Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6542559" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Personally, I wouldn't call it odd--I'd call it a return to older-edition fixes to a problem introduced in 3e. Concentration checks in 3e were far too easy to make.I think they're definitely still worth taking. They've ceased to be no-brainer spells, which seems like a pretty much straight-up improvement to me. As for "low reliability," I don't think that's strictly fair. You roll concentration when you take damage--so don't take damage if you want to use them. The mechanic encourages exactly the kind of behavior one would expect from a bathrobe-wearing hand-waggler: stay the bloody hell away from nasty things with large [teeth/pointy things/blunt objects].And removing the stacking thing...as you already said...was precisely the point. Less buff tracking. Less bonus stacking. Less "half of my strength comes from the buff spells we stack pre-fight."Key items to specific spells--"Ring of Invisibility," "Boots of Flight," etc. Do not remove the concentration property from the spell--that would make the item that does it much too powerful. I suggest doing one of the following:1) Give a significant bonus (say, +5) to Concentration checks for maintaining the associated spell.2) Allow a second Concentration spell, but if the player has to roll for Concentration, they must roll separately for each spell. (Note: This increases the odds that one of them will go down, but decreases the odds that both will.) Allow the player to decide which spell expires, if only one breaks.3) If the player casts the spell in a higher-than-normal slot, they get one "freebie" Concentration check for every level higher than the base spell. These "free" checks are spent only when the player rolls a Concentration check and fails--a successful check does not affect the number of "free" checks remaining. If the benefit of this item is applied to a spell cast in a higher slot, the player must forgo any extra benefits that would apply from spending higher slots. (This one might make sense as a universal item, or a school-specific one, rather than specific to an individual spell--it might feel a little limited if it was just the one spell.)Sadly, I have no group right now, my DM and his wife went AWOL in December. I would not houserule Concentration unless I felt it was severely debilitating a player's experience. Casters are naturally very powerful; they generally do not need the DM actively smoothing the path for them.See above for tweaks. The above items would probably be Uncommon, Rare, and Very Rare respectively. That is, I can see a small cottage industry of magical "trinkets" (rings/necklaces/jewelery, wands/foci/implements, and clothing items like boots, gloves, or cloaks) which are specifically keyed to certain spells. They don't bequeath spellcasting ability to someone who lacks it, but they sort of pre-configure the spell for you or the like. Maybe something like "these items 'prime' the Weave for a particular spell--making it easier to maintain."The second benefit would be items that essentially "store" a particular kind of cast spell. It still requires your concentration to hold the spell inside, but the requirement is reduced enough that it becomes possible to hold two spells at once. Both can be disrupted, but you at least stand a chance of keeping one of them. It sounds like a nice, magical-seeming yet also mechanically significant item, the equivalent of giving a Fighter a nice fiery longsword or whatever.And then the last benefit is pretty dang potent--it still requires some expenditure of effort, but having those "freebies" last through successful checks is a dramatic improvement. With a high-enough slot, it can essentially guarantee that you'll maintain a spell for the duration of a combat. Even a single slot higher could make a world of difference, especially for a character that already has good Con, proficiency with Con saves, or War Caster.</blockquote>

Verification