20th-level, your opponents are going to make their saving throws most of the time. This is a retrograde movement away from 1e, and it has been going that way with almost every edition (4e is something of an exception, but 4e combat is really boring IMHO because of this, esp. at high-level).

 

[n00bdragon]

@n00bdragon , 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.

Yeah, I get that some people prefer to handicap themselves to make things more interesting. That's all fine and dandy, but forcing this handicap to be available destroys so many good mechanical options the designers could play with. If HP is explicitly public knowledge you can then design spells and abilities that deal with how much HP a creature has. If they just cordon off all new design space behind the curtain of "Well, that would interfere with someone's entrenched playstyle" you're just going to end up with a bland game with no depth to it at all. Not saying that HP thresholds are the end all be all of mechanical depth but I think it's a good posterboy for a larger design problem.

 

[Falling Icicle]

You know one of the reasons I think 1st edition works so well is that saving throws scale with level while the caster doesn't necessarily improve the required number to resist their spells. There are a handful of spells that indicate the target takes a -X to its saving throw but these are the exception, not the rule. So a 20th-level magic-user can be tossing save or suck spells, but by 20th-level, your opponents are going to make their saving throws most of the time. This is a retrograde movement away from 1e, and it has been going that way with almost every edition (4e is something of an exception, but 4e combat is really boring IMHO because of this, esp. at high-level).

It doesn't work so well. Having most of your spells be resisted and wasted is not at all fun.

 

[airwalkrr]

It doesn't work so well. Having most of your spells be resisted and wasted is not at all fun.

Except they weren't usually wasted, as many spells had some effect even on a failed save. But when they succeeded, you got to knock down an enemy in one fell swoop. You learn to save spells that have no effect on a successful save on weak enemies as a utility measure (or soften them up with a debuff like feeblemind), such as saving dominate for the weak-willed drow slave in the giant castle, and use spells that still have an effect on a successful save as your bread and butter spells, and magic missile for everything else. I loved that.