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

[Kraydak]

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

Lots of spell slots, effective spells assumed failed saves, high Save DCs. Choose one and only one. Yes, it does cut down on the fun associated with overwhelming power that characterized high level Caster play in 3e. But it lets other classes actually be relevant, so, well, deal with it.

(note that HP caps don't actually interact with the above choices, except in that low HP caps can prevent spells from being effective, so the caps need to be low)

 

[KidSnide]

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.

I think there is no doubt that a satisfying secondary effect makes a spell more fun. The question is really whether it's worth the complexity of adding secondary effects for a large number of spells.

"Save for half damage" is well and good, but it's often less obvious how to create satisfying secondary effects without doubling the length of the spell.

I wonder if there are a small number of effects that could be re-used. For example, most charm, hold or dominate spells could have a secondary effect of causing the target to have disadvantage of checks and attacks on its next turn. Maybe that's not interesting enough, but it would be some kind of benefit if a weak opponent makes a save or your cast the spell on an opponent that is above the spell's HD/hp threshold.

-KS

 

[airwalkrr]

You could make it so that enchantment spells are not save negates but save only stuns or slows the target (depending on the power if the spell). That way even if the target isn't dominated, they are still slowed down or something.

 

[Sadrik]

You could make it so that enchantment spells are not save negates but save only stuns or slows the target (depending on the power if the spell). That way even if the target isn't dominated, they are still slowed down or something.

Dazed condition would work. Stunned perhaps for high level, stunned is a very powerful conditions though. charm might be duration... charmed for 1 hour or if they make it charmed for 1 round. Binary on/off spells are pretty boring...

 

[Schmoe]

Dazed condition would work. Stunned perhaps for high level, stunned is a very powerful conditions though. charm might be duration... charmed for 1 hour or if they make it charmed for 1 round. Binary on/off spells are pretty boring...

Hopefully they don't add "stunned for 1 round" as a secondary effect on a save. That's effectively a no-save stun, which is incredibly powerful.

The one good thing I like about HP thresholds over HD thresholds is that you can whittle down the HP over time, which means you can work toward making your spells effective. It enables tactical play and leads to some fun combat, although there is still the problem of beating on the baker until you can charm him.

I can imagine some mechanics that might be more satisfying from a gameplay perspective, but everything I've come up with so far adds complexity and book-keeping. For example, imagine if characters had another stat, Mental Resistance Points (MRP). Then some spells might have a MRP threshold beyond which they are ineffective. But in this case, if the subject is over the MRP threshold, the spell could do MRP damage. That way you could whittle down a subject's resistance to mental magic, until eventually you can toy with him at your leisure. In a similar fashion, physically-debilitating spells might still have the HP threshold, but could do a small amount of HP damage if the subject is over the HP threshold. In this context, beating up the baker so that he is more susceptible to, say, Contagion, actually makes sense.

So far, the compromise I like the most has been the 1E saving throw progression. Keep in mind that some of the reason that spells were still effective is that, even at very high levels, lower-powered creatures could still be dangerous. So even though your Confusion spell might not have any effect on the fire giant High Priest, who only needed a 2 to save, it would still probably catch a number of the fire giant grunts that could otherwise make a serious impression on your 20th level party. In 3E, those fire giant grunts would be superfluous fluff, so nobody cares about confusing them. In 1E, confusing the grunts would be a big deal.

 

[the Jester]

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.

I completely disagree with you here. Enemy hit points are such a metagame thing that making them known to the players would completely break immersion for many groups. While it's fine if your group (or any other) prefers to play with them known to the players, it is most definitely not fine to cram that down the throats of those for whom it would make the game less enjoyable.

I disagree that monster hps must be player knowledge for hp thresholds to be worth using in spell design; I think it's fine, and it always has been since 1e and before (c.f. power word spells). Especially if the design of said spells includes an effect on those with too many hps to really fall under the spell's effects.

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.

The point of 5e is to bring the D&D community back together, not to alienate yet more of it.

Nor do I believe that all design space- or really, much at all- it curtained off, as you describe.