While you are concentrating on a spell, you can cast a second spell that normally requires concentration without breaking your concentration on the first spell. If you do so, the second spell ends at the end of the turn.
For example, a Paladin could be concentrating on Divine Favor, then cast Searing Smite without concentration. If they fail to hit anything on that turn, Searing Smite ends and the spell slot is essentially wasted.
What's the cheesiest, most broken way you can think of to exploit this rule?
Probably the worst I can imagine is Tasha's Hideous Laughter, as it can both break a target's concentration (by inflicting the Incapacitated condition) and render them prone until their next turn, for the low low cost of a level 1 spell slot and one botched Wisdom save.
A Paladin/Sorcerer could be concentrating on Haste, do a Quickened Hold Person/Monster and then go in for some auto-crit smites, but I'm kind of ok with that for the amount of resources expended.
Detect Magic could be used to locate invisible targets... but they'd still be invisible, so attacks would still have disadvantage. Still, potentially powerful when followed up with Faerie Fire, but also very situational.
Thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
Just to flip things, what does this "fix?" Homebrew generally needs to be justified as to why the rules need to be changed, so the burden of proof is on you.
If you just want smites to work, I'd offer an option when you cast the spell to do the "non-concentration" version at the risk of losing it if you don't hit on your turn.
Generally these more targeted changes are better and much less likely to have unintended side effects than a sweeping rule like yours.
I think it fixes situations where you might want to try a concentration spell, such as Hold Person, while not losing the concentration spell you already have in effect even if the Hold Person fails. Under normal rules, it's probably not worth the risk, so you do the boring thing which is leave the current spell going at least one more round.
It's not clear if that was intended or would work within these rules. I'm suggesting expanding it a bit further to allow you to choose which spell ends at the end of the turn.
Just to flip things, what does this "fix?" Homebrew generally needs to be justified as to why the rules need to be changed, so the burden of proof is on you.
If you just want smites to work, I'd offer an option when you cast the spell to do the "non-concentration" version at the risk of losing it if you don't hit on your turn.
Generally these more targeted changes are better and much less likely to have unintended side effects than a sweeping rule like yours.
It's not really about fixing anything in particular. I just thought it's a neat way to expand the space of options for creative spell use, hopefully in a non-game-breaking way.
A couple examples:
- You're sneaking through a place with Pass Without Trace up. You come to a small exposed area where there is nowhere to hide, like an open corridor. You use this rule to create a temporary Fog Cloud/Darkness, just long enough to let you cross to the other side. It will probably raise some eyebrows, but it's still better than exposing yourself outright.
- Give yourself Divine Favor for one turn... then Action Surge!
- Use Heroism to suppress the frightened condition for just one turn so you can get closer to the source of your fear (and maybe grab a McGuffin or something)
- Use a short burst of Gust of Wind to clear a path through a Stinking Cloud or similar effect
- Use a single burst of Telekinesis to rip a door off its hinges and make your escape
There's a lot of stuff like that I can think of, and none of it seems terribly broken considering the spell slot expended, which is why I'm considering it as a generic rule. I guess I should add that the second spell has to have a casting time of 1 action, 1 bonus action or 1 reaction, just to exclude Conjure spells. :P
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
Based on your reply and how you preceive it: I don't think I *can* talk you out of it, as your forum title asks. I Can think of, and see many ways this is incredibly game breaking as it clearly creates a HUGE division of power, and usefulness, for Casters vs Martials. In this "setting" I would see zero point of playing a non-spellcaster at all, as they would be rendered worthless by comparison provided there's "time to rest".
Based on your reply and how you preceive it: I don't think I *can* talk you out of it, as your forum title asks. I Can think of, and see many ways this is incredibly game breaking as it clearly creates a HUGE division of power, and usefulness, for Casters vs Martials. In this "setting" I would see zero point of playing a non-spellcaster at all, as they would be rendered worthless by comparison provided there's "time to rest".
How do you figure? To be extra clear: with this rule, you still have to pay the spell slot for the second spell like normal. How do you see this being much more powerful than casting standard non-concentration spells while concetrating?
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
You are essentially giving casters a “take back” for if a spell fails, so taking away negative consequences/actions as a result of not having to actually choose between 2 concentration spells any more. I believe you aren’t thinking of all the no -combat situations this can be used/abused.
as I stated. This clearly creates a huge division of power between casters and martial. Martials have no mulligans, or re-dos, or take backs, for if any of their choices “don’t work”.
you keep saying “it will still take the spell slot” I already stated. That’s a no. Factor issue provided there’s time to rest. As is, past level 5, it’s rare any non-paladin (smite) or warlock (limited slots) ever use all their spell slots over the course of an entire adventuring day for most games with how GMs run them. And that’s even before access to things like rings of spell storing and etc.
your optional rule creates huge favoritism for casters vs martials. That’s not balanced.
You are essentially giving casters a “take back” for if a spell fails, so taking away negative consequences/actions as a result of not having to actually choose between 2 concentration spells any more. I believe you aren’t thinking of all the no -combat situations this can be used/abused.
as I stated. This clearly creates a huge division of power between casters and martial. Martials have no mulligans, or re-dos, or take backs, for if any of their choices “don’t work”.
This isn't a redo or a take back, though I now realize that my wording may have been ambiguous on that point. You decide whether or not to use this rule before you cast the second spell. If you do, it's always the original spell that persists, and the second one that ends at the end of the turn, even if the second spell failed.
Here's another way to look at it: imagine that we take all the concentration spells with a casting time of 1 action, bonus action or reaction, and create a duplicate of each, removing the requirement for concentration but reducing the duration to "until the end of the turn". Would any of the spells created this way be significantly more powerful than the pre-existing non-concentration spells of the same spell level?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
Compartmentalization is a learned skill that enables one to focus on multiple tasks at once.
experienced magic users may be able to do it, but not lower level ones.
however, since I am being asked to talk you out of it, I would suggest you consider the ramifications of greater invisibility in tandem around your favorite big bad…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Compartmentalization is a learned skill that enables one to focus on multiple tasks at once.
experienced magic users may be able to do it, but not lower level ones.
however, since I am being asked to talk you out of it, I would suggest you consider the ramifications of greater invisibility in tandem around your favorite big bad…
Surely if invisibility is gonna be a problem, it's gonna be a bigger problem when it's sustained? Otherwise, the 1 action casting time seems prohibitive. The absolute worst I can imagine is some kind of funky Eldritch Knight/Sorcerer multiclass using Quickened Greater Invisibility + Action Surge to get advantage on 4 or 6 attacks for the turn (depending on level). Again, yeah it's pretty strong, but it takes resources to expend, and the same result could be achieved without my rule using a Quickened Grease.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
Compartmentalization is a learned skill that enables one to focus on multiple tasks at once.
experienced magic users may be able to do it, but not lower level ones.
however, since I am being asked to talk you out of it, I would suggest you consider the ramifications of greater invisibility in tandem around your favorite big bad…
Surely if invisibility is gonna be a problem, it's gonna be a bigger problem when it's sustained? Otherwise, the 1 action casting time seems prohibitive. The absolute worst I can imagine is some kind of funky Eldritch Knight/Sorcerer multiclass using Quickened Greater Invisibility + Action Surge to get advantage on 4 or 6 attacks for the turn (depending on level). Again, yeah it's pretty strong, but it takes resources to expend, and the same result could be achieved without my rule using a Quickened Grease.
wait, you wanted me to give you a *good* reason?
well, now, that changes things dramatically, lol.
I am of a now rare school, it appears, where I say give the thing a shot and see how it works. To everything. So I was already reaching when I came up with that one, lol.
Bluntly, in my upcoming magic system (which we have playtested in parts, and next month do as a whole), Wizards gain the ability to concentrate on one additional spell every four levels (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th) as a feature. Since the system requires all magical casters to spend more time casting a spell (1 round per spell level, roughly) during which they must concentrate, it becomes a key mechanic for giving a high level wizard a strong feel for being wickedly powerful.
so I personally have zero issues with you doing so across all the reasons…
but you asked me to talk you out of it, and i gave it a shot, lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
For example, a Paladin could be concentrating on Divine Favor, then cast Searing Smite without concentration. If they fail to hit anything on that turn, Searing Smite ends and the spell slot is essentially wasted.
What's the cheesiest, most broken way you can think of to exploit this rule?
Probably the worst I can imagine is Tasha's Hideous Laughter, as it can both break a target's concentration (by inflicting the Incapacitated condition) and render them prone until their next turn, for the low low cost of a level 1 spell slot and one botched Wisdom save.
A Paladin/Sorcerer could be concentrating on Haste, do a Quickened Hold Person/Monster and then go in for some auto-crit smites, but I'm kind of ok with that for the amount of resources expended.
Detect Magic could be used to locate invisible targets... but they'd still be invisible, so attacks would still have disadvantage. Still, potentially powerful when followed up with Faerie Fire, but also very situational.
Thoughts?
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
Just to flip things, what does this "fix?" Homebrew generally needs to be justified as to why the rules need to be changed, so the burden of proof is on you.
If you just want smites to work, I'd offer an option when you cast the spell to do the "non-concentration" version at the risk of losing it if you don't hit on your turn.
Generally these more targeted changes are better and much less likely to have unintended side effects than a sweeping rule like yours.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think it fixes situations where you might want to try a concentration spell, such as Hold Person, while not losing the concentration spell you already have in effect even if the Hold Person fails. Under normal rules, it's probably not worth the risk, so you do the boring thing which is leave the current spell going at least one more round.
It's not clear if that was intended or would work within these rules. I'm suggesting expanding it a bit further to allow you to choose which spell ends at the end of the turn.
It's not really about fixing anything in particular. I just thought it's a neat way to expand the space of options for creative spell use, hopefully in a non-game-breaking way.
A couple examples:
- You're sneaking through a place with Pass Without Trace up. You come to a small exposed area where there is nowhere to hide, like an open corridor. You use this rule to create a temporary Fog Cloud/Darkness, just long enough to let you cross to the other side. It will probably raise some eyebrows, but it's still better than exposing yourself outright.
- Give yourself Divine Favor for one turn... then Action Surge!
- Use Heroism to suppress the frightened condition for just one turn so you can get closer to the source of your fear (and maybe grab a McGuffin or something)
- Use a short burst of Gust of Wind to clear a path through a Stinking Cloud or similar effect
- Use a single burst of Telekinesis to rip a door off its hinges and make your escape
There's a lot of stuff like that I can think of, and none of it seems terribly broken considering the spell slot expended, which is why I'm considering it as a generic rule. I guess I should add that the second spell has to have a casting time of 1 action, 1 bonus action or 1 reaction, just to exclude Conjure spells. :P
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
Based on your reply and how you preceive it: I don't think I *can* talk you out of it, as your forum title asks. I Can think of, and see many ways this is incredibly game breaking as it clearly creates a HUGE division of power, and usefulness, for Casters vs Martials. In this "setting" I would see zero point of playing a non-spellcaster at all, as they would be rendered worthless by comparison provided there's "time to rest".
Blank
How do you figure? To be extra clear: with this rule, you still have to pay the spell slot for the second spell like normal. How do you see this being much more powerful than casting standard non-concentration spells while concetrating?
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
You are essentially giving casters a “take back” for if a spell fails, so taking away negative consequences/actions as a result of not having to actually choose between 2 concentration spells any more.
I believe you aren’t thinking of all the no -combat situations this can be used/abused.
as I stated. This clearly creates a huge division of power between casters and martial. Martials have no mulligans, or re-dos, or take backs, for if any of their choices “don’t work”.
you keep saying “it will still take the spell slot” I already stated. That’s a no. Factor issue provided there’s time to rest. As is, past level 5, it’s rare any non-paladin (smite) or warlock (limited slots) ever use all their spell slots over the course of an entire adventuring day for most games with how GMs run them. And that’s even before access to things like rings of spell storing and etc.
your optional rule creates huge favoritism for casters vs martials. That’s not balanced.
Blank
This isn't a redo or a take back, though I now realize that my wording may have been ambiguous on that point. You decide whether or not to use this rule before you cast the second spell. If you do, it's always the original spell that persists, and the second one that ends at the end of the turn, even if the second spell failed.
Here's another way to look at it: imagine that we take all the concentration spells with a casting time of 1 action, bonus action or reaction, and create a duplicate of each, removing the requirement for concentration but reducing the duration to "until the end of the turn". Would any of the spells created this way be significantly more powerful than the pre-existing non-concentration spells of the same spell level?
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
Compartmentalization is a learned skill that enables one to focus on multiple tasks at once.
experienced magic users may be able to do it, but not lower level ones.
however, since I am being asked to talk you out of it, I would suggest you consider the ramifications of greater invisibility in tandem around your favorite big bad…
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Surely if invisibility is gonna be a problem, it's gonna be a bigger problem when it's sustained? Otherwise, the 1 action casting time seems prohibitive. The absolute worst I can imagine is some kind of funky Eldritch Knight/Sorcerer multiclass using Quickened Greater Invisibility + Action Surge to get advantage on 4 or 6 attacks for the turn (depending on level). Again, yeah it's pretty strong, but it takes resources to expend, and the same result could be achieved without my rule using a Quickened Grease.
When will Hasbro/WotC no longer think that D&D is under-monetized? When will they look at the numbers and say "That's enough money, we don't want more."?
wait, you wanted me to give you a *good* reason?
well, now, that changes things dramatically, lol.
I am of a now rare school, it appears, where I say give the thing a shot and see how it works. To everything. So I was already reaching when I came up with that one, lol.
Bluntly, in my upcoming magic system (which we have playtested in parts, and next month do as a whole), Wizards gain the ability to concentrate on one additional spell every four levels (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th) as a feature. Since the system requires all magical casters to spend more time casting a spell (1 round per spell level, roughly) during which they must concentrate, it becomes a key mechanic for giving a high level wizard a strong feel for being wickedly powerful.
so I personally have zero issues with you doing so across all the reasons…
but you asked me to talk you out of it, and i gave it a shot, lol
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well, I was already doing this, and I've been talked out of it.