5E 'Combo' Spells to increase action economy, bypass cocentration - Page 2
+ Log in or register to post
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71
  1. #11
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    8,035
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Lanefan


    Friend+
    How about just removing the concentration requirement and setting a fixed duration provided you cast the spell using a slot 3 spell levels higher than normal? Thus, it would take until 7th level for someone to do this with a 1st-level spell; for a 3rd-level spell you'd need to burn a 6th-level slot, and so on.
    XP mikebr99 gave XP for this post

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanefan View Post
    How about just removing the concentration requirement and setting a fixed duration provided you cast the spell using a slot 3 spell levels higher than normal? Thus, it would take until 7th level for someone to do this with a 1st-level spell; for a 3rd-level spell you'd need to burn a 6th-level slot, and so on.
    Has the advantage of dealing more "directly" with the concentration issue some view as a problem (while others view it as a feature) rather than creating middle-man workaround spells.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by mellored View Post
    At the cost of a level 3 slot, yes.

    Compared to greater invisibility, (level 4 slot).

    Well, great invis at level 4 vs blur+this (a 3 and a 2)

    both result in a basic combat effect of someone else getting disadvantages applied to targetted attacks against them The invis also applied advantage on attacks made by and the built-in lack of location known when not revealing themselves.

    offset to this is that the greater invisibility locks down the spellcaster's concentration slot. So the advantage for the target in their offense is weighed off against the lack of concentration for the caster. Also, greater invis require's the caster to make saves for damage using CON instead of the protected individual. Unless the caster has CON as a favored save, that can be a serious difference,
    especially since they are not getting the defensive gains.

    basically, while those elements may at times seem to offset, one of the bigger worries i would have with this approach is the global shift of opening up spells with a SELF designation to de facto all become 1 TARGET. it seems to me that many times in the rules spells with SELF are given to be "balanced" somewhat by that restriction on casting on other targets.

    So this approach not only opens the action economy and concentration cans of works but also the "self"ish can of worms too.

    I would view it as a riskier and even more indirect treatment to the issues some have with concentration. its "scope" is unnecessarily broad to deal with the issue and for me would open up more possibilities of unintended consequences than a more direct, more "individual review" kind of approach.

    But, thats biased by how i design things, analyze and treat issues, so i am sure it would be appealing to some who have other ways of doing things.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    So this approach not only opens the action economy and concentration cans of works but also the "self"ish can of worms too.
    You still need to spend the action to cast the spell, so it doesn't really change action economy.
    There is already a way to cast self spells on someone else. Beastmaster 15. No one is rushing to get it. Not to mention, eldritch knights can already get blur on a fighter, and you have multi-classing.

    So that leaves concentration. Which comes at a fairly high cost of a level 3 spells.
    XP Tazawa gave XP for this post

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by mellored View Post
    You still need to spend the action to cast the spell, so it doesn't really change action economy.
    There is already a way to cast self spells on someone else. Beastmaster 15. No one is rushing to get it. Not to mention, eldritch knights can already get blur on a fighter, and you have multi-classing.

    So that leaves concentration. Which comes at a fairly high cost of a level 3 spells.
    I am sure some will find those arguments compelling.

    Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

  6. #16
    Dusty Dragon COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)

    Ancalagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,392
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews

    Block Ancalagon


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Gadget View Post
    I have little sympathy for such people. I see a lot of: "But in 3e, we could do...and sorcerer's could...". While drawing inspiration from older editions can be a good thing, at the end of the day: if you want to play 3e, play 3e.
    Indeed. Another way of looking at it is this "It's not a bug, it's a *feature*". Same thing with "but we want to buy magical items"
    Fear not the slugman
    XP Fleetwood C. DeVille gave XP for this post

  7. #17
    I've got a love/hate relationship with 5e concentration. I think it is one of the best things about 5e and yet now, with a few years of play under my belt, I think there should be more ways to 'harden' and expand concentration options for casters. Warcaster and Resilience (Con) [or Con as a base proficient save] are pretty much mandatory for any serious casters out there these days at high levels.

  8. #18
    I wouldn't make a general rule about combining spells. I would homebrew a few of the most common combined spells as there own unique spell and have those as the only combined spells in my game.

    Fly and invisibility would be the most common.
    Blur and expedious retreat would be cool too.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus View Post
    I've got a love/hate relationship with 5e concentration. I think it is one of the best things about 5e and yet now, with a few years of play under my belt, I think there should be more ways to 'harden' and expand concentration options for casters. Warcaster and Resilience (Con) [or Con as a base proficient save] are pretty much mandatory for any serious casters out there these days at high levels.
    i tend to agree with this to the extent that... there are for some pieces of the game very many ways to improve chances for problems... but for others there seem to be a surprising lack.

    i would for example, expect to see "potions of iron Will" (advantage on concentration saves) at least as common as "potions of haste" or "potions of strength".

    They may be there, no expert on the "random tables" but as far as "given treasure" i would myself make an effort to provide and establish within the world a balance of useful elements across the PCs.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by jgsugden View Post
    Having one 'concentration slot' is something that a lot of people struggle with in this edition. It places an important limit on PCs that keeps spellcasters balanced with other classes, but the limit doesn't sit well with a lot of players that remember 3.5 characters that often had 15 spells cast at once.

    One idea I've been experimenting with is to take some of the classic 'combinations' and placing their benefits into a single spell. For example, creating a 6th level spell that combines the benefits of fly and improved invisibility into a single spell that takes 1 round to cast, lasts 1 round per level (concentration) and can only target the caster.

    This also provides action economy by having multiple spell impacts originate with one casting in one round.

    This isn't actually without precedent. All of the spells that add one target per spell level used to cast the spell do something similar - the combined spells are just multiple castings of the same spell. Also, we see spells that combine illusions with teleportation, damage with blocking line of sight, etc... that are also effectively two spells cast at once. I've been using one spell to cast multiple spells since first edition. My first created spell in AD&D was called Ar-mage-ddon and it allowed the magic-user to cast 4 fireballs, 3 magic missile spells, 2 lightning bolts and a cone of cold all at once. That was not well balanced, but it was fun.

    What classic combinations of spells (especially those impacted by concentration rules) do people miss seeing in the game that they think could be well served by this approach?
    I would definitely not use to recreate "classic combos", that's way overpowered.

    I would suggest another use, however: to bring back the weak and useless spells in rotation.

    Put simply (just to give y'all the idea, this hasn't been tested):

    You can combine any two spells into one, given that both spells meet the following conditions:
    # both spells require Concentration
    # both spells are rated red or brown (bad, mediocre or worse) in at least two separate guides

    If either or both spells have a better rating than Red, or if you can only find a single guide where it is rated red, the combo fails.

    The resulting spell is the same level as the highest of the two original spells, or 3rd level if both are lower.

    The resulting spell is one single spell with the effects of both, and obviously requires Concentration.

    Use the "worst" value for each spell parameter. The resulting spell takes as long to cast as the slowest of the two original spells, it has the shortest duration and range of the two, etc.



    Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

+ Log in or register to post
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?
    By Empath Negative in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: Friday, 29th June, 2012, 04:08 AM
  2. Using a readied action to bypass conditions
    By kerbarian in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Monday, 1st June, 2009, 07:41 PM
  3. Spells that bypass DR?
    By Ogrork the Mighty in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Thursday, 19th August, 2004, 03:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •