Hit Points Suck

[EjoThims]

Hell, hit someone with a Twinned Maximized Scorching Ray at 17th level. 144 damage with a 7th level spell slot. Suddenly an evocation is now stronger than Finger of Death.

That's why I favor SoD being converted to DD + X% of current health. The more healthy your target is, and the more overall health it has, the more effective they are, but they will likely never one round anyone that you couldn't just DD nuke anyway.

[veekie]

I totally agree with Straw Man here. Taking the teeth out of a spell for 10-90 hitpoints at no action cost seems pretty cheap. SoD's may be bad, but I've never been a fan of turning them into direct damage. Hell, hit someone with a Twinned Maximized Scorching Ray at 17th level. 144 damage with a 7th level spell slot. Suddenly an evocation is now stronger than Finger of Death.

Wait a minute, a 17th caster level SoD would be 170 damage under the 10->CL rule, not 90. For that very reason.

[bkdubs123]

I totally agree with Straw Man here. Taking the teeth out of a spell for 10-90 hitpoints at no action cost seems pretty cheap. SoD's may be bad, but I've never been a fan of turning them into direct damage. Hell, hit someone with a Twinned Maximized Scorching Ray at 17th level. 144 damage with a 7th level spell slot. Suddenly an evocation is now stronger than Finger of Death.

Wait a minute, a 17th caster level SoD would be 170 damage under the 10->CL rule, not 90. For that very reason.

Oh, okay, I thought it was 10hp/spell level. My bad. Still... I'm not sure it's a good idea. It just doesn't strike me as my cup of tea. To each his own, however.

[Ashtagon]

Personally, I think anything that prevents combats being won or lost on a single die roll are good, because otherwise you remove dramatic tension.

I think it should be based on spell level rather than caster level though; otherwise, slow and finger of death would both cost 170 hp to counter this way. The issue is balancing the amount of hp. Perhaps CL, minus 20 for each spell level lower than the highest spell level available to that caster?

(Personally, I favour a direct 10 x spell level. But then, I like the idea of restoring hp-blasting spells to being the primary choice for a caster).

I see the action sequence working like this:

* spellcaster casts spell.
* target makes saving throws as appropriate
* If target would be subject to a status effect, he can counter the status effect by burning hp. This decision is up to the target; he is aware of the hp cost and the status effect before deciding whether or not to burn hp to avoid the status effect. If he has insufficient hp remaining, he cannot burn hp to avoid the effect.

[Straw_Man]

  I intended it to mean spell level, (so that Twin Maximised Scorching Ray would only be a second level spell; though still ineligible as an example because I specifically stated you couldn't negate damage dealing spells this way  ) so the MOST a character would 'burn' would be 90 hp. This means that at level 20 a melee character could negate 1, maybe 2 9th level spells.

  It's still by no means a perfect fix, but I'd argue it's an elegant i.e. simple way of extending combat beyond a single SoD or SoL. Thoughts?

[veekie]

Per CL keeps them on par with direct damage sources though, or the effect simply isn't competitive with Ref save half direct damage attacks.

[Straw_Man]

Per CL keeps them on par with direct damage sources though, or the effect simply isn't competitive with Ref save half direct damage attacks.

 
A) Why be competitive. When has DD made a game-changing difference in play? If a caster wants to cheese up her CL she's investing feats, etc; I'm not going to gimp her, DD's weak enough already in play.

B) Untrue. Most DD spells are d6 dmg. per CL classic example being Fireball. Thats an average of 3.5 dmg. per caster level. Using that logic 10 hp is equal to 3 CL. An unnecessary complication.

[veekie]

The exact number per CL is still flexible, 5 hp per CL is almost as easy as 10 to work out, while if SoD effects(typically point, save negates or very minor partial) can be shrugged off with less effect than the typically AoE, save half, direct damage spells, they have become strictly inferior direct damage, instead of an alternative damage source with a variant kill condition.

[bkdubs123]

All the more reason to make the Implacable feature require an immediate action.

[Bauglir]

Possible save or die suggestion: since the whole damage thing basically makes them SoD, making them kinda redundant, how bout give them all two saves, like Phantasmal Killer? If you make the first one, nothing or something mildly irritating (for high level) happens, if you make the second but not the first, something mildly irritating or quite nasty (for high level) happens, if you fail both, you die or are otherwise screwed. Wail of the Banshee, for instance, might be 1d4 points of negative energy damage/2 caster levels if you make your first, 1d4 negative levels (and the damage) if you only make your second, and death if you fail both. Have the second save be lower than the first and/or delayed, maybe?

[veekie]

Back to same binary problem, it's still deciding a fight in a single action, abeit now some factor harder to pull off, tying it to hp lets that aspect be adjusted along with melee either doing nothing or delivering one hit KOs.

[Bauglir]

True. The trouble with tying it to HP is that it becomes redundant with DD. It's the problem of having a Sorcerer take a lot of blasting spells; if you can blow somebody up really well, does it really matter if you have 20 ways to do it?

Would it address the problem if death were delayed for 3 or 4 rounds? Saves wouldn't be made until the effect is due to happen, preventing casters from dropping a SoD, saying, "Oh, hey, he failed, everyone take Full Defense for 3 rounds!" It would mean that using SoD would be about as effective at ending a fight as DD if it works, and otherwise you get some lesser effect.

[veekie]

Fights tend to end in that many rounds, so you'd probably be better off letting the fighter hit the target with a large blunt instrument. He'd die faster and more reliably. So far hp burn seems to have the best balance of outcomes without having to rewrite a large number of spells.