D&D 5E Double casting feedback? (with concentration limits)

[Quickleaf]

What if a spellcaster could cast two spells on their turn, with the caveat that the total spell slot level couldn't exceed the maximum spell level they can cast, that only one of the spells can require concentration, and the maximum damage per round is capped at whichever spell deals more (or any) damage?

For example, a 3rd level mage might simultaneously cast burning hands (1st level) and faerie fire (1st level), calling it "glitterdust" or "fey hands of true flame."

Or a 7th level mage might simultaneously cast shatter (2nd level) and mirror image (2nd level), calling it "mirrorburst" or "break the veil."

Would this be totally broken?

Would this house rule fit one of D&D 5e's classes better than others?

 

[Mort]

What if a spellcaster could cast two spells on their turn, with the caveat that the total spell slot level couldn't exceed the maximum spell level they can cast, that only one of the spells can require concentration, and the maximum damage per round is capped at whichever spell deals more (or any) damage?

For example, a 3rd level mage might simultaneously cast burning hands (1st level) and faerie fire (1st level), calling it "glitterdust" or "fey hands of true flame."

Or a 7th level mage might simultaneously cast shatter (2nd level) and mirror image (2nd level), calling it "mirrorburst" or "break the veil."

Would this be totally broken?

Would this house rule fit one of D&D 5e's classes better than others?

This WAS a thing in 3e - with the Haste spell. And it allowed the wizard, already a strong class, to easily break the action economy.

One of the most agreed upon changes for 3.5 was eliminating Haste's ability to cast 2 spells a round - it was just that broken.

Casters already have a leg up, to allow casters to routinely and easily break the action economy? IMO it would be a REALLY bad change and not lead to anywhere good.

 

[NotAYakk]

The power budget of a spell in combat comes from two sources. The first is the slot level, if any, expended. The second is the action expended.

For a spellcaster, the floor on the value of an action expended is a cantrip.

So, casting a 3rd level spell has a power budget of (action, at least cantrip)+(3rd level slot).

Not all spells are maximally efficient but that is their budget.

If you can cast 2 spells, your total budget for your turn is now 2 actions plus the value of both slots.

Using the DMG guidelines, the value of a slot ends up looking close to linear; if you subtract cantrip damage (of a cantrip around the level you get the spell) from a slot's damage budget, you get a pretty strait line.

So by doubling the action portion, this is a significant boost over the baseline.

You can see this with magic missile. A L1 slot produces 3 shots; each level after that adds 1 shot. The power budget is 2 shot for the action + 1 shot per slot level.

Fireball is 5d6+1d6 per slot level. It is, however, described as atypical in its power spike when you get it.

But, by duplicating the action budget, you get more yield out of spells than you would otherwise.

Now, the action budgetbof spells seems to be based on the level you get the spell, roughly. So lower level spells have a worse action budget portion.

But that ends up factoring into spellcaster overall power; the fact that low level slots age out.

We can patch that by requiring higher level slot expenditure; to cast two low level spells as a combo, you need to burn a single high level slot.

Takebdouble MM. Two LX casts in one action is the same as a 2X+2 cast.

For fireball, two level X casts does 10+2X dice, or the same as one level 5+2x cast.

While you did patch damage away, damage spells are mostly just easier to analyze; non-damage are just as good.

My point is the fair slot cost looks a lot like (add up base levels of spells)*2. Then any "at higher level" gets applied to each individually.

So want to cast a L1 and L2 combo spell? L6 slot please.

If cast at level 7 slot, you get to use 1 higher level effect from one of the spells.

Or, in other words, what you described is crazy strong.

 

[Quickleaf]

Mhmm. I see that. I do like the creative space this opens up & I like that it might encourage more spell slot expenditure. I'm still figuring out where this idea could fit, but maybe some kind of limited use... like for a wizard replacing their 1/day use of Arcane Recovery?

 

[Lojaan]

Mhmm. I see that. I do like the creative space this opens up & I like that it might encourage more spell slot expenditure. I'm still figuring out where this idea could fit, but maybe some kind of limited use... like for a wizard replacing their 1/day use of Arcane Recovery?

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

 

[CleverNickName]

It's an interesting idea, but I think it's overpowered. You would have to find some kind of way to balance it out...maybe one of the spells has to be a cantrip, or both spells must be from the same school of magic, or the caster needs to make a Hard (DC 20) or Very Hard (DC 25) Arcana check to pull it off. Or all three.

I think it would be better to take two spells and combine them into a single new spell, using the Downtime rules for "Research." You would work with the player to write out the new spell, give it a school and level and components as appropriate, and then have their character work towards developing and perfecting the spell over Downtime. It's more work, and completely different from what you were describing in the first post...but it would be a more stable and balanced product when you're done.

Anyway, I'm rambling off-topic. It's a pretty cool idea, just give it some careful attention to balance.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Do you remember the weird 11th level feature of the UA Mystic? As an action you gained a bunch of Psi Points and you got to spend them now on as many ''spells'' as you could to essentially create your own super spell.
I think you could re-engineer the feature using slots instead of points (they used the spell points variant anyways).

''Beginning at 11th level, your mastery of psionic energy allows you to push your mind beyond its normal limits. As an action, you gain 9 special psi points that you can spend only on disciplines that require an action or a bonus action to use. You can use all 9 points on one discipline, or you can spread them across multiple disciplines. You can't also spend your normal psi points on these disciplines; you can spend only the special points gained from this feature. When you finish a long rest, you lose any of these special points that you haven't spent.

If more than one of the disciplines you activate with these points require concentration, you can concentrate on all of them. Activating one of them ends any effect you were already concentrating on, and if you begin concentrating on an effect that doesn't use these special points, the disciplines end that you're concentrating on.

At 15th level, the pool of psi points you gain from this feature increases to 11.''

You have one use of this feature, and you regain any expended use of it with a long rest. You gain one additional use of this feature at 13th, 15th, and 17th level.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Whether or not this idea is broken would ultimately come down to which spells got cast together at the time. Some pairings wouldn't be broken at all, some might very well be. And there are too many combinations to be able to really tell which side would be more prominent until you actually found yourself in a game and could see the results.

Speaking personally though... if I was to incorporate an idea such as this, there would be an adjustment to one of the rules that you, @Quickleaf proposed... which is that I would change it to the total spell slot level couldn't exceed the maximum spell level they can cast MINUS 1.

In other words... a character than can normally cast 4th level spells could simulcast a 1st and 2nd, but not two 2nds. To me, this is the payment for getting to cast two spells simultaneously, the loss of one spell slot level in power for the turn. This also means a PC cannot start casting two spells simultaneously until 5th caster level, when they get 3rd level spell slots (and thus can cast two 1sts at the same time.) The way I see it... as this ability is along the same lines of what Haste could do in editions past, gaining the functionality to simulcast at the same level the caster could get the Haste spell would be important. I don't think a lower level caster should be able to simulcast.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What if a spellcaster could cast two spells on their turn, with the caveat that the total spell slot level couldn't exceed the maximum spell level they can cast, that only one of the spells can require concentration, and the maximum damage per round is capped at whichever spell deals more (or any) damage?

Would this be totally broken?

I thought about this a couple years ago, but instead of using two separate slots you had to use a slot equal to them both plus one additional spell level.

Using your examples:

For example, a 3rd level mage might simultaneously cast burning hands (1st level) and faerie fire (1st level), calling it "glitterdust" or "fey hands of true flame."

Would require a 3rd-level slot, not two 1st-level slots. You sum the spell levels and add 1. So, a caster would have to be 5th level, and such a combination would use up one of their 3rd-level slots. Expediency comes at a cost.

Or a 7th level mage might simultaneously cast shatter (2nd level) and mirror image (2nd level), calling it "mirrorburst" or "break the veil."

Would require a 5th-level slot (2nd + 2nd + 1 extra), not two 2nd-levels.

IMO the extra spell level cost balances out (at least somewhat) the benefit of getting two spells off on your turn, also you are sacrificing a potentially more powerful spell for two lesser spells, just for the speed.

Now, I didn't have the maximum damage caveat, but I don't think that would change much.

For example, imagine a caster throwing fireball and lightning bolt. This would require a 7th-level slot (using my 3+3+1 idea), and the maximum damage a each spell can do (without upcasting) is 8d6 or 48 points. Rolling 8d6 + 8d6 for damage has about a 90% of dealing 48 points or more, saving throws not included. Now, not many creatures would likely be hit by both, and saves would be separate.

But, if you compare such a combo to other 7th-level spells, such as delayed blast fireball (which only begins at 12d6, but can potentially do 21d6), finger of death (single target, but much more potential damage), firestorm (slightly lower average but a bit higher AoE), or prismatic spray (slightly less damage, but MUCH larger AoE); I think such a fireball / lightning bolt combo isn't OP really.

Finally, using higher level slots makes this self-limiting IMO.

Would this house rule fit one of D&D 5e's classes better than others?

I think this would fit best with Sorcerer (it could be a metamagic maybe) or Wizard, but you could allow it to any caster and it would be fine.

 

[NotAYakk]

Whether or not this idea is broken would ultimately come down to which spells got cast together at the time. Some pairings wouldn't be broken at all, some might very well be. And there are too many combinations to be able to really tell which side would be more prominent until you actually found yourself in a game and could see the results.

Speaking personally though... if I was to incorporate an idea such as this, there would be an adjustment to one of the rules that you, @Quickleaf proposed... which is that I would change it to the total spell slot level couldn't exceed the maximum spell level they can cast MINUS 1.

In other words... a character than can normally cast 4th level spells could simulcast a 1st and 2nd, but not two 2nds. To me, this is the payment for getting to cast two spells simultaneously, the loss of one spell slot level in power for the turn. This also means a PC cannot start casting two spells simultaneously until 5th caster level, when they get 3rd level spell slots (and thus can cast two 1sts at the same time.) The way I see it... as this ability is along the same lines of what Haste could do in editions past, gaining the functionality to simulcast at the same level the caster could get the Haste spell would be important. I don't think a lower level caster should be able to simulcast.

You get usually at most 2 top level spell slots, and 2-3 of your 2nd from the top.

The idea that this is your baseline level of power means ... every turn comes from a 4 round adventuring day?

This isn't baseline power -- this is a description of top power output of a spell caster. By design, spellcasters are not supposed to be generating top power output every turn they are in combat, and the number of turns they can do this is highly limited.

As noted above, a combination of 1st and 2nd level spells is stronger than a 3rd level spell often. Even something as prosaic as Hideous Laughter + Blindness is a double save-or-suck spell, which no spells up to level 9 provide. A level 6 spell slot that caused someone to have to make 2 saving throws and suck if either failed would be a top-tier spell in 5e, as it is a great way to consume legendary resists or punch through high saves.

So we both extended the length of time a caster can maintain top power output, and boosted their top power output. Which makes casters stronger in short days than they where before. Which is exactly the opposite of what casters need.

 

[Quickleaf]

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

I'm experimenting with the goal of increasing the way 5e encourages player creativity. In this particular instance, that's about creativity in spellcasting (I'm more holistically asking that question across a wide swath of the game, not just spellcasting – just for purposes of fruitful conversation, I drilled down to one instance under that umbrella).

Not a "problem" per se, but that's my big tent goal with many of my house rules.

I love games where there's less "let me look at my sheet for what I'll do" (what we could call convergent thinking) and more providing the fuel for unexpected combinations/ideas (divergent thinking). Trying to bring more of that into 5e.

To sum up my layman's understanding of the neuroscience & psychology, creativity is strongest when we are able to flip between convergent (memory, pragmatism, problem-solving) and divergent (out of the box, reframing the paradigm, unexpected) thinking.

For example, I have a house rule about "creative upcasting" – it's a fun house rule, but I noticed some players wouldn't use it, and still figuring out why exactly, but my limited observation was the players who didn't use it were the ones who struggled most with divergent thinking.

To compare the two house rules, it's the difference between "You can make any main course dish you want, modifying any of the recipes you know" (creative upcasting) versus "You can make any main course dish you want by combining two ingredients you have" (dual casting).

I think the latter is encouraging more convergent / divergent switching.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm experimenting with the goal of increasing the way 5e encourages player creativity. In this particular instance, that's about creativity in spellcasting (I'm more holistically asking that question across a wide swath of the game, not just spellcasting – just for purposes of fruitful conversation, I drilled down to one instance under that umbrella).

I think they key issue here is that, right now, Full Casters are better than other PCs in the two non-combat pillars, but actually fairly equal to them in the combat pillar.

What you're proposing would mean that they were also more powerful in the combat pillar, and at that point, pretty much all other classes might as well give up and go home.

However, I do think there's a way to do this, and I think @DND_Reborn nailed it - charge them a spell slot that's one higher than the combined slots of the spells. That seems fair given the massive advantage they get from the action economy (remembering that most combats in 5E only last 3-4 rounds, getting an advantage there is huge).

And say only let Sorcerers do this, myself. At least to start with. It makes much more sense for Sorcerers, because their casting comes from inside, and they already have metamagic which modifies spells in other ways. I'd consider charging a Feat to let non-Sorcerers do it.

 

[Mort]

I think they key issue here is that, right now, Full Casters are better than other PCs in the two non-combat pillars, but actually fairly equal to them in the combat pillar.

What you're proposing would mean that they were also more powerful in the combat pillar, and at that point, pretty much all other classes might as well give up and go home.

Pretty much, yes.

However, I do think there's a way to do this, and I think @DND_Reborn nailed it - charge them a spell slot that's one higher than the combined slots of the spells. That seems fair given the massive advantage they get from the action economy (remembering that most combats in 5E only last 3-4 rounds, getting an advantage there is huge).

Remembering how good the Haste spell was (3e), I suspect it's not enough!

Being able to completely trump the action economy and generally end fights in half the time? That's worth A LOT!

And say only let Sorcerers do this, myself. At least to start with. It makes much more sense for Sorcerers, because their casting comes from inside, and they. already have metamagic which modifies spells in other ways. I'd consider charging a Feat to let non-Sorcerers do it.

Honestly, I would be curious to see how this goes and could see implementing it if everyone picked casters anyway (or to actively state this as an experiment and HAVE everyone pick casters).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Remembering how good the Haste spell was (3e), I suspect it's not enough!

Being able to completely trump the action economy and generally end fights in half the time? That's worth A LOT!

I was kind of thinking the same thing but I did the math on a couple of spells, and as they have to be two different, not the same spell twice, I think it'd probably be okay.

Like, say 2 1st level spells, you could do Magic Missile and Chromatic Orb, which is 3d4+3+3d8, which sounds cool, but it's a 3rd-level slot, and a 3rd-level spell is something like Fireball doing 8d6 to an area,

I think the DM would have to say it was experimental and be prepared to veto any particularly obnoxious combinations that came up though, because we're never going to think of everything unless you pay us a lot of money to go through lol.

Hmmmm that said you could do Fireball and Lightning Bolt at the same time for a 7th-level slot, which would be 16d6 to the targets hit by both, more than the 12d6 of an immediately detonated Delayed Blast Fireball, which doesn't seem right (esp. as things can go really wrong with DBF).

Maybe it also needs the restriction that only one of the spells can be a damage spell? (Healing is less of an issue - if anything current in-combat healing in 5E is undertuned.)

TLDR: Restrict to a max of 1 spell that does damage and don't let them use the same spell twice, whatever it is.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Remembering how good the Haste spell was (3e), I suspect it's not enough!

Being able to completely trump the action economy and generally end fights in half the time? That's worth A LOT!

Having not played much 3E, I can't contribute how the Haste thing worked.

However, I think if we look at spell progression and how many spell slots there are, I can't see this being a big issue really.

Consider, that (with my total spell levels + 1 slot used idea), you couldn't even do this until 5th level (unless you want to include cantrips as 0-level, in which case it could be 3rd level).

If anything, you could limit it to only combining 5th-level spells or lower; so you couldn't do a 1st + 7th for a 9th level slot for example.

Frankly, when you get to using 6th and higher level slots (in tiers 3 and 4), I can't see much where two lower level spells will far outstrip the higher level slot.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, I think if we look at spell progression and how many spell slots there are, I can't see this being a big issue really.

Frankly, when you get to using 6th and higher level slots (in tiers 3 and 4), I can't see much where two lower level spells will far outstrip the higher level slot.

I think if you let two damage spells get combined it gets wonky, as I noted. Jumping up from 12d6 for a 7th level slot to 16d6 is pretty big. If you let people do the same spell twice it's even worse.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think if you let two damage spells get combined it gets wonky, as I noted. Jumping up from 12d6 for a 7th level slot to 16d6 is pretty big. If you let people do the same spell twice it's even worse.

Yeah, I noted the idea of fireball and lightning bolt in my first post. Although DBF is 12d6, it can get as high as 21d6, and frankly it is on the low-end of 7th level spells as far as damage goes. Especially when you remember the maximum damage is capped by one spell, so you aren't really doing 16d6 even, you are doing 16d6 with a max of 48 (max of 8d6).

But, if you compare such a combo to other 7th-level spells, such as delayed blast fireball (which only begins at 12d6, but can potentially do 21d6), finger of death (single target, but much more potential damage), firestorm (slightly lower average but a bit higher AoE), or prismatic spray (slightly less damage, but MUCH larger AoE); I think such a fireball / lightning bolt combo isn't OP really.

Such actual 7th level spells won't have the max 48 cap, but often due a bit less damage. However, their AoE is larger, in some cases much larger.

However, I think if it is really a concern there are easy ways to deal with it:
1. You cannot duplicate spells.
2. You cannot do two AoE spells.
3. You cannot overlap AoE spells.

Just off the top of my head...

 

[Blue]

What if a spellcaster could cast two spells on their turn, with the caveat that the total spell slot level couldn't exceed the maximum spell level they can cast, that only one of the spells can require concentration, and the maximum damage per round is capped at whichever spell deals more (or any) damage?

I am a bit leery because of how important action economy is in 5e.

Being able to get off, for example, a low level buff/debuff as well as a concentration-less spell is quite powerful. Spending an action on Bless is one of it's balance points, doing that and also any spell but your most powerful is quite good.

It also combines two of a caster's mid to low level slots which aren't all that impressive at the higher levels into the action economy of a single spell, which can be.

Certain classes being able to spend their resources quicker will lead to even more push for 5 minute working days, so I'd want to see something like "can not have can any spells the round previous".

Would we give a fighter an extra set of attacks as long as they didn't use a fighting style on any of them? The argument "it's not using any resources" is actually an arguement the other way, since resource-bound features already do more per action than at-will action, so it's doubling down on coolness and letting the steady-output people have nothing extra.

Would this house rule fit one of D&D 5e's classes better than others?

Now, this would be an interesting way that Sorcerers could break the normal rules of magic. Heck, even if it's just take out the limitation on spells when casting a bonus action spell - certain casters can heal and cast, and sorcerers can quicken plus cast something else.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, I noted the idea of fireball and lightning bolt in my first post. Although DBF is 12d6, it can get as high as 21d6, and frankly it is on the low-end of 7th level spells as far as damage goes. Especially when you remember the maximum damage is capped by one spell, so you aren't really doing 16d6 even, you are doing 16d6 with a max of 48 (max of 8d6).


Such actual 7th level spells won't have the max 48 cap, but often due a bit less damage. However, their AoE is larger, in some cases much larger.

However, I think if it is really a concern there are easy ways to deal with it:
1. You cannot duplicate spells.
2. You cannot do two AoE spells.
3. You cannot overlap AoE spells.

Just off the top of my head...

Good point, I'd forgotten the maximum damage thing already.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Good point, I'd forgotten the maximum damage thing already.

I expect a lot of people would forget it as well, which is more my concern and why I dropped the idea a couple years ago.

In order to really work and be close to balanced, there has to be a lot of components to remember. Given the design goals of 5E, if it is so complex to work, it probably isn't a great idea.

Sorcerers, for instance, already have Twinned Spell, but it has some specific limits. Such a concept as "simulcasting" would need to be rigidly controlled to even have a change at not being OP.