D&D 5E Rule of Three - February 14th

[Savage Wombat]

I read "if you polymorph a giant into a frog, you don't squash the 1 HP frog because then it just turns back into the giant."

I don't know if this actually addresses anyone's problems with the spell, though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Martial buffers totally could use the concentration mechanics.

That guy who's yelling at you to do it better or faster or stronger? A lot less motivating when he's just been punched in the face.

I read "if you polymorph a giant into a frog, you don't squash the 1 HP frog because then it just turns back into the giant."

I don't know if this actually addresses anyone's problems with the spell, though.

Yeah, it's not the most satisfying to me. My preferred Polymorph *is* an encounter-ender. Which should go well with Fighter-style encounter-enders at that level like "hit a guy four times in a row with my pointy thing."

If it's going to be more of a short-term effect, that's not exactly what I'm looking for in a high-level spell that is iconic of spellcasters since before modern English. If being turned into a newt can get better, it's not giving me the effect I want.

But maybe I shouldn't be looking to an X/day spell metric to give me that? Hm...

 

[Wulfgar76]

This answer is inadequate. They could easily put a feat in that does this at a cost. Something like taking damage each round, having to make a concentration check and if failed losing both at the end of each round, or your second concentration spell can only be level 2 or lower, or any number of things.
I have no doubt that something like this will creep in at some point since they seem to be throwing balance out the window.
Wait so either you have to track a separate pool of hp based on the monster you morphed it into, or this answer is pointless since 0 hp is dead. Either way its not a very satisfying answer.
Further I've already registered many complaints with the 'legendary/lair' mechanics: TL.DR: They basically feel like cheating. "I cast Hold Monster." DM "No, you don't, it suddenly moves out of range for no readily apparent reason not on its turn."

What a bunch of nonsense.

- Buff stacking basically ruined 3rd edition and it has been proven to be overpowered.
- So whenever they FIX an imbalance, you begin spouting off about power creep and how imbalanced the game is going to be?
- Temporary HP has been around forever, and is a HUGE part of your favorite edition.
- The Solo rules you say are 'cheating' come straight from 4th edition! The edition you play and claim D&D Next doesn't resemble enough!

You are getting downright schizophrenic in your criticism of 5e.

 

[Obryn]

As a general Next skeptic, I like everything I see here.

1. I like losing concentration on damage.
2. I like the balance and simplicity inherent in single-buff concentration.
3. I like that they're learning from 4e solos and hope they pay close attention to condition mitigation.

 

[TwoSix]

That guy who's yelling at you to do it better or faster or stronger? A lot less motivating when he's just been punched in the face.

If someone is going to yell at you to move it harder, make it better, do it faster, make us stronger, they should really be wearing a helmet.

 

[Derren]

So whats everyones guess how many supplement it takes for a "concentrate an additional spell" feat to appear?

 

[EnglishLanguage]

So whats everyones guess how many supplement it takes for a "concentrate an additional spell" feat to appear?

I'll put my money on "within a year of release"

 

[Wulfgar76]

So whats everyones guess how many supplement it takes for a "concentrate an additional spell" feat to appear?

Who cares? A feat in a future splatbook is a lot easier to ignore than a core class ability or feat.

 

[Li Shenron]

1 - "Doesn't the concentration rule effectively eliminate lower-level buff spells from a caster's repertoire once they get higher-level spells that are more effective?"

Sounds like a good design approach to me. Clearly, the result is quite a shift from all previous editions... remains to be seen if that's a good thing or not.

2 - "Would it be possible to have a feat that would allow spellcasters to maintain concentration on two or more spells at a time?"

Very good decision. Let's see if they keep up with it! I could imagine a vocal minority pushing for years to get such feat in a supplement book, then once we get it, complain that it's a must-have feat and the edition is broken.

3 - "Do main villain type monsters have ways to shrug off completely debilitating effects?"

Generally, I prefer to decide myself whether a monster should be a villain/mastermind or cannon fodder (or anything in between). What is a villain at low level could be fodder at high level. Maybe the PCs meet a single Illithid who's behing a whole campaign's evil plot and defeat it at level 10. Then they continue, and at 20th level they are storming an alien Illithid city where similar Illithids are the peasants.

But anyway, it overall sounds like those legendary monsters would be really cool, and there are ways around it, if using them as normal monsters in epic campaigns.

 

[DEFCON 1]

1 - "Doesn't the concentration rule effectively eliminate lower-level buff spells from a caster's repertoire once they get higher-level spells that are more effective?"

I don't know if the ability is still in the game... but just looking at the pre-generated characters that came with Ghost of Dragonspear Castle... at Level 10 you got the Permanency class feature:

You could create a set of magical armor, a magical weapon, or make one of your 1st level spells an At-will by spending all 4 of your 1st level spell slots on it (which you don't get back for a year in the case of the magic armor/weapon, or unless spending 8 hours clearing the new At-Will from your mind.)

If these kinds of features remain... this is a pretty good explanation why the elimination of lower-level buffs isn't going to be an issue-- many spellcasters won't have any lower-level spell slots because they're going to use them for other things than normal day-to-day combat adventuring.