Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Worrgrendel" data-source="post: 7543771" data-attributes="member: 6801210">This. So much this. This is a large reason for the house rule mechanic that I came up with (posted earlier in the thread). The other major reason why I felt like &quot;breaking the concentration mechanic&quot; was that at higher levels there are still so many good lower level spells that do not get used at all because the caster is concentrating on a higher level spell (rightfully so). Essentially what you end up with is casters of X class of higher level all end up with exactly the same spell list for the lower spell levels because they are no longer taking these lower level concentration spells.Also, someone else pointed out that the caster heavy party was a pretty biased sample for my house rule mechanic. True, it may look that way on the surface, but the Ranger and Paladin rarely concentrate on more than one spell (and did not even have the ability to do so until they hit level 9), less so the Ranger because of Hunter's Mark being only 1st level (and really is an extra 1d6 damage per hit at level 17 REALLY that game breaking? A Flametongue sword is better than that). The Monk in the party (and there was a Rogue Assassin early on that had to drop out) have had zero complaints or felt like they were being overshadowed by the house rule concentration mechanic by the party casters.The other thing I have noticed is people keep mentioning &quot;Mages&quot; and &quot;Wizards&quot; benefiting from increased concentration and this is taking away from the Sorcerer. My house rule is for &quot;casters&quot; not just Wizards. All spell casters get the benefit, including the Sorcerer. So, yes, the Wizard (or Cleric or Bard or Druid or Warlock) could concentrate on 3 spells by level 17, but the Sorcerer with Twin Spell could concentrate on 6! Is that diminishing the Sorcerer's schtick? FYI, I also agree that Sorcerers could use more spells known (but that is a separate issue).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Worrgrendel, post: 7543771, member: 6801210"] This. So much this. This is a large reason for the house rule mechanic that I came up with (posted earlier in the thread). The other major reason why I felt like "breaking the concentration mechanic" was that at higher levels there are still so many good lower level spells that do not get used at all because the caster is concentrating on a higher level spell (rightfully so). Essentially what you end up with is casters of X class of higher level all end up with exactly the same spell list for the lower spell levels because they are no longer taking these lower level concentration spells. Also, someone else pointed out that the caster heavy party was a pretty biased sample for my house rule mechanic. True, it may look that way on the surface, but the Ranger and Paladin rarely concentrate on more than one spell (and did not even have the ability to do so until they hit level 9), less so the Ranger because of Hunter's Mark being only 1st level (and really is an extra 1d6 damage per hit at level 17 REALLY that game breaking? A Flametongue sword is better than that). The Monk in the party (and there was a Rogue Assassin early on that had to drop out) have had zero complaints or felt like they were being overshadowed by the house rule concentration mechanic by the party casters. The other thing I have noticed is people keep mentioning "Mages" and "Wizards" benefiting from increased concentration and this is taking away from the Sorcerer. My house rule is for "casters" not just Wizards. All spell casters get the benefit, including the Sorcerer. So, yes, the Wizard (or Cleric or Bard or Druid or Warlock) could concentrate on 3 spells by level 17, but the Sorcerer with Twin Spell could concentrate on 6! Is that diminishing the Sorcerer's schtick? FYI, I also agree that Sorcerers could use more spells known (but that is a separate issue). [/QUOTE]

Verification