Talk:Concentration Everfliers (5e Subclass)
From D&D Wiki
- The edits that took place after Maras on the date in the needsadmin didn't benefit the subclass, made things less balanced. Some of them I cannot undo because of a relationship the edit has with another edit (not the precise verbiage). The needsadmin is a request is to revert edits to the last edit Mara when the page was more balanced. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2018 (MDT)
- I don't fully grasp what you mean and skimming through the two revisions the subclass is steadily improving if anything. I am also unable to make such an edit and would have to manually compare and edit the page which is something you can do without admin assistance. --ConcealedLight (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2018 (MDT)
- 2 revisions? There's been 6 edits and two particular didn't help; one gave Levitate, a second level spell, an at will use at level one, another edit gave fly at will use for 7th level which isn't a level for sorcerer origin, neither is 9th to where it was moved to subsequesntly. How these two edits steadily improve the class would be good to know. And, I'm confused why you can't revert it back to the edit I suggested. I was under the impression admins could revert many edits back to a revision that was acceptable. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2018 (MDT)
- Sorry it seems trivial, just trying to get better communication. If you overlooked those edits then fine, but otherwise I didn't understand why they helped the subclass. If the appropriateness of my request is the reason you couldn't perform the action then fine, but otherwise I am asking something to understand better. My initial communication in the template was poor I admit, but I am not receiving much better in return. I am not trying to argue anything, I've asked questions to understand. Not everything is an attempt to debate. I may not phrase things in a manner that is preferred, but my intent is not ill. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2018 (MDT)
Uh, Hi there,
I made this because I wanted to test breaking the concentration system in a not-too broken way, but I haven't been able to play-test it enough to see if it's balanced of not.
I'm not sure where the discussion about this is going ^^' , so just tell me straight up how you think this could be improved and bettered. :)
Thanks for your contribution !
Has this been test played? I am curious how the extra concentration options work because it is noted by WotC devs that this aspect is a way to balance spell casters. I am not sure that simply lowering the DC by 1, 2, 3 balances things considering you would just concentrate on buff spells for yourself. 3 buff spells would be totes awesome! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2018 (MDT)
- This might not be a valid reason but surely you understand that breaking the concentration system like so is highly questionable... —ConcealedLight (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2018 (MDT)
Hey there, you're right, it was still too op, so I modified it a bit, tell me what you think.
Thanks again for the feedback and comments ! :)
- You should ideally avoid having features with negative effects on them as well as avoid flat increases/decreases. Being able to concentrate on two spells at once should be a capstone feature for this subclass with a reasonable limit on its use due to the way its currently handled and you should work your way up to such a strong ability. An example of a strong but more reasonable feature to include maybe, "You can use your Charisma saving throw modifier in place of your Constitution saving throw modifier when you make a concentration saving throw." —ConcealedLight (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (MST)
Thanks ! I like it and I've incorporated your sentence, and tried to evolve the class a bit like you're suggesting.
Feel free to share more ideas to make this rule-breaking meta actually balanced and playable ^^ !
So from the top:
- Why limit the ability score associated with the saving throw you are making? (Constitution). Other class features that allow abilities to stack don't limit the score. I don't even think limiting charisma makes sense but I left it alone.
- What's the point of having disadvantage on concentration checks if you added charisma to the checks? In testing, disadvantage and advantage are somewhere to be -5/+5. The original feature bonus is moot.
- concentration checks every turn? You realize concentration doesn't stop at end of combat unless you stop it? You'll be rolling dice all night. that's why I removed this tedious bit that serves only to slow down the game. Not to mention, at level 10, +4 prof and if lucky +5 con and cha so a +14 to the roll, you need 16+ every check to maintain concentration. Why play this subclass? This subclass as written makes a mechanic harder to do without any benefit by adding that DC 30 every round.
- "unwillingly" lose a spell is extra verbiage, if you fail the DC of course you unwillingly lose the spell.
- please don't use the "=" sign. We use words, not symbols. The PH shows this. Try to follow along. Using sorcery points to cast additional concentration spells was probably the best idea for this class.
- I am also very unsure why a lot of grammar I added that communicates how the PH does was removed. What is the goal with the edits that followed my own. I am very confused to put it politely. 09:23, 24 July 2019 (MDT)
Disclaimer : Quite a few people edited this and I don't really recognize the base concept I tried to create in what it's become.
With that said, here's my point of view on the things you said that are still valid since it seems there's been an edit after these comments. :)
From the top:
- Ok, I don't get why it's limited, I also don't think it has any valid reason to be since most times Ability Scores max out at 20 and +5 is the max you can hope for.
- This one seems no longer relevant
- Same, someone's cleaned all this up but I agree by principle with all the comments above.
- It seems whoever edited this did not leave any comments and did not read the PhB, thank you to whoever restored it to something palatable.
My thoughts on what it currently is :
Everflier Focus : good as it is. Add CHA to CON saves, get fly & levitate at lvl5.
Steady Mind : I don't get why you would add another +4 to CON saving throws against spells when you've already added the +CHA bonus...
Subconscious Focusing is great, true to the spirit of the original subclass, Concentration lasts forever, but small drawback of exhaustion if you keep it up during a long rest makes it balanced.
Multitasker is... (and it is ironic that this should come from me as the original intent was to break concentration rules and see what happens) a bit over powered. Proficiency bonus at level 20 mean 6. 6 concentration spells all up simultaneously... The CON saving throw just gives it a small (considering the massive +9 bonus) chance to fail the casting of the spell but lets you keep trying until you have all 6 slots active. The 6th slot at minima if you have 5 lvl1 spells up would be a DC 23 (8+10+5) by these rules. Easy mark with a +9 bonus in addition to CON. The exhaustion mechanic and possible instakill if you loose concentration on 6 spells is interesting and does somewhat make this ability a high risk one. But I see too many ways to bypass this in a real game.
Other versions :
I think a key addition to current build should be to forbid casting a spell you are already concentrating on. One would be able to cast and maintain different concentration spells, but not 6 times the same one.
- Personally I would remove "Steady Mind" & move "Subconscious Focusing" to 10th level, add the ability to keep concentration on 2 spells simultaneously at 15th level with the '1 lvl of exhaustion/spell combined level if fail CON save' rule, and add a 3rd concentration slot at lvl 20 with advantage on all CON saving throws to maintain concentration.
Thanks for the love shown to this pet project !
- That would have been me, formerly known as BSFM and the stuff above was questions about anon edits, that I reverted. I'll take a look at adding your suggestions to your creation (lol) in a bit. You've made great points and I think I understand the point of this, which is what drew my attention. Cheers! Red Leg Leo (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2020 (MST)