PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Confusion spell debate...



BadCoyote
2019-10-17, 02:38 AM
Wanted to see what people here at GitP think about this discussion/debate I was having with one of my players concerning the confusion spell... it is a spell that has a save that if the target makes, prevents the spell from working. Then, the targets all get to roll on the 1d10 chart to see what the effect of the spell ends up being if they fail the save. 9 and 10 being... nothing. I find that really irritating and want to houserule it so that 1-10 all have an effect... and this is why: If someone has to make a save versus a spell that is where you find out if the spell works or not (or in some cases, at a reduced level) But in the case of confusion, you can fail the save and STILL in effect succeed, if you then roll a 9 or 10 for the effect. It is like why do you have to save if then you can still be safe. It is a double level of protection. In 5th edition casters have fewer resources to work with and to cast a spell and use a fourth level wizard spell slot to cast a spell just to have someone get second chances on the first turn to not be affected and then a chance every other turn for the duration? It is too much of a nerf of the spell. One of the PCs used the spell and three out of four targets failed the save... but then 2 of the 3 rolled a 9 or 10 on the first round. Basically it ended up being a spell with a fourth level spell slot that on the turn it was cast made one opponent lose one action. That stunk and was a total waste of resources to cast. Sure, it continues in future rounds if all go well, but that is not always a given. I wanted to adjust the numbers to get rid of 9 and 10 and make every roll of the affect dice actually AFFECT the person that failed the save. One of my players gave me push back, thinking that it was not needed (yes, he was a melee fighter that didn't have to deal with his sword ever hitting but then doing zero damage. Before you bring it up, resistances and invulerabilities work against both melee and magic so that is a thing for everyone and should not be a part of this). What do you guys think? Am I making sense?

NNescio
2019-10-17, 04:23 AM
Wanted to see what people here at GitP think about this discussion/debate I was having with one of my players concerning the confusion spell... it is a spell that has a save that if the target makes, prevents the spell from working. Then, the targets all get to roll on the 1d10 chart to see what the effect of the spell ends up being if they fail the save. 9 and 10 being... nothing. I find that really irritating and want to houserule it so that 1-10 all have an effect... and this is why: If someone has to make a save versus a spell that is where you find out if the spell works or not (or in some cases, at a reduced level) But in the case of confusion, you can fail the save and STILL in effect succeed, if you then roll a 9 or 10 for the effect. It is like why do you have to save if then you can still be safe. It is a double level of protection. In 5th edition casters have fewer resources to work with and to cast a spell and use a fourth level wizard spell slot to cast a spell just to have someone get second chances on the first turn to not be affected and then a chance every other turn for the duration? It is too much of a nerf of the spell. One of the PCs used the spell and three out of four targets failed the save... but then 2 of the 3 rolled a 9 or 10 on the first round. Basically it ended up being a spell with a fourth level spell slot that on the turn it was cast made one opponent lose one action. That stunk and was a total waste of resources to cast. Sure, it continues in future rounds if all go well, but that is not always a given. I wanted to adjust the numbers to get rid of 9 and 10 and make every roll of the affect dice actually AFFECT the person that failed the save. One of my players gave me push back, thinking that it was not needed (yes, he was a melee fighter that didn't have to deal with his sword ever hitting but then doing zero damage. Before you bring it up, resistances and invulerabilities work against both melee and magic so that is a thing for everyone and should not be a part of this). What do you guys think? Am I making sense?

It's an AoE Wisdom save-or-suck effect that no creatures are typically immune to, unlike other similar spells such as Hypnotic Pattern, Fear and upcasted Hold Person.

The spell has its niche, but is generally not worth a spell known. A Wizard with extra spells scribed might choose to prepare Confusion though, depending on what enemies she thinks she will encounter that day. (undead who also have fear immunity, say. Though even then EBT and Sleet Storm are probably more solid general-purpose spells.)

Personally I don't see this spell in action often except when the DM lets someone summon 8x Pixies.

BadCoyote
2019-10-17, 07:55 AM
It's an AoE Wisdom save-or-suck effect that no creatures are typically immune to, unlike other similar spells such as Hypnotic Pattern, Fear and upcasted Hold Person.

The spell has its niche, but is generally not worth a spell known. A Wizard with extra spells scribed might choose to prepare Confusion though, depending on what enemies she thinks she will encounter that day. (undead who also have fear immunity, say. Though even then EBT and Sleet Storm are probably more solid general-purpose spells.)

Personally I don't see this spell in action often except when the DM lets someone summon 8x Pixies.

Fine, but what about the point I was trying to make? Should a spell give the target stacked chances to not be effected? Is it a good idea for me to houserule it to not give the target that failed his save a second 20% chance to STILL not be affected? I think so and my player didn't think so. I am not sure if I am right or not so I wanted some other opinions.

Composer99
2019-10-17, 12:33 PM
Wanted to see what people here at GitP think about this discussion/debate I was having with one of my players concerning the confusion spell... it is a spell that has a save that if the target makes, prevents the spell from working. Then, the targets all get to roll on the 1d10 chart to see what the effect of the spell ends up being if they fail the save. 9 and 10 being... nothing. I find that really irritating and want to houserule it so that 1-10 all have an effect... and this is why: If someone has to make a save versus a spell that is where you find out if the spell works or not (or in some cases, at a reduced level) But in the case of confusion, you can fail the save and STILL in effect succeed, if you then roll a 9 or 10 for the effect. It is like why do you have to save if then you can still be safe. It is a double level of protection. In 5th edition casters have fewer resources to work with and to cast a spell and use a fourth level wizard spell slot to cast a spell just to have someone get second chances on the first turn to not be affected and then a chance every other turn for the duration? It is too much of a nerf of the spell. One of the PCs used the spell and three out of four targets failed the save... but then 2 of the 3 rolled a 9 or 10 on the first round. Basically it ended up being a spell with a fourth level spell slot that on the turn it was cast made one opponent lose one action. That stunk and was a total waste of resources to cast. Sure, it continues in future rounds if all go well, but that is not always a given. I wanted to adjust the numbers to get rid of 9 and 10 and make every roll of the affect dice actually AFFECT the person that failed the save. One of my players gave me push back, thinking that it was not needed (yes, he was a melee fighter that didn't have to deal with his sword ever hitting but then doing zero damage. Before you bring it up, resistances and invulerabilities work against both melee and magic so that is a thing for everyone and should not be a part of this). What do you guys think? Am I making sense?


Fine, but what about the point I was trying to make? Should a spell give the target stacked chances to not be effected? Is it a good idea for me to houserule it to not give the target that failed his save a second 20% chance to STILL not be affected? I think so and my player didn't think so. I am not sure if I am right or not so I wanted some other opinions.

I mean, you're talking homebrew, so there's not really a right or wrong in this case. I'd be inclined to agree with you, rather than your player, and if you're the GM it's usually your perogative to do things like tweak spell effects to suit your tastes, although if you're making a lot of changes, it's the sort of thing that needs to be laid out during a session 0 rather than happening on the fly.

Having said that, in the particular situation you're citing, the character who cast the spell clearly got unlucky (or, you might say, the targets who failed their saves got lucky). I would keep that in mind when making any tweaks.

I think it's well and good that "this round, the target has a clear head" is a possible effect of the spell. The problem is that it happens 20% of the time. That calls for changing the probability space of the options. Did you have something in mind?

Kane0
2019-10-17, 09:13 PM
Might interest you. (https://youtu.be/l7BEDp_MMus?t=94)

With regards to filling in that 9-10 roll in the effect, how about on a 9 they are dominated by the caster (as per the spell) for that turn and on a 10 they fall asleep (as per the spell).

Roderick_BR
2019-10-18, 10:03 AM
Might interest you. (https://youtu.be/l7BEDp_MMus?t=94)

With regards to filling in that 9-10 roll in the effect, how about on a 9 they are dominated by the caster (as per the spell) for that turn and on a 10 they fall asleep (as per the spell).
I'd leave that 10 as nothing, because that's the nature of the spell (passing the save ends the spell, the 9-10 effect means they wont get crazy THAT turn), but 9 could be something else, yeah. I'd say dominated is a bit much, maybe you can use a free Command instead? You give a command every round, and each target that rolls a 9 is affected that turn, so you choose if you want them to drop weapons, move somewhere, or just stand still.