What are the issues with an additional (limited) concentration slot instead of Bladesong?












2












$begingroup$


My DM is frustrated with balancing encounters with my high AC as a Bladesinger and wants to make a modification for a more kiting/spell-heavy playstyle. The version of Bladesong my DM is looking to make with zero bonus AC and instead reads:




You may choose to cast a spell when starting Bladesong. The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating. Bladesong ends if you fail to use movement during your turn.




This also limits the spell to lasting for 1 minute, the duration of Bladesong.



Obviously this has some great uses for Haste etc, and into the lategame it will continue scaling with investure of stone, Tensors transformation.



The specifically target only yourself and range of self/touch significantly reduces the number of options. I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.



This gives a much more spell-heavy buffing Bladesinger playstyle, but with significantly less survivability and quicker resource consumption.



Details: Level 6 High elf, Str: 7, Dex: 18, Con: 12, Intel: 20, Wis: 11, Char: 10.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I feel like there are better solutions to this problem than "rebuild how Bladesong works" Like, say...take advantage of the fact that your Str, Con, and Cha saves are completely rubbish and targeting those instead of swinging at AC
    $endgroup$
    – guildsbounty
    3 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is also a bit of an X-Y problem. It's best for your DM to post their concern here about the high AC and how to handle that rather than their best-guess at a solution and asking for it's particular viability(posted by someone else). I know I've got an answer regarding high AC problems.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, the issue is that I'm essentially untouchable in general combat, and I'm tanking better than our Cavalier Fighter tank. But I'm actually looking for feedback in particular on the idea, rather than solving the AC in other ways. We both think this would be an interesting playstyle and I'm just looking for other's thoughts.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So, specifically I'm not asking about other ways to solve it, just giving context on how we arrived here. I'm asking for feedback on the presented homebrew subclass modification.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @NautArch I feel like while this is a part of solving another issue, the fact that OP is aware of that and explicitly wants to focus just on this one issue (and not the larger one) means that it shouldn't interfere with our ability to answer this question at all. In fact, it was good to include it as background.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubiksmoose
    2 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


My DM is frustrated with balancing encounters with my high AC as a Bladesinger and wants to make a modification for a more kiting/spell-heavy playstyle. The version of Bladesong my DM is looking to make with zero bonus AC and instead reads:




You may choose to cast a spell when starting Bladesong. The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating. Bladesong ends if you fail to use movement during your turn.




This also limits the spell to lasting for 1 minute, the duration of Bladesong.



Obviously this has some great uses for Haste etc, and into the lategame it will continue scaling with investure of stone, Tensors transformation.



The specifically target only yourself and range of self/touch significantly reduces the number of options. I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.



This gives a much more spell-heavy buffing Bladesinger playstyle, but with significantly less survivability and quicker resource consumption.



Details: Level 6 High elf, Str: 7, Dex: 18, Con: 12, Intel: 20, Wis: 11, Char: 10.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I feel like there are better solutions to this problem than "rebuild how Bladesong works" Like, say...take advantage of the fact that your Str, Con, and Cha saves are completely rubbish and targeting those instead of swinging at AC
    $endgroup$
    – guildsbounty
    3 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is also a bit of an X-Y problem. It's best for your DM to post their concern here about the high AC and how to handle that rather than their best-guess at a solution and asking for it's particular viability(posted by someone else). I know I've got an answer regarding high AC problems.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, the issue is that I'm essentially untouchable in general combat, and I'm tanking better than our Cavalier Fighter tank. But I'm actually looking for feedback in particular on the idea, rather than solving the AC in other ways. We both think this would be an interesting playstyle and I'm just looking for other's thoughts.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So, specifically I'm not asking about other ways to solve it, just giving context on how we arrived here. I'm asking for feedback on the presented homebrew subclass modification.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @NautArch I feel like while this is a part of solving another issue, the fact that OP is aware of that and explicitly wants to focus just on this one issue (and not the larger one) means that it shouldn't interfere with our ability to answer this question at all. In fact, it was good to include it as background.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubiksmoose
    2 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


My DM is frustrated with balancing encounters with my high AC as a Bladesinger and wants to make a modification for a more kiting/spell-heavy playstyle. The version of Bladesong my DM is looking to make with zero bonus AC and instead reads:




You may choose to cast a spell when starting Bladesong. The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating. Bladesong ends if you fail to use movement during your turn.




This also limits the spell to lasting for 1 minute, the duration of Bladesong.



Obviously this has some great uses for Haste etc, and into the lategame it will continue scaling with investure of stone, Tensors transformation.



The specifically target only yourself and range of self/touch significantly reduces the number of options. I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.



This gives a much more spell-heavy buffing Bladesinger playstyle, but with significantly less survivability and quicker resource consumption.



Details: Level 6 High elf, Str: 7, Dex: 18, Con: 12, Intel: 20, Wis: 11, Char: 10.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




My DM is frustrated with balancing encounters with my high AC as a Bladesinger and wants to make a modification for a more kiting/spell-heavy playstyle. The version of Bladesong my DM is looking to make with zero bonus AC and instead reads:




You may choose to cast a spell when starting Bladesong. The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating. Bladesong ends if you fail to use movement during your turn.




This also limits the spell to lasting for 1 minute, the duration of Bladesong.



Obviously this has some great uses for Haste etc, and into the lategame it will continue scaling with investure of stone, Tensors transformation.



The specifically target only yourself and range of self/touch significantly reduces the number of options. I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.



This gives a much more spell-heavy buffing Bladesinger playstyle, but with significantly less survivability and quicker resource consumption.



Details: Level 6 High elf, Str: 7, Dex: 18, Con: 12, Intel: 20, Wis: 11, Char: 10.







dnd-5e homebrew balance wizard concentration






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







EagerToLearn

















asked 3 hours ago









EagerToLearnEagerToLearn

4509




4509








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I feel like there are better solutions to this problem than "rebuild how Bladesong works" Like, say...take advantage of the fact that your Str, Con, and Cha saves are completely rubbish and targeting those instead of swinging at AC
    $endgroup$
    – guildsbounty
    3 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is also a bit of an X-Y problem. It's best for your DM to post their concern here about the high AC and how to handle that rather than their best-guess at a solution and asking for it's particular viability(posted by someone else). I know I've got an answer regarding high AC problems.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, the issue is that I'm essentially untouchable in general combat, and I'm tanking better than our Cavalier Fighter tank. But I'm actually looking for feedback in particular on the idea, rather than solving the AC in other ways. We both think this would be an interesting playstyle and I'm just looking for other's thoughts.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So, specifically I'm not asking about other ways to solve it, just giving context on how we arrived here. I'm asking for feedback on the presented homebrew subclass modification.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @NautArch I feel like while this is a part of solving another issue, the fact that OP is aware of that and explicitly wants to focus just on this one issue (and not the larger one) means that it shouldn't interfere with our ability to answer this question at all. In fact, it was good to include it as background.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubiksmoose
    2 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I feel like there are better solutions to this problem than "rebuild how Bladesong works" Like, say...take advantage of the fact that your Str, Con, and Cha saves are completely rubbish and targeting those instead of swinging at AC
    $endgroup$
    – guildsbounty
    3 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is also a bit of an X-Y problem. It's best for your DM to post their concern here about the high AC and how to handle that rather than their best-guess at a solution and asking for it's particular viability(posted by someone else). I know I've got an answer regarding high AC problems.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    3 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, the issue is that I'm essentially untouchable in general combat, and I'm tanking better than our Cavalier Fighter tank. But I'm actually looking for feedback in particular on the idea, rather than solving the AC in other ways. We both think this would be an interesting playstyle and I'm just looking for other's thoughts.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So, specifically I'm not asking about other ways to solve it, just giving context on how we arrived here. I'm asking for feedback on the presented homebrew subclass modification.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    3 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @NautArch I feel like while this is a part of solving another issue, the fact that OP is aware of that and explicitly wants to focus just on this one issue (and not the larger one) means that it shouldn't interfere with our ability to answer this question at all. In fact, it was good to include it as background.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubiksmoose
    2 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
I feel like there are better solutions to this problem than "rebuild how Bladesong works" Like, say...take advantage of the fact that your Str, Con, and Cha saves are completely rubbish and targeting those instead of swinging at AC
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
3 hours ago






$begingroup$
I feel like there are better solutions to this problem than "rebuild how Bladesong works" Like, say...take advantage of the fact that your Str, Con, and Cha saves are completely rubbish and targeting those instead of swinging at AC
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
3 hours ago






3




3




$begingroup$
This is also a bit of an X-Y problem. It's best for your DM to post their concern here about the high AC and how to handle that rather than their best-guess at a solution and asking for it's particular viability(posted by someone else). I know I've got an answer regarding high AC problems.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago






$begingroup$
This is also a bit of an X-Y problem. It's best for your DM to post their concern here about the high AC and how to handle that rather than their best-guess at a solution and asking for it's particular viability(posted by someone else). I know I've got an answer regarding high AC problems.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
3 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
Specifically, the issue is that I'm essentially untouchable in general combat, and I'm tanking better than our Cavalier Fighter tank. But I'm actually looking for feedback in particular on the idea, rather than solving the AC in other ways. We both think this would be an interesting playstyle and I'm just looking for other's thoughts.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Specifically, the issue is that I'm essentially untouchable in general combat, and I'm tanking better than our Cavalier Fighter tank. But I'm actually looking for feedback in particular on the idea, rather than solving the AC in other ways. We both think this would be an interesting playstyle and I'm just looking for other's thoughts.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
3 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
So, specifically I'm not asking about other ways to solve it, just giving context on how we arrived here. I'm asking for feedback on the presented homebrew subclass modification.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
So, specifically I'm not asking about other ways to solve it, just giving context on how we arrived here. I'm asking for feedback on the presented homebrew subclass modification.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
3 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
@NautArch I feel like while this is a part of solving another issue, the fact that OP is aware of that and explicitly wants to focus just on this one issue (and not the larger one) means that it shouldn't interfere with our ability to answer this question at all. In fact, it was good to include it as background.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@NautArch I feel like while this is a part of solving another issue, the fact that OP is aware of that and explicitly wants to focus just on this one issue (and not the larger one) means that it shouldn't interfere with our ability to answer this question at all. In fact, it was good to include it as background.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

Multiple concentration is (almost) always overpowered



Clarification and Assumptions



My answer is based on the following clarification of the proposed change:




You may choose to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action or 1 Bonus Action when starting Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Action, you must use your Action to cast the spell on the same turn in which you start your Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, you may cast it as part of the Bonus Action used to start your Bladesong.



The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating.




Also, I am writing this under the assumption you laid out in your question:




I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.




If this assumption is not followed, multiple concentration is even more overpowered.



What spells can you use together?



Given your desire for a melee playstyle, the "restriction" of Range: Self or Touch does not change your choices very much. Most of the good options already meet those requirements. Without multiple concentration, you are usually forced to pick between offense and defense. Now, you can pick any two of the following spells:





  • Shadow blade grants you more damage that a greatsword, while still being finesse and thrown.


  • Blur gives most enemies disadvantage against you, which may be comparable to adding INT to AC, depending on the situation.


  • Greater invisibility is an upgrade from blur that also raises your offensive capabilities.


  • Fly allows you to avoid most of the damage from melee enemies.


  • Protection from Evil and Good makes you very hard for a wide array of opponents to kill you.


Combinations like blur and shadow blade are already pretty awesome; in reality, you could combine one of the above spells with any other wizard spell (restricted by your agreement to "not intentionally abuse it").



So is it imbalanced?



In order to achieve something like multiple concentration, you would normally need two PCs or the 7th-level spell simulacrum. That alone should set off warning bells.



As the appropriately-named Quadratic Wizard points out in his answer to "What are the impacts of permitting casters to concentrate on 2 spells?", the DMG (p. 263) also believes multiple concentration to be a bad idea:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.






Out-of-scope advice



I believe that most of these problems could be solved by the DM diversifying their encounters and playing the enemies more realistically.



He should try hitting you in the NADs (non-AC defenses). A simple 1st-level entangle spell could lock you down for the whole fight. Good luck making a Strength save/check with a -2. Even a fireball is reasonable. You may have decent Dexterity, but the fighter has way more HP than you. You might also have absorb elements, but you can't cast that and shield.



Also, there is no such thing as aggro in 5e. Reasonably-intelligent foes should rapidly give up on attacking you. Once they realize that your attacks won't pose a significant threat, some opponents should just eat the opportunity attack and walk right past you in search of a squishier target.



The most important consideration when looking at your proposed changes, as well as the DM-specific advice, is "are we having fun?" The DM shouldn't be out to get your character; if they wanted to "win", they could just put you up against a swarm of low-level druids with entangle. That said, most players (you included, it seems) want an interesting challenge rather than a steamroll.



I recommend that your DM tries out some of these less-extreme changes for a couple of sessions. If more fun is had, then great! If not, then maybe it's time to look at a different build - an Eldritch Knight fighter or a Hexblade warlock are less extreme possibilities for a melee caster.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think this is a fair assumption. It does come at a significant cost, essentially returning to previous power level at the cost of a spell slot + concentration. The higher level spells (5+) are where it gets out of hand. Obviously this is not factoring in the increased resource expenditure and running out of spells during encounters. Can you think of a good way to balance this? Limit spells to level 4? Increase conc checks? I should add to my main post that Bladesong now has a way it can be broken: "if you fail to use movement on your turn." CC/op attacks become a greater issue.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Unfortunately, movement only provokes opportunity attacks if you leave a creature's reach, not if you move around within their reach, which makes the restriction meaningless. Multiple concentration is something that can't really ever be balanced. You can pile on restrictions until no one would want to use it, but that isn't really balanced either.
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    58 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ok, so at it's core: Is exchanging a permanent Shield spell for some other spell benefit inherently unbalanceable? Our other idea was to have bladesong have a few different "forms" where it was selecting one of 2-3 spells as the effect gained with bladesong. Eg, would having the ability to cast haste or blur on yourself be reasonable?
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    50 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn It would be possible to balance +INT to AC with another spell effect, but balance would be on a case-by-case basis. Multiple concentration opens up too many possibilities to manage. If you have a specific idea, like "non-concentration blur during Bladesong", that would make a good new question. (That example would likely be overpowered, incidentally.)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    27 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for the advice @Chris. That's been my feeling, I think he's overly concerned that the fighter wanted to be the team tank and I'm tanking better than he is. We've only been facing fighters though, haven't fought spellcasters. Personally, I think that it's a transient issue as I'm at nearly max AC rn. AC is definitely exponentially stronger the higher it gets since it's beyond anything but crit range for some people.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    22 mins ago



















9












$begingroup$

The rules warn against doing this



Chapter 9 of the DMG, p.263 contains the text:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.




There are too many interactions between spells to give a full analysis of why this is a bad idea but the first spell that I think of causing an issue is Blur.



Blur causes all attacks against you to have disadvantage. It is range self and has a duration of one minute so qualifies for your feature. With rough math disadvantage on attacks can be considered equivalent to a +5 AC. This is exactly the same as your Bladesong feature so this change won't solve the problem.



You also already mentioned Haste, with this change it would be possible to have both Haste and Blur active at the same time. This would result in a higher effective armour class than you currently have. As well as a bunch of other balance issues.



Overall, this is not a good idea and won't fix the problem you are trying to solve.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    So basically you're saying that I would be able to achieve what I had before but now it costs spell slots and also has concentration checks, rather than being a free addition. Which seems reasonably balanced. High level slots are definitely more powerful options as powerful spells are essentially gamebreaking.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn That's just one of the combinations. With other spells there are other issues which only get worse as you level up. I can't predict all of them but I can only see this going badly. Every time you level up you will discover a new combination that is broken and the DM will veto that specific version.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    45 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can make the same case for greater invisibility without needing concentration, though this one is a fine example that illustrates the problem at lowers levels.
    $endgroup$
    – KorvinStarmast
    40 mins ago












  • $begingroup$
    The part where it gets more broken the higher up it gets I do agree with. Alternative: What if only one concentration can be used on myself? I think a lot of agreement is that getting two buffs on self is too strong. Able to shadowblade self and haste the fighter for example, or use Slow on the enemies. What I'm most concerned about is that I literally died this campaign from full health due to a single crit by a dire wolf (dm shenanigans brought me back). I'm not sure the low health works in melee combat without significant buffs.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    36 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Exactly, the high AC is there because you have no HP. Giving you free concentration for buff spells doesn't really make a difference to that but does give you opportunities for additional problems.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    29 mins ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142517%2fwhat-are-the-issues-with-an-additional-limited-concentration-slot-instead-of-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









8












$begingroup$

Multiple concentration is (almost) always overpowered



Clarification and Assumptions



My answer is based on the following clarification of the proposed change:




You may choose to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action or 1 Bonus Action when starting Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Action, you must use your Action to cast the spell on the same turn in which you start your Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, you may cast it as part of the Bonus Action used to start your Bladesong.



The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating.




Also, I am writing this under the assumption you laid out in your question:




I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.




If this assumption is not followed, multiple concentration is even more overpowered.



What spells can you use together?



Given your desire for a melee playstyle, the "restriction" of Range: Self or Touch does not change your choices very much. Most of the good options already meet those requirements. Without multiple concentration, you are usually forced to pick between offense and defense. Now, you can pick any two of the following spells:





  • Shadow blade grants you more damage that a greatsword, while still being finesse and thrown.


  • Blur gives most enemies disadvantage against you, which may be comparable to adding INT to AC, depending on the situation.


  • Greater invisibility is an upgrade from blur that also raises your offensive capabilities.


  • Fly allows you to avoid most of the damage from melee enemies.


  • Protection from Evil and Good makes you very hard for a wide array of opponents to kill you.


Combinations like blur and shadow blade are already pretty awesome; in reality, you could combine one of the above spells with any other wizard spell (restricted by your agreement to "not intentionally abuse it").



So is it imbalanced?



In order to achieve something like multiple concentration, you would normally need two PCs or the 7th-level spell simulacrum. That alone should set off warning bells.



As the appropriately-named Quadratic Wizard points out in his answer to "What are the impacts of permitting casters to concentrate on 2 spells?", the DMG (p. 263) also believes multiple concentration to be a bad idea:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.






Out-of-scope advice



I believe that most of these problems could be solved by the DM diversifying their encounters and playing the enemies more realistically.



He should try hitting you in the NADs (non-AC defenses). A simple 1st-level entangle spell could lock you down for the whole fight. Good luck making a Strength save/check with a -2. Even a fireball is reasonable. You may have decent Dexterity, but the fighter has way more HP than you. You might also have absorb elements, but you can't cast that and shield.



Also, there is no such thing as aggro in 5e. Reasonably-intelligent foes should rapidly give up on attacking you. Once they realize that your attacks won't pose a significant threat, some opponents should just eat the opportunity attack and walk right past you in search of a squishier target.



The most important consideration when looking at your proposed changes, as well as the DM-specific advice, is "are we having fun?" The DM shouldn't be out to get your character; if they wanted to "win", they could just put you up against a swarm of low-level druids with entangle. That said, most players (you included, it seems) want an interesting challenge rather than a steamroll.



I recommend that your DM tries out some of these less-extreme changes for a couple of sessions. If more fun is had, then great! If not, then maybe it's time to look at a different build - an Eldritch Knight fighter or a Hexblade warlock are less extreme possibilities for a melee caster.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think this is a fair assumption. It does come at a significant cost, essentially returning to previous power level at the cost of a spell slot + concentration. The higher level spells (5+) are where it gets out of hand. Obviously this is not factoring in the increased resource expenditure and running out of spells during encounters. Can you think of a good way to balance this? Limit spells to level 4? Increase conc checks? I should add to my main post that Bladesong now has a way it can be broken: "if you fail to use movement on your turn." CC/op attacks become a greater issue.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Unfortunately, movement only provokes opportunity attacks if you leave a creature's reach, not if you move around within their reach, which makes the restriction meaningless. Multiple concentration is something that can't really ever be balanced. You can pile on restrictions until no one would want to use it, but that isn't really balanced either.
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    58 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ok, so at it's core: Is exchanging a permanent Shield spell for some other spell benefit inherently unbalanceable? Our other idea was to have bladesong have a few different "forms" where it was selecting one of 2-3 spells as the effect gained with bladesong. Eg, would having the ability to cast haste or blur on yourself be reasonable?
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    50 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn It would be possible to balance +INT to AC with another spell effect, but balance would be on a case-by-case basis. Multiple concentration opens up too many possibilities to manage. If you have a specific idea, like "non-concentration blur during Bladesong", that would make a good new question. (That example would likely be overpowered, incidentally.)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    27 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for the advice @Chris. That's been my feeling, I think he's overly concerned that the fighter wanted to be the team tank and I'm tanking better than he is. We've only been facing fighters though, haven't fought spellcasters. Personally, I think that it's a transient issue as I'm at nearly max AC rn. AC is definitely exponentially stronger the higher it gets since it's beyond anything but crit range for some people.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    22 mins ago
















8












$begingroup$

Multiple concentration is (almost) always overpowered



Clarification and Assumptions



My answer is based on the following clarification of the proposed change:




You may choose to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action or 1 Bonus Action when starting Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Action, you must use your Action to cast the spell on the same turn in which you start your Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, you may cast it as part of the Bonus Action used to start your Bladesong.



The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating.




Also, I am writing this under the assumption you laid out in your question:




I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.




If this assumption is not followed, multiple concentration is even more overpowered.



What spells can you use together?



Given your desire for a melee playstyle, the "restriction" of Range: Self or Touch does not change your choices very much. Most of the good options already meet those requirements. Without multiple concentration, you are usually forced to pick between offense and defense. Now, you can pick any two of the following spells:





  • Shadow blade grants you more damage that a greatsword, while still being finesse and thrown.


  • Blur gives most enemies disadvantage against you, which may be comparable to adding INT to AC, depending on the situation.


  • Greater invisibility is an upgrade from blur that also raises your offensive capabilities.


  • Fly allows you to avoid most of the damage from melee enemies.


  • Protection from Evil and Good makes you very hard for a wide array of opponents to kill you.


Combinations like blur and shadow blade are already pretty awesome; in reality, you could combine one of the above spells with any other wizard spell (restricted by your agreement to "not intentionally abuse it").



So is it imbalanced?



In order to achieve something like multiple concentration, you would normally need two PCs or the 7th-level spell simulacrum. That alone should set off warning bells.



As the appropriately-named Quadratic Wizard points out in his answer to "What are the impacts of permitting casters to concentrate on 2 spells?", the DMG (p. 263) also believes multiple concentration to be a bad idea:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.






Out-of-scope advice



I believe that most of these problems could be solved by the DM diversifying their encounters and playing the enemies more realistically.



He should try hitting you in the NADs (non-AC defenses). A simple 1st-level entangle spell could lock you down for the whole fight. Good luck making a Strength save/check with a -2. Even a fireball is reasonable. You may have decent Dexterity, but the fighter has way more HP than you. You might also have absorb elements, but you can't cast that and shield.



Also, there is no such thing as aggro in 5e. Reasonably-intelligent foes should rapidly give up on attacking you. Once they realize that your attacks won't pose a significant threat, some opponents should just eat the opportunity attack and walk right past you in search of a squishier target.



The most important consideration when looking at your proposed changes, as well as the DM-specific advice, is "are we having fun?" The DM shouldn't be out to get your character; if they wanted to "win", they could just put you up against a swarm of low-level druids with entangle. That said, most players (you included, it seems) want an interesting challenge rather than a steamroll.



I recommend that your DM tries out some of these less-extreme changes for a couple of sessions. If more fun is had, then great! If not, then maybe it's time to look at a different build - an Eldritch Knight fighter or a Hexblade warlock are less extreme possibilities for a melee caster.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think this is a fair assumption. It does come at a significant cost, essentially returning to previous power level at the cost of a spell slot + concentration. The higher level spells (5+) are where it gets out of hand. Obviously this is not factoring in the increased resource expenditure and running out of spells during encounters. Can you think of a good way to balance this? Limit spells to level 4? Increase conc checks? I should add to my main post that Bladesong now has a way it can be broken: "if you fail to use movement on your turn." CC/op attacks become a greater issue.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Unfortunately, movement only provokes opportunity attacks if you leave a creature's reach, not if you move around within their reach, which makes the restriction meaningless. Multiple concentration is something that can't really ever be balanced. You can pile on restrictions until no one would want to use it, but that isn't really balanced either.
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    58 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ok, so at it's core: Is exchanging a permanent Shield spell for some other spell benefit inherently unbalanceable? Our other idea was to have bladesong have a few different "forms" where it was selecting one of 2-3 spells as the effect gained with bladesong. Eg, would having the ability to cast haste or blur on yourself be reasonable?
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    50 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn It would be possible to balance +INT to AC with another spell effect, but balance would be on a case-by-case basis. Multiple concentration opens up too many possibilities to manage. If you have a specific idea, like "non-concentration blur during Bladesong", that would make a good new question. (That example would likely be overpowered, incidentally.)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    27 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for the advice @Chris. That's been my feeling, I think he's overly concerned that the fighter wanted to be the team tank and I'm tanking better than he is. We've only been facing fighters though, haven't fought spellcasters. Personally, I think that it's a transient issue as I'm at nearly max AC rn. AC is definitely exponentially stronger the higher it gets since it's beyond anything but crit range for some people.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    22 mins ago














8












8








8





$begingroup$

Multiple concentration is (almost) always overpowered



Clarification and Assumptions



My answer is based on the following clarification of the proposed change:




You may choose to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action or 1 Bonus Action when starting Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Action, you must use your Action to cast the spell on the same turn in which you start your Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, you may cast it as part of the Bonus Action used to start your Bladesong.



The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating.




Also, I am writing this under the assumption you laid out in your question:




I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.




If this assumption is not followed, multiple concentration is even more overpowered.



What spells can you use together?



Given your desire for a melee playstyle, the "restriction" of Range: Self or Touch does not change your choices very much. Most of the good options already meet those requirements. Without multiple concentration, you are usually forced to pick between offense and defense. Now, you can pick any two of the following spells:





  • Shadow blade grants you more damage that a greatsword, while still being finesse and thrown.


  • Blur gives most enemies disadvantage against you, which may be comparable to adding INT to AC, depending on the situation.


  • Greater invisibility is an upgrade from blur that also raises your offensive capabilities.


  • Fly allows you to avoid most of the damage from melee enemies.


  • Protection from Evil and Good makes you very hard for a wide array of opponents to kill you.


Combinations like blur and shadow blade are already pretty awesome; in reality, you could combine one of the above spells with any other wizard spell (restricted by your agreement to "not intentionally abuse it").



So is it imbalanced?



In order to achieve something like multiple concentration, you would normally need two PCs or the 7th-level spell simulacrum. That alone should set off warning bells.



As the appropriately-named Quadratic Wizard points out in his answer to "What are the impacts of permitting casters to concentrate on 2 spells?", the DMG (p. 263) also believes multiple concentration to be a bad idea:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.






Out-of-scope advice



I believe that most of these problems could be solved by the DM diversifying their encounters and playing the enemies more realistically.



He should try hitting you in the NADs (non-AC defenses). A simple 1st-level entangle spell could lock you down for the whole fight. Good luck making a Strength save/check with a -2. Even a fireball is reasonable. You may have decent Dexterity, but the fighter has way more HP than you. You might also have absorb elements, but you can't cast that and shield.



Also, there is no such thing as aggro in 5e. Reasonably-intelligent foes should rapidly give up on attacking you. Once they realize that your attacks won't pose a significant threat, some opponents should just eat the opportunity attack and walk right past you in search of a squishier target.



The most important consideration when looking at your proposed changes, as well as the DM-specific advice, is "are we having fun?" The DM shouldn't be out to get your character; if they wanted to "win", they could just put you up against a swarm of low-level druids with entangle. That said, most players (you included, it seems) want an interesting challenge rather than a steamroll.



I recommend that your DM tries out some of these less-extreme changes for a couple of sessions. If more fun is had, then great! If not, then maybe it's time to look at a different build - an Eldritch Knight fighter or a Hexblade warlock are less extreme possibilities for a melee caster.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Multiple concentration is (almost) always overpowered



Clarification and Assumptions



My answer is based on the following clarification of the proposed change:




You may choose to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action or 1 Bonus Action when starting Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Action, you must use your Action to cast the spell on the same turn in which you start your Bladesong. If the spell has a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, you may cast it as part of the Bonus Action used to start your Bladesong.



The chosen spell must only target yourself and have a range of self or touch and require concentration, however you maintain the effect via your continued Bladesong instead of concentrating.




Also, I am writing this under the assumption you laid out in your question:




I'm planning to continue playing melee style with a 1d6 hp pool and not intentionally abuse it for some ranged double-conc with something like minute meteors/watery sphere.




If this assumption is not followed, multiple concentration is even more overpowered.



What spells can you use together?



Given your desire for a melee playstyle, the "restriction" of Range: Self or Touch does not change your choices very much. Most of the good options already meet those requirements. Without multiple concentration, you are usually forced to pick between offense and defense. Now, you can pick any two of the following spells:





  • Shadow blade grants you more damage that a greatsword, while still being finesse and thrown.


  • Blur gives most enemies disadvantage against you, which may be comparable to adding INT to AC, depending on the situation.


  • Greater invisibility is an upgrade from blur that also raises your offensive capabilities.


  • Fly allows you to avoid most of the damage from melee enemies.


  • Protection from Evil and Good makes you very hard for a wide array of opponents to kill you.


Combinations like blur and shadow blade are already pretty awesome; in reality, you could combine one of the above spells with any other wizard spell (restricted by your agreement to "not intentionally abuse it").



So is it imbalanced?



In order to achieve something like multiple concentration, you would normally need two PCs or the 7th-level spell simulacrum. That alone should set off warning bells.



As the appropriately-named Quadratic Wizard points out in his answer to "What are the impacts of permitting casters to concentrate on 2 spells?", the DMG (p. 263) also believes multiple concentration to be a bad idea:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.






Out-of-scope advice



I believe that most of these problems could be solved by the DM diversifying their encounters and playing the enemies more realistically.



He should try hitting you in the NADs (non-AC defenses). A simple 1st-level entangle spell could lock you down for the whole fight. Good luck making a Strength save/check with a -2. Even a fireball is reasonable. You may have decent Dexterity, but the fighter has way more HP than you. You might also have absorb elements, but you can't cast that and shield.



Also, there is no such thing as aggro in 5e. Reasonably-intelligent foes should rapidly give up on attacking you. Once they realize that your attacks won't pose a significant threat, some opponents should just eat the opportunity attack and walk right past you in search of a squishier target.



The most important consideration when looking at your proposed changes, as well as the DM-specific advice, is "are we having fun?" The DM shouldn't be out to get your character; if they wanted to "win", they could just put you up against a swarm of low-level druids with entangle. That said, most players (you included, it seems) want an interesting challenge rather than a steamroll.



I recommend that your DM tries out some of these less-extreme changes for a couple of sessions. If more fun is had, then great! If not, then maybe it's time to look at a different build - an Eldritch Knight fighter or a Hexblade warlock are less extreme possibilities for a melee caster.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 33 mins ago

























answered 1 hour ago









Chris StarnesChris Starnes

2,9521721




2,9521721












  • $begingroup$
    I think this is a fair assumption. It does come at a significant cost, essentially returning to previous power level at the cost of a spell slot + concentration. The higher level spells (5+) are where it gets out of hand. Obviously this is not factoring in the increased resource expenditure and running out of spells during encounters. Can you think of a good way to balance this? Limit spells to level 4? Increase conc checks? I should add to my main post that Bladesong now has a way it can be broken: "if you fail to use movement on your turn." CC/op attacks become a greater issue.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Unfortunately, movement only provokes opportunity attacks if you leave a creature's reach, not if you move around within their reach, which makes the restriction meaningless. Multiple concentration is something that can't really ever be balanced. You can pile on restrictions until no one would want to use it, but that isn't really balanced either.
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    58 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ok, so at it's core: Is exchanging a permanent Shield spell for some other spell benefit inherently unbalanceable? Our other idea was to have bladesong have a few different "forms" where it was selecting one of 2-3 spells as the effect gained with bladesong. Eg, would having the ability to cast haste or blur on yourself be reasonable?
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    50 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn It would be possible to balance +INT to AC with another spell effect, but balance would be on a case-by-case basis. Multiple concentration opens up too many possibilities to manage. If you have a specific idea, like "non-concentration blur during Bladesong", that would make a good new question. (That example would likely be overpowered, incidentally.)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    27 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for the advice @Chris. That's been my feeling, I think he's overly concerned that the fighter wanted to be the team tank and I'm tanking better than he is. We've only been facing fighters though, haven't fought spellcasters. Personally, I think that it's a transient issue as I'm at nearly max AC rn. AC is definitely exponentially stronger the higher it gets since it's beyond anything but crit range for some people.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    22 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    I think this is a fair assumption. It does come at a significant cost, essentially returning to previous power level at the cost of a spell slot + concentration. The higher level spells (5+) are where it gets out of hand. Obviously this is not factoring in the increased resource expenditure and running out of spells during encounters. Can you think of a good way to balance this? Limit spells to level 4? Increase conc checks? I should add to my main post that Bladesong now has a way it can be broken: "if you fail to use movement on your turn." CC/op attacks become a greater issue.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Unfortunately, movement only provokes opportunity attacks if you leave a creature's reach, not if you move around within their reach, which makes the restriction meaningless. Multiple concentration is something that can't really ever be balanced. You can pile on restrictions until no one would want to use it, but that isn't really balanced either.
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    58 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ok, so at it's core: Is exchanging a permanent Shield spell for some other spell benefit inherently unbalanceable? Our other idea was to have bladesong have a few different "forms" where it was selecting one of 2-3 spells as the effect gained with bladesong. Eg, would having the ability to cast haste or blur on yourself be reasonable?
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    50 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn It would be possible to balance +INT to AC with another spell effect, but balance would be on a case-by-case basis. Multiple concentration opens up too many possibilities to manage. If you have a specific idea, like "non-concentration blur during Bladesong", that would make a good new question. (That example would likely be overpowered, incidentally.)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris Starnes
    27 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for the advice @Chris. That's been my feeling, I think he's overly concerned that the fighter wanted to be the team tank and I'm tanking better than he is. We've only been facing fighters though, haven't fought spellcasters. Personally, I think that it's a transient issue as I'm at nearly max AC rn. AC is definitely exponentially stronger the higher it gets since it's beyond anything but crit range for some people.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    22 mins ago
















$begingroup$
I think this is a fair assumption. It does come at a significant cost, essentially returning to previous power level at the cost of a spell slot + concentration. The higher level spells (5+) are where it gets out of hand. Obviously this is not factoring in the increased resource expenditure and running out of spells during encounters. Can you think of a good way to balance this? Limit spells to level 4? Increase conc checks? I should add to my main post that Bladesong now has a way it can be broken: "if you fail to use movement on your turn." CC/op attacks become a greater issue.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
I think this is a fair assumption. It does come at a significant cost, essentially returning to previous power level at the cost of a spell slot + concentration. The higher level spells (5+) are where it gets out of hand. Obviously this is not factoring in the increased resource expenditure and running out of spells during encounters. Can you think of a good way to balance this? Limit spells to level 4? Increase conc checks? I should add to my main post that Bladesong now has a way it can be broken: "if you fail to use movement on your turn." CC/op attacks become a greater issue.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn Unfortunately, movement only provokes opportunity attacks if you leave a creature's reach, not if you move around within their reach, which makes the restriction meaningless. Multiple concentration is something that can't really ever be balanced. You can pile on restrictions until no one would want to use it, but that isn't really balanced either.
$endgroup$
– Chris Starnes
58 mins ago




$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn Unfortunately, movement only provokes opportunity attacks if you leave a creature's reach, not if you move around within their reach, which makes the restriction meaningless. Multiple concentration is something that can't really ever be balanced. You can pile on restrictions until no one would want to use it, but that isn't really balanced either.
$endgroup$
– Chris Starnes
58 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Ok, so at it's core: Is exchanging a permanent Shield spell for some other spell benefit inherently unbalanceable? Our other idea was to have bladesong have a few different "forms" where it was selecting one of 2-3 spells as the effect gained with bladesong. Eg, would having the ability to cast haste or blur on yourself be reasonable?
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
50 mins ago




$begingroup$
Ok, so at it's core: Is exchanging a permanent Shield spell for some other spell benefit inherently unbalanceable? Our other idea was to have bladesong have a few different "forms" where it was selecting one of 2-3 spells as the effect gained with bladesong. Eg, would having the ability to cast haste or blur on yourself be reasonable?
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
50 mins ago












$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn It would be possible to balance +INT to AC with another spell effect, but balance would be on a case-by-case basis. Multiple concentration opens up too many possibilities to manage. If you have a specific idea, like "non-concentration blur during Bladesong", that would make a good new question. (That example would likely be overpowered, incidentally.)
$endgroup$
– Chris Starnes
27 mins ago




$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn It would be possible to balance +INT to AC with another spell effect, but balance would be on a case-by-case basis. Multiple concentration opens up too many possibilities to manage. If you have a specific idea, like "non-concentration blur during Bladesong", that would make a good new question. (That example would likely be overpowered, incidentally.)
$endgroup$
– Chris Starnes
27 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Thanks for the advice @Chris. That's been my feeling, I think he's overly concerned that the fighter wanted to be the team tank and I'm tanking better than he is. We've only been facing fighters though, haven't fought spellcasters. Personally, I think that it's a transient issue as I'm at nearly max AC rn. AC is definitely exponentially stronger the higher it gets since it's beyond anything but crit range for some people.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
22 mins ago




$begingroup$
Thanks for the advice @Chris. That's been my feeling, I think he's overly concerned that the fighter wanted to be the team tank and I'm tanking better than he is. We've only been facing fighters though, haven't fought spellcasters. Personally, I think that it's a transient issue as I'm at nearly max AC rn. AC is definitely exponentially stronger the higher it gets since it's beyond anything but crit range for some people.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
22 mins ago













9












$begingroup$

The rules warn against doing this



Chapter 9 of the DMG, p.263 contains the text:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.




There are too many interactions between spells to give a full analysis of why this is a bad idea but the first spell that I think of causing an issue is Blur.



Blur causes all attacks against you to have disadvantage. It is range self and has a duration of one minute so qualifies for your feature. With rough math disadvantage on attacks can be considered equivalent to a +5 AC. This is exactly the same as your Bladesong feature so this change won't solve the problem.



You also already mentioned Haste, with this change it would be possible to have both Haste and Blur active at the same time. This would result in a higher effective armour class than you currently have. As well as a bunch of other balance issues.



Overall, this is not a good idea and won't fix the problem you are trying to solve.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    So basically you're saying that I would be able to achieve what I had before but now it costs spell slots and also has concentration checks, rather than being a free addition. Which seems reasonably balanced. High level slots are definitely more powerful options as powerful spells are essentially gamebreaking.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn That's just one of the combinations. With other spells there are other issues which only get worse as you level up. I can't predict all of them but I can only see this going badly. Every time you level up you will discover a new combination that is broken and the DM will veto that specific version.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    45 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can make the same case for greater invisibility without needing concentration, though this one is a fine example that illustrates the problem at lowers levels.
    $endgroup$
    – KorvinStarmast
    40 mins ago












  • $begingroup$
    The part where it gets more broken the higher up it gets I do agree with. Alternative: What if only one concentration can be used on myself? I think a lot of agreement is that getting two buffs on self is too strong. Able to shadowblade self and haste the fighter for example, or use Slow on the enemies. What I'm most concerned about is that I literally died this campaign from full health due to a single crit by a dire wolf (dm shenanigans brought me back). I'm not sure the low health works in melee combat without significant buffs.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    36 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Exactly, the high AC is there because you have no HP. Giving you free concentration for buff spells doesn't really make a difference to that but does give you opportunities for additional problems.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    29 mins ago
















9












$begingroup$

The rules warn against doing this



Chapter 9 of the DMG, p.263 contains the text:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.




There are too many interactions between spells to give a full analysis of why this is a bad idea but the first spell that I think of causing an issue is Blur.



Blur causes all attacks against you to have disadvantage. It is range self and has a duration of one minute so qualifies for your feature. With rough math disadvantage on attacks can be considered equivalent to a +5 AC. This is exactly the same as your Bladesong feature so this change won't solve the problem.



You also already mentioned Haste, with this change it would be possible to have both Haste and Blur active at the same time. This would result in a higher effective armour class than you currently have. As well as a bunch of other balance issues.



Overall, this is not a good idea and won't fix the problem you are trying to solve.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    So basically you're saying that I would be able to achieve what I had before but now it costs spell slots and also has concentration checks, rather than being a free addition. Which seems reasonably balanced. High level slots are definitely more powerful options as powerful spells are essentially gamebreaking.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn That's just one of the combinations. With other spells there are other issues which only get worse as you level up. I can't predict all of them but I can only see this going badly. Every time you level up you will discover a new combination that is broken and the DM will veto that specific version.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    45 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can make the same case for greater invisibility without needing concentration, though this one is a fine example that illustrates the problem at lowers levels.
    $endgroup$
    – KorvinStarmast
    40 mins ago












  • $begingroup$
    The part where it gets more broken the higher up it gets I do agree with. Alternative: What if only one concentration can be used on myself? I think a lot of agreement is that getting two buffs on self is too strong. Able to shadowblade self and haste the fighter for example, or use Slow on the enemies. What I'm most concerned about is that I literally died this campaign from full health due to a single crit by a dire wolf (dm shenanigans brought me back). I'm not sure the low health works in melee combat without significant buffs.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    36 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Exactly, the high AC is there because you have no HP. Giving you free concentration for buff spells doesn't really make a difference to that but does give you opportunities for additional problems.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    29 mins ago














9












9








9





$begingroup$

The rules warn against doing this



Chapter 9 of the DMG, p.263 contains the text:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.




There are too many interactions between spells to give a full analysis of why this is a bad idea but the first spell that I think of causing an issue is Blur.



Blur causes all attacks against you to have disadvantage. It is range self and has a duration of one minute so qualifies for your feature. With rough math disadvantage on attacks can be considered equivalent to a +5 AC. This is exactly the same as your Bladesong feature so this change won't solve the problem.



You also already mentioned Haste, with this change it would be possible to have both Haste and Blur active at the same time. This would result in a higher effective armour class than you currently have. As well as a bunch of other balance issues.



Overall, this is not a good idea and won't fix the problem you are trying to solve.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The rules warn against doing this



Chapter 9 of the DMG, p.263 contains the text:




Beware of adding anything to your game that allows a character to concentrate on more than one effect at a time, use more than one reaction or bonus action per round, or attune to more than three magic items at a time. Rules and game elements that override the rules for concentration, reactions, bonus actions, and magic item attunement can seriously unbalance or overcomplicate your game.




There are too many interactions between spells to give a full analysis of why this is a bad idea but the first spell that I think of causing an issue is Blur.



Blur causes all attacks against you to have disadvantage. It is range self and has a duration of one minute so qualifies for your feature. With rough math disadvantage on attacks can be considered equivalent to a +5 AC. This is exactly the same as your Bladesong feature so this change won't solve the problem.



You also already mentioned Haste, with this change it would be possible to have both Haste and Blur active at the same time. This would result in a higher effective armour class than you currently have. As well as a bunch of other balance issues.



Overall, this is not a good idea and won't fix the problem you are trying to solve.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 1 hour ago









linksassinlinksassin

7,52512357




7,52512357












  • $begingroup$
    So basically you're saying that I would be able to achieve what I had before but now it costs spell slots and also has concentration checks, rather than being a free addition. Which seems reasonably balanced. High level slots are definitely more powerful options as powerful spells are essentially gamebreaking.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn That's just one of the combinations. With other spells there are other issues which only get worse as you level up. I can't predict all of them but I can only see this going badly. Every time you level up you will discover a new combination that is broken and the DM will veto that specific version.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    45 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can make the same case for greater invisibility without needing concentration, though this one is a fine example that illustrates the problem at lowers levels.
    $endgroup$
    – KorvinStarmast
    40 mins ago












  • $begingroup$
    The part where it gets more broken the higher up it gets I do agree with. Alternative: What if only one concentration can be used on myself? I think a lot of agreement is that getting two buffs on self is too strong. Able to shadowblade self and haste the fighter for example, or use Slow on the enemies. What I'm most concerned about is that I literally died this campaign from full health due to a single crit by a dire wolf (dm shenanigans brought me back). I'm not sure the low health works in melee combat without significant buffs.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    36 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Exactly, the high AC is there because you have no HP. Giving you free concentration for buff spells doesn't really make a difference to that but does give you opportunities for additional problems.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    29 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    So basically you're saying that I would be able to achieve what I had before but now it costs spell slots and also has concentration checks, rather than being a free addition. Which seems reasonably balanced. High level slots are definitely more powerful options as powerful spells are essentially gamebreaking.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn That's just one of the combinations. With other spells there are other issues which only get worse as you level up. I can't predict all of them but I can only see this going badly. Every time you level up you will discover a new combination that is broken and the DM will veto that specific version.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    45 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can make the same case for greater invisibility without needing concentration, though this one is a fine example that illustrates the problem at lowers levels.
    $endgroup$
    – KorvinStarmast
    40 mins ago












  • $begingroup$
    The part where it gets more broken the higher up it gets I do agree with. Alternative: What if only one concentration can be used on myself? I think a lot of agreement is that getting two buffs on self is too strong. Able to shadowblade self and haste the fighter for example, or use Slow on the enemies. What I'm most concerned about is that I literally died this campaign from full health due to a single crit by a dire wolf (dm shenanigans brought me back). I'm not sure the low health works in melee combat without significant buffs.
    $endgroup$
    – EagerToLearn
    36 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EagerToLearn Exactly, the high AC is there because you have no HP. Giving you free concentration for buff spells doesn't really make a difference to that but does give you opportunities for additional problems.
    $endgroup$
    – linksassin
    29 mins ago
















$begingroup$
So basically you're saying that I would be able to achieve what I had before but now it costs spell slots and also has concentration checks, rather than being a free addition. Which seems reasonably balanced. High level slots are definitely more powerful options as powerful spells are essentially gamebreaking.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
So basically you're saying that I would be able to achieve what I had before but now it costs spell slots and also has concentration checks, rather than being a free addition. Which seems reasonably balanced. High level slots are definitely more powerful options as powerful spells are essentially gamebreaking.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
1 hour ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn That's just one of the combinations. With other spells there are other issues which only get worse as you level up. I can't predict all of them but I can only see this going badly. Every time you level up you will discover a new combination that is broken and the DM will veto that specific version.
$endgroup$
– linksassin
45 mins ago




$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn That's just one of the combinations. With other spells there are other issues which only get worse as you level up. I can't predict all of them but I can only see this going badly. Every time you level up you will discover a new combination that is broken and the DM will veto that specific version.
$endgroup$
– linksassin
45 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
You can make the same case for greater invisibility without needing concentration, though this one is a fine example that illustrates the problem at lowers levels.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
40 mins ago






$begingroup$
You can make the same case for greater invisibility without needing concentration, though this one is a fine example that illustrates the problem at lowers levels.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
40 mins ago














$begingroup$
The part where it gets more broken the higher up it gets I do agree with. Alternative: What if only one concentration can be used on myself? I think a lot of agreement is that getting two buffs on self is too strong. Able to shadowblade self and haste the fighter for example, or use Slow on the enemies. What I'm most concerned about is that I literally died this campaign from full health due to a single crit by a dire wolf (dm shenanigans brought me back). I'm not sure the low health works in melee combat without significant buffs.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
36 mins ago




$begingroup$
The part where it gets more broken the higher up it gets I do agree with. Alternative: What if only one concentration can be used on myself? I think a lot of agreement is that getting two buffs on self is too strong. Able to shadowblade self and haste the fighter for example, or use Slow on the enemies. What I'm most concerned about is that I literally died this campaign from full health due to a single crit by a dire wolf (dm shenanigans brought me back). I'm not sure the low health works in melee combat without significant buffs.
$endgroup$
– EagerToLearn
36 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn Exactly, the high AC is there because you have no HP. Giving you free concentration for buff spells doesn't really make a difference to that but does give you opportunities for additional problems.
$endgroup$
– linksassin
29 mins ago




$begingroup$
@EagerToLearn Exactly, the high AC is there because you have no HP. Giving you free concentration for buff spells doesn't really make a difference to that but does give you opportunities for additional problems.
$endgroup$
– linksassin
29 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142517%2fwhat-are-the-issues-with-an-additional-limited-concentration-slot-instead-of-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Category:香港粉麵

List *all* the tuples!

Channel [V]