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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7542282" data-attributes="member: 6857506">Well, I just thought that it was an interesting 'upper bound' on how potent the ability would be.  In retrospect, perhaps not that interesting?  Idk.  Let's see. Thinking harder about whether allowing two simultaneous concentration spells would be 'game-breaking' or 'devastating' - I'm not sure that is answerable without something a bit more concrete in the way of a definition of 'game-breaking' and 'devastating'.  It seems like it must have something to do with its effect on the difficulty of encounters.  As one possible benchmark to consider, let's think about some change that generally knocks encounters down one 'step' (medium -> easy, hard -> medium, etc.).  Personally, I would call that significant, but 'game-breaking' seems too strong.  I would expect something termed 'game-breaking' to, perhaps, trivialize a substantial class of encounters that would otherwise be hard or worse.  But then I would expect that in general the effect of adding one PC would be in the neighborhood of knocking encounters down by one step, not trivializing hard encounters.  So if allowing two concentration spells is no worse than adding a PC, then (assuming you agree with the previous loose definitions) it couldn't be 'game-breaking'.That said, it seems certain that one can construct examples of encounters intended to be hard or worse, that would be trivialized by the allowance of two concentration spells.  Examples involving small numbers of opponents (e.g., two) seem especially ripe for this.  However, I don't think it would be unfair to characterize (most of?) such encounters as rather fragile to begin with.Ok, so that's all sort of off the top of my head.  Is my reasoning too narrow, too hand-wavy, have a hole I missed, completely off the mark in my characterization of 'game-breaking', or seem otherwise unconvincing?</blockquote>

Verification