Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Allowing some Concentration Stacking - With big costs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7533038" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Admit its been a while but i dont recall 3e having damage making you roll checks to keep spells up. So, if thats the case, then just removing the one spell limit is still way from 3e days. </p><p></p><p>Iirc Taldorei setting has had multi concentration as a feat for quite a while now.</p><p></p><p>One slot higher etc is not avoiding optimization or eliminating at all the very thing you said drove you to this - its just changing the decision point to favor some spells over others.</p><p></p><p>"On the other, it kills me when I watch my casters pick spells....see something cool, and immediately turn away when they see "concentration" on the description. Concentration has really limited the spell selection my casters want to use"</p><p></p><p>Alsi, in a game with so many limited use "fail roll reroll" features, one conc check covering multiple spells is not increasing the risk compared to conc check for each. Thats another case of simply driving them to optimize differently - pushing say diviner portent and lucky feats higher in the "choose me over cool stuff" calculus you claim to want to solve by this change.</p><p></p><p>Finally, the simple first or simple second fiddly bit seems complicating for sake of complicating... How does making them keep the order in which teo spells are cast serve to not drive them to optimize or to not dismiss cool ideas for mechanical concerns? </p><p></p><p>Your stated goal as expressed in your post by the stated use case driver problem is not eliminated or solved by this set of new variables in the equation.</p><p></p><p>So, was there a different goal in mind thos actually addresses or was this a swing and a miss?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7533038, member: 6919838"] Admit its been a while but i dont recall 3e having damage making you roll checks to keep spells up. So, if thats the case, then just removing the one spell limit is still way from 3e days. Iirc Taldorei setting has had multi concentration as a feat for quite a while now. One slot higher etc is not avoiding optimization or eliminating at all the very thing you said drove you to this - its just changing the decision point to favor some spells over others. "On the other, it kills me when I watch my casters pick spells....see something cool, and immediately turn away when they see "concentration" on the description. Concentration has really limited the spell selection my casters want to use" Alsi, in a game with so many limited use "fail roll reroll" features, one conc check covering multiple spells is not increasing the risk compared to conc check for each. Thats another case of simply driving them to optimize differently - pushing say diviner portent and lucky feats higher in the "choose me over cool stuff" calculus you claim to want to solve by this change. Finally, the simple first or simple second fiddly bit seems complicating for sake of complicating... How does making them keep the order in which teo spells are cast serve to not drive them to optimize or to not dismiss cool ideas for mechanical concerns? Your stated goal as expressed in your post by the stated use case driver problem is not eliminated or solved by this set of new variables in the equation. So, was there a different goal in mind thos actually addresses or was this a swing and a miss? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Allowing some Concentration Stacking - With big costs
Top