D&D 5E 'Combo' Spells to increase action economy, bypass cocentration

CapnZapp said:

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

Click to expand...

You have more faith in guides than i do... so i would replace the whole guides mechanic with "subject to review".

if for no other reason than no game or campaign where homebrew stuff is being developed is following "standard assumptions" and generic analysis is barely useful when constrained by "standard assumptions" and practically worthless when not.

mellored said:

Personally, i'd rather see something like this.


Nystul Spell Transfer (level 3)
Casting Time: 1 Reaction
Duration: Instant
When you cast a spell, you can select a willing creature within 30'. That creature uses it's reaction to cast the spell instead of you. You supply the magical energy (such as a spell slot), but all other aspects of the spell, such as targeting, spell DC, and concentration are supplied by the target.

Click to expand...

I'd make it a 2nd level spell - that is capable of transferring a spell of lower level. You can upcast it as wanted.

This makes it still a viable spell for a low level caster, but prevents high level casters from absolutely dominating with it. And make it a real cost to passing off the highest level spells.

I really dislike the idea of passing off spells. It makes little narrative sense and is much more prone to abuse than other methods of allowing multiple concentration spells IMO

Lanefan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I like this idea. Casting greater invisibility from a 7th level slot would still have a 1 minute duration, but would remove the concentration requirement. That sounds like a fair cost.

Mike

mellored said:

Personally, i'd rather see something like this.


Nystul Spell Transfer (level 3)
Casting Time: 1 Reaction
Duration: Instant
When you cast a spell, you can select a willing creature within 30'. That creature uses it's reaction to cast the spell instead of you. You supply the magical energy (such as a spell slot), but all other aspects of the spell, such as targeting, spell DC, and concentration are supplied by the target.

Click to expand...

I would consider some hefty penalties for a non-caster to successfully control the magical energies in this way though... attack penalties (non-proficient), disadvantage to concentration checks etc. These penalties can be removed through training of course... ie. taking a level in a class with spells. YMMV

Mike

Blue said:

I'd make it a 2nd level spell - that is capable of transferring a spell of lower level. You can upcast it as wanted.

This makes it still a viable spell for a low level caster, but prevents high level casters from absolutely dominating with it. And make it a real cost to passing off the highest level spells.

Click to expand...

Good idea.

FrogReaver said:

I really dislike the idea of passing off spells. It makes little narrative sense and is much more prone to abuse than other methods of allowing multiple concentration spells IMO

Click to expand...

When does magic make narrative sense?

Still, it could use something a bit more evocative.
Hmm...


Nystul's Spell Orb (level 2)
Casting Time: 1 Reaction
Range: Self
Duration: Instantaneous.
When you cast a spell of second level or lower, you can bind the magical energy into a glowing orb or force instead of releasing it. You choose any criteria and set the DC before it is bound. The spell will remain in the orb until it takes any damage, you regain the spell slot you used to cast either spell (or equivalent), or if it is used in a ranged weapon attack with a range of 30/60', dealing 2d4 force damage per spell level (+dex as normal), after which it triggers. If launched from a sling, it's range is increased to 60/240'. If you miss by 5 or less, the orb still breaks on the target. If you miss by 5 or more, the orb continues past the target, breaking when it hits the floor or a wall. A creature can make an intelligence (arcana) check with DC equal to 12+ the spell level to determine which spell is inside, with disadvantage if the spell is thrown at them. A creature can also choose to willingly be hit by it.
The orb is an object that can be handled by other creatures, placed on the ground, or added into a trap. You can use a bonus action to can be gently passed up to another creature within 30' who can use their reaction to catch it without breaking it. If another creature possesses the orb, they can use a bonus action to break it (taking no damage), casting the spell.
When the orb is broken, the spell inside triggers at the location, or choose the nearest possible target (self spells have a range of 1'). Randomly choose if there are multiple possible targets. The direction of a spell can be set if it is placed carefully or by the creature holding it. If it was thrown, roll a d20, and which ever way the 1 is pointing is the direction it triggers. If there are no valid targets, the spell fails to do anything. If the spell has concentration, it lasts for half the duration.
At higher level: For each additional spell level beyond 2, increase the maximum spell level you can bind by 1 and increase the damage it deals when thrown by 1d4.

jgsugden said:

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?

Click to expand...

The above seems the best way to obviate Concentration. Combining specific spells for a single complex action, is an ‘exceptions based’ design. And each ‘spell fusion’ (sounds better than ‘combo’ to me) can have its balance evaluated independently on its own merits.

In the case of Slot 3 Fly + Slot 2 Invisibility, I think it would be ok to make it Slot 5. In other words, the caster is Level 9, and by this level, Fly is becoming a more normal part of the game. Thus adding Fly is less disruptive.



Note. The Slot 5 spell Mislead already sets a precedent for a spell fusion. It mainly combines Slot 3 Major Image + Slot 2 Invisibility. It also adds some tweaks to make these two spells synergize well, especially by allowing the invisible caster to see and act remotely thru the Major Image.

FrogReaver said:

I really dislike the idea of passing off spells. It makes little narrative sense and is much more prone to abuse than other methods of allowing multiple concentration spells IMO

Click to expand...

How about something like:

Nystul Aura Swap (level 2)
Casting Time: Action
Duration: Instant
Range: Touch
When you touch a willing target, you may transfer any and all spells up to 2nd level affecting you that do not have a duration of Instantaneous or Permanent or are under the active concentration of someone else. Any spell without concentration or that you are concentrating on may be passed on, including passing the concentration requirement to the target. They assume full control over those spells as if they had cast them.
You may cast this spell using a higher level slot. This will allow you to pass spells of levels up to the slot used.

That may fit the narrative better. My concern is doing things outside combat where action economy isn't as a great a cost like passing an 8 hour Hex of Hunter's Mark to another person. But even there it's not too bad.

The problem with the "Nystuls Approach", that is a generic combiner or off-loader spell...

...is that it is generic. In order to be balanced, it must be priced for its most powerful use case(s).

This will make it horribly overpriced for most spell combos. Either that, or it will be decently priced and quite indecently broken for the minmax cases.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Yaarel said:

The above seems the best way to obviate Concentration. Combining specific spells for a single complex action, is an ‘exceptions based’ design. And each ‘spell fusion’ (sounds better than ‘combo’ to me) can have its balance evaluated independently on its own merits.

In the case of Slot 3 Fly + Slot 2 Invisibility, I think it would be ok to make it Slot 5. In other words, the caster is Level 9, and by this level, Fly is becoming a more normal part of the game. Thus adding Fly is less disruptive.



Note. The Slot 5 spell Mislead already sets a precedent for a spell fusion. It mainly combines Slot 3 Major Image + Slot 2 Invisibility. It also adds some tweaks to make these two spells synergize well, especially by allowing the invisible caster to see and act remotely thru the Major Image.

Click to expand...

Therefore - this. Creating unique spell combos is the only way to keep costs down, simply because the cost can be outrageous only for those examples where it truly is warranted.

The above example, for example - here we take two top-tier spells, and adding up the spell levels to make 2+3=5 is only proper. (Not saying I'm endorsing this particular example. I am however endorsing the balancing approach it is an example of)


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app