G
Guest 6801328
Guest
I can see this. It seems balanced as they're sacrificing an action to gain advantage. My hesitancy for things like this is that there are way more opportunity to use it against the players than the other way around. It would be rough for a player to be constantly (or more frequently) locked down by behavior controlling spells like Cause Fear, Compelled Duel, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Faerie Fire, or a bunch of other spells. Likewise it would incentivize arguments about why the caster didn't sacrifice all their actions to maintain the spell for the other party members.
Anyway, the balance seems good but I worry about the impact on play at the table.
In the bolded part, do you mean why doesn't the caster use it to maintain, for example, haste?
In terms of making a good tactical decision, you only get partial benefit when using it on a buffing spell, i.e. advantage on concentration saves. The other benefit, imposing disadvantage on an enemy, is wasted. Still, there may be times when this is important enough to be worth it.
If it's causing arguments about how the caster should spend their action, then the table has other problems. Jerks will be jerks. Even in the absence of this option, such people will probably still harass the caster about which spell to use, or who to cast it on, etc. In general I try to not let "yeah, but what about jerks?" be a factor in RPG decision-making, whether it's game/adventure design, roleplaying, or DMing.
What I was going for with this option...with this thread...is a way to let you get the most out of your spell slots. Sure, you could spend another spell slot, or cast sacred flame just because you love watching monsters make Dex saves, but this way you can use your action to increase the efficacy of a slot already used.