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

[Lojaan]

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.

Hmmm interesting idea tho I'd be concerned that the sheer number of spells could lead to decision paralysis.

I have heard about people running "funnel" adventures and getting the same result that you are after so that could be worth looking into maybe?

In a funnel adventures (usually a one or two shot), players play a bunch of 0 level characters each. They have no skills or abilities and the funny thing people often discover is that having no skills encourages creativity. Players stop thinking "<looks at character sheet> oh I can only do these 4 things", and instead start to realise that they can do anything.

Once that mindset is achieved, they should be able to bring it over into 5e.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

Yeah, it's always tricky sharing ideas on these forums. I'm trying to focus on just this one thing, but you're right there is a whole medley of house rules I want to use that constitute the "ecosystem" this idea would be introduced into. Didn't want this idea getting lost in pages of material!

But here's just a few examples of house rule I want to use that impact fighters specifically – as you brought the spellcaster/fighter comparison up – to give you a feel for that "ecosystem."

Fighter (5th level): Cleave
When you use the Attack action, you may forgo your normal attacks to make one attack against each creature with Challenge Rating 1/2 or less within reach. The number of attacks you can make in this manner equals your fighter level, but you make one attack roll and compare it to the AC of all the creatures. You may move in between these attacks as normal. However, if you select an opponent with a CR greater than this, your cleave comes to an abrupt halt.
At 8th level, this increases to Challenge Rating 1 or less. At 11th level, this increases to Challenge Rating 2 or less. At 14th level, this increases to Challenge Rating 3 or less. At 17th level, this increases to Challenge Rating 4 or less.

Fighter (9th level): Indomitable
Indomitable works like legendary resistances; if you fail a save, you can use Indomitable to succeed instead.

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.

In the back of my mind, I was contemplating how I might introduce this simultaneous casting idea to make sorcerers more distinct.

 

[NotAYakk]

So, if you want more flexibility, consider:

You get two actions on your turn.
If these two actions are casting a spell, the total spell level you can cast is limited the highest level spell slot you know.

If the first action causes a creature to make a saving throw or be subject to an attack roll or take damage, any attacks on the same creature on the 2nd action automatically fail, and saving throws on the 2nd action by that creature automatically succeed, and that creature has resistance to any damage done.

...

This should cause players to be more creative in a number of ways, and doesn't single out spell casters.

The requirement to "spread out" your abilities is there.

Player offence is not quite doubled. Mixing buffs for allies with debuffs/damage for foes is encouraged.

 

[Clint_L]

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?

Creative idea! It's obviously a huge power boost and also adds a lot of complexity. The power boost comes not only from being able to cast extra spells but from effectively increasing the number of max level spell slots, and from allowing players to stack spells in order to let one effect build off the other. The latter could lead to some really creative uses, which is fun, but some almost certainly will be hideously broken.

If I was playing a non-caster in the party, I would be pretty bummed that the casters got so much more powerful and dynamic, and I would probably immediately re-roll as a full caster to get in on it.

You should try it out and see what happens. Maybe it'll be a perfect fit for your table. What's the worst that can happen? Maybe work it in as a little story arc, like the party winds up in some location where the normal rules of magic are suddenly enhanced. That way, if you don't like the result you're not stuck with it for a whole campaign. I would probably find some way to throw the non-casters a bone at the same time, though.

 

[ECMO3]

Hmmm interesting idea tho I'd be concerned that the sheer number of spells could lead to decision paralysis.

I have heard about people running "funnel" adventures and getting the same result that you are after so that could be worth looking into maybe?

In a funnel adventures (usually a one or two shot), players play a bunch of 0 level characters each. They have no skills or abilities and the funny thing people often discover is that having no skills encourages creativity. Players stop thinking "<looks at character sheet> oh I can only do these 4 things", and instead start to realise that they can do anything.

Once that mindset is achieved, they should be able to bring it over into 5e.

Mechanically, this is not consistent with the 5E rules, as forif it will work I think it depends on the table.

If you are playing on a high-magic table that likes over-the-top gamebreaking magic and is not concerned about balance it would be ok, but be forewarned, this will make casters A LOT more powerful than non casters, and they already are more powerful to start with.