Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silam" data-source="post: 9862991" data-attributes="member: 7055898">All of that makes sense to me.The ones who get their powers from a third party sentience (gods or patrons) have some restrictions in terms of how they can act, based on the tenets of their faith, morality, and/or the agendas of the gods/patrons they worship or pact with. This is a "moral component", perhaps.The spellcasters which do not depend on a third party have no such qualms (though they can have their own personal morality, obviously, but their powers won’t suddenly abandon them if they compromise their principles).Regarding the state of mind and the concentration… I sometimes wish there were more complex interactions between spells. The only interaction in the basic rules are that one concentration spell cancels a previous concentration spell, and that the action economy prevents casting spells with the same action on the same round (and no more than 1 slotted spell per round regardless). All of that makes sense of course, but it could be interesting if there was more.I’m thinking of certain combos or progressions. For example, a spell could have as a "component" that you must have Mage Hand active prior to casting it. For example, maybe Bigby’s Hand, or Animate Objects, might require Mage Hand to be active beforehand. This is just an example and many more could be conceived. There could even be chains of more than two spells, which essentially get "upgraded" from round to round into ever more powerful forms.This would completely change the mechanics of resource expenditure. It could limit nova-type effects where everything happens all at once on the first round.It might also mean that losing concentration is a much bigger deal. If you’re building up to an ever-stronger effect over 4 rounds and get your concentration broken on the 3rd one, you might need to start from scratch or some number of steps back in that progression.</blockquote>

Verification