5
\$\begingroup\$

I have designed this spell:

Hiccupera

transmutation cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 ft
Components: S, M (a spoonful of sugar)
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes
Classes: Druid, Bard, Sorcerer

You point at a creature within range and wiggle your finger.

The creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or have hiccups for the duration. The creature has disadvantage on ability checks made using Charisma for the duration of the spell.

Is this a well-designed spell? I am imagining it being cast on the self-righteous town guard making an announcement to the public, or on the merchant before you haggle, or on your fellow party member who is frustratingly persuasive.

Especially for a character who is a bit silly.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ What is "0th level"? 5E doesn't have 0th level spell slots, do you mean a cantrip or is this some homebrew mechanics? \$\endgroup\$
    – AnnaAG
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 9:03
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @AnnaAG There are no 0th level spell slots, but there definitely are 0th level spells. The rules for Spell Level state: "Every spell has a level from 0 to 9. A spell’s level is a general indicator of how powerful it is, with the lowly (but still impressive) magic missile at 1st level and the earth-shaking wish at 9th. Cantrips — simple but powerful spells that characters can cast almost by rote — are level 0." So yes, the spell in this question is a cantrip. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 12:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov fair enough, i've never seen this notation though or came across anyone ever referring to cantrips as "0th level spells" in 5e \$\endgroup\$
    – AnnaAG
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 13:05
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I would consider the implications of "having hiccups" beyond charisma checks. How do you envision this interacting with stealth checks related to staying silent? That would also affect the balance of the spell. \$\endgroup\$
    – FerventHippo
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 15:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AnnaAG oops i never checked that, I just typed it and copy and pasted it. Would rather be consistent with official stuff so, have fixed \$\endgroup\$
    – Nacht
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 21:56

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
21
\$\begingroup\$

I would never choose this spell because NPCs generally don't make Charisma checks.

I've been DM for a lot of games, and played in a lot more, and the thing this spell tries to do just doesn't happen. NPCs are generally trying to persuade/deceive/intimidate against the player's agency, not making charisma checks themselves. Think about some of the examples you mention in the question. Merchant is haggling over the value of an item: does the merchant roll deception for its value, or does the player roll Insight or Persuasion or Deception or Intimidation? In most scenarios, it is the players that do the rolling, because it is the players that are here to play the game. Having the NPC rolling for the Persuasion check can take away form the player's agency:

Player: I don't believe the shopkeep about where he got this sword.

DM: Well, he rolled a natural 20 in deception, so yes you do.

Having the NPCs making the Charisma checks just doesn't work well with player agency. So to answer your question, "is this a well designed spell?", no it is not. It fails to consider how the game is actually played. It might work as a minor set piece that an NPC might use against the player characters, but NPCs do not themselves make enough charisma checks for this to ever be a viable choice of spell for a player character. At best, all this spell does is have a chance it giving people hiccups with no mechanical consequences. It doesn't matter if it is a cantrip or a levelled spell, the design just isn't a choice players would ever make, unless they are really into making people have the hiccups.

As a final note, you mentioned possibly using this spell against other player characters. I would be very careful with this, PVP is best engaged in when it has been agreed upon beforehand. Surprise PVP can be not fun and quickly lead to hurt feelings. But when everyone has bought into the possibility of PVP, it can be great.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ NPCs do presumably have to convince other NPCs of things sometimes, but your key point covers that, too: the way D&D is normally played, that doesn't happen on-screen via rolls. The DM usually just decides what happened when a guard reported to his captain or lord, because the players aren't normally involved at that point. (Not hiding to concentrate on a short-duration debuff, or even a long-duration debuff like upcast Hex with disadvantage on Cha.) \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter Cordes
    Commented Sep 27, 2022 at 21:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PeterCordes Right on. Sure, the DM could implement NPC-NPC rolls that way, but that is the DM making fundamental changes to how they run the game to accommodate the use of one homebrew spell, which is IMO a textbook example of “problematic design”. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Sep 27, 2022 at 21:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ Usually players just assume that NPCs that know each other will already believe each other without something much stronger than disadvantage, no check would even be required. And that's the normal case so there's no point in even trying to interfere in the interaction. But if there was some critical interaction the PCs wanted to sabotage, one that could fail (like political negotiations?), they already could do that with Hex, in which case it might be appropriate for the game's spotlight to shine on that one NPC-NPC interaction, esp. if the PCs are able to observe it in real time. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter Cordes
    Commented Sep 27, 2022 at 22:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There may be a niche use against enemy Cha-based spellcasters. It would affect the ability checks required by spells such as counterspell, dispel magic, and telekinesis. For this specific use, it would be quite strong. Still hard to effectively employ, since the casting ability used by NPC spellcasters is usually not obvious. \$\endgroup\$
    – Surpriser
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 7:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ An Insight check is usually opposed by Deception. Often you will use passive score for that, but even then you can apply passive check rules and substract 5 from target value. A very niche use, but still... \$\endgroup\$
    – Revolver_Ocelot
    Commented Sep 28, 2022 at 9:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .