Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6512611" data-attributes="member: 2011">It's not clear that he is explicitly saying that at all. This is how the media spins things. They take one sentence out of context and literally interpret it to mean something else. But if you want to interpret it that way, fine. I don't think that he would be dumb enough to think that because it obviously is not going to break the game. The ability to stack multiple buffs have been around since day one and the game was not broken. 3E had issues with it, but that's due to other aspects of 3E (like many different one hour per level and 10 minutes per level buff spells). But, interpret his example of how a third party vendor can potentially screw up the game for DMs without intending to, any way you want to.That's fine for your game. In my game, I want the PCs peeing in their pants if they encounter Manshoon. Ditto for Dragons (who have more spells in my game than in even the variant Monster Manual sidebar).The nice thing about about the concentration house rule that I proposed is that in a battle against a solo caster like Manshoon, some of those multiple concentration spells will be knocked out by PCs attacking. Some stay up, others blink out. So with enough firepower, the PCs can start weakening his protections (and his other effects like Web). Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. He can have up multiple buffs, but so can the PCs (and, he can knock out some of their multiple buffs easier too). Pros and Cons.The very fact that multiple concentration spells can and will be easily disrupted by definition makes having them &quot;not broken&quot;. Stronger / more versatile than the core rules, sure. But, easy enough to overcome. A single 5th level Fireball forces a character with three concentration spells up to make 3 DC 18 Cons saving throws on average. Hardly game breaking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 6512611, member: 2011"] It's not clear that he is explicitly saying that at all. This is how the media spins things. They take one sentence out of context and literally interpret it to mean something else. But if you want to interpret it that way, fine. I don't think that he would be dumb enough to think that because it obviously is not going to break the game. The ability to stack multiple buffs have been around since day one and the game was not broken. 3E had issues with it, but that's due to other aspects of 3E (like many different one hour per level and 10 minutes per level buff spells). But, interpret his example of how a third party vendor can potentially screw up the game for DMs without intending to, any way you want to. That's fine for your game. In my game, I want the PCs peeing in their pants if they encounter Manshoon. Ditto for Dragons (who have more spells in my game than in even the variant Monster Manual sidebar). The nice thing about about the concentration house rule that I proposed is that in a battle against a solo caster like Manshoon, some of those multiple concentration spells will be knocked out by PCs attacking. Some stay up, others blink out. So with enough firepower, the PCs can start weakening his protections (and his other effects like Web). Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. He can have up multiple buffs, but so can the PCs (and, he can knock out some of their multiple buffs easier too). Pros and Cons. The very fact that multiple concentration spells can and will be easily disrupted by definition makes having them "not broken". Stronger / more versatile than the core rules, sure. But, easy enough to overcome. A single 5th level Fireball forces a character with three concentration spells up to make 3 DC 18 Cons saving throws on average. Hardly game breaking. [/QUOTE]

Verification