New Combat Ideas

[RSP]

So thought of three new potential houserules that (mostly) affect combat. Basically, just brainstorming on ways to add a bit more to combat.

First: you can avoid an AoO from one enemy at the cost of 1/2 Speed, similar to Mounting rules, rather than spending an Action on Disengage (which is still an option for the no AoO from anyone). To me, it’s never made sense that you have to turn your back on a combatant (and give them an AoO) unless you use a full Action. I think this is more interesting and more in line with what I’d imagine as what could be done in ~6 seconds of combat: you can move away carefully from a single opponent, but doing so affects how much more you can move that turn.

Second: for any class that gets a fighting style, in addition to whatever fighting style one chooses, when they get their FS characters of that class can choose to either be in an offense stance and get +1 to attack rolls, or a defensive stance and get +1 to AC.

For the stances, I haven’t quite locked down how I want the timing to work. I don’t like the idea of getting the attack bonus during a turn, then switching to defensive as a BA for off-turn benefits (when most attacks against the character would occur). So maybe they decide at the start of their turn, and the effect lasts until the start of their next turn, when they can decide again.

Third: some way for casters to extend the duration of a spell that’s been cast by using additional spell slots as “fuel”. For instance, if it’s the last round of a casting of Shadow Blade, and you foresee the combat going a bit longer, you can “feed” the casting a 1st level slot to extend the duration 2 more rounds.

For this, I’m leaning towards only allowing this for Concentration spells and only for spells that already last more than one round. My initial thought is the increase in duration would be [Spell Slot x 2] in rounds. I’m thinking this would take a BA to do.


Thoughts?

[PhantomSoul]

First: Disengage costs 1/2 Speed, similar to Mounting rules, rather than an Action. To me, it’s never made sense that you have to turn your back on a combatant (and give them an AoO) unless you use an Action. I think this is more interesting and more in line with what I’d imagine as what could be done in ~6 seconds of combat: you can move away carefully, but doing so affects how much more you can move that turn.


I think there's a subtle elegance to this:
- 1/2 Speed ~ Difficult Terrain, so you're expending/spending Movement because of a more dangerous of problemsome path. (I think it's good not to call it 'Difficult Terrain', just like it's good not to call a Shield 'Half Cover', given stacking rules.)
- To Move your full Speed while Disengaging, effectively nothing has changed: Action to Disengage + Moving your full Speed = Half Speed to Disengage + Action to Dash.

I'd be tempted to soften it slightly (Disadvantage on Opportunity Attacks), if only because the extra Distance is so easily a freebie for some use cases (you just nee to Move 5 ft. to remove the Disadvantage on Ranged Attacks) and there's still a cost for the Opportunity Attacker (a Reaction).

[Kane0]

First: Disengage costs 1/2 Speed, similar to Mounting rules, rather than an Action.

Makes sense to me. Maybe give it an actual name/label in game terms so standing from prone, mounting/dismounting and disengaging can all share it.



Second: for any class that gets a fighting style, in addition to whatever fighting style one chooses, when they get their FS characters of that class can choose to either be in an offense stance and get +1 to attack rolls, or a defensive stance and get +1 to AC.

For the stances, I haven’t quite locked down how I want the timing to work.

Perhaps this: on your turn you can choose to add your prof bonus to your weapon attack rolls, weapon damage rolls or AC until the start of your next turn. No action to change, but once you pick which one youre going with its locked in until your next turn. Give this ability to anyone that is proficient with martial weapons, or perhaps any class that gains the extra attack or sneak attack features (of you get it via subclass you dont gain it until you get said feature)



Third: some way for casters to extend the duration of a spell that’s been cast by using additional spell slots as “fuel” as a bonus action.


Feels like it cuts into extend metamagic which is already not really a top pick. In most cases you can just recast anyways so I dont see it being a really standout addition.

[RSP]

Feels like it cuts into extend metamagic which is already not really a top pick. In most cases you can just recast anyways so I dont see it being a really standout addition.

I thought if that, except it costs way more than Extended. Extended doubles the duration of a spell, but has the requirement of needing to already be a minute duration.

So for 1 SP, at the minimum, you can add a minute to the duration. With this house rule, the same added duration would cost a 5th level slot (or a 2nd followed by three 1sts).

The difference in cost means Extended is still worthwhile (if it’s deemed to be worthwhile at all).

[Kane0]

I thought if that, except it costs way more than Extended. Extended doubles the duration of a spell, but has the requirement of needing to already be a minute duration.

So for 1 SP, at the minimum, you can add a minute to the duration. With this house rule, the same added duration would cost a 5th level slot (or a 2nd followed by three 1sts).

The difference in cost means Extended is still worthwhile (if it’s deemed to be worthwhile at all).

Touche, but its still very similar to simply recasting the spell. The action cost might even be the same, it would likely only matter for other creatures under the effect that you would rather they dont lose (fly in midair, haste midcombat, charm so no new save, etc). I'm not seeing how it makes combat more interesting sorry.
If you were to implement this it should be fine really, just a minor niche buff to casters i would argue is unnecessary. However I would recommend sweetening extend as well, say by increasing duration by an order of 'magnitude' instead of simply doubling (1min > 10min > 1hr > 8hr > 24hr). Would compete better against other metamagics if nothing else.

[Sorinth]

I don't really like the disengage rule, seems like it will just make it so everyone run around each other and make tanking even harder.

For stances, I could see that being interesting and fun but I would probably make stances universal but each class gets their own set of stances. So the Wizard wouldn't get access to the +1 AC stance but instead might have a stance that gives +1 concentration saves. And you could tack on higher level stances that are stronger. Things like the Riposte or Brace maneuvers could be tied into stances that are usable at higher levels. In fact I would probably try to shy away from static bonuses and focus a bit more on other benefits. For example the UA fighting style Tunnel Fighter would be more interesting stance then one that gives a flat bonus, and even the Defensive Duelist feat converted to a stance would be more interesting then a flat AC boost.

[RSP]

I don't really like the disengage rule, seems like it will just make it so everyone run around each other and make tanking even harder.

I think the difference is they wouldn’t be running. Also, and apologies if this wasn’t clear, this wouldn’t be 1/2 Speed to not incur any and all AoOs, but rather, 1/2 Speed to move away from one combatant.

Or, at least, that’s how I was thinking of it.



For stances, I could see that being interesting and fun …the UA fighting style Tunnel Fighter would be more interesting stance then one that gives a flat bonus, and even the Defensive Duelist feat converted to a stance would be more interesting then a flat AC boost.

I was hoping not to step on the toes of already existing options. I also wanted it to be a bonus for primarily martial types, while not being anything great or game changing.

+1 felt like enough that it made an interesting choice and a little boost to select classes, while not really disrupting the balance of the game.


Touche, but its still very similar to simply recasting the spell.

Not really. Recasting the spell could mean redoing saving throws or different targets, like if using this to add a couple rounds on to Fear. With Haste it means taking the penalties of ending the spell.

This would give a little longer to a spell, but with a significant cost associated. I doubt it comes up often, but it could be a significant help when needed.



However I would recommend sweetening extend as well, say by increasing duration by an order of 'magnitude' instead of simply doubling (1min > 10min > 1hr > 8hr > 24hr). Would compete better against other metamagics if nothing else.

The only thing I’ve thought of to change Extended, is to take away the 1 min duration restriction, so that any spell’s duration could be doubled. For instance, AE or Shield could last 2 Rounds rather than 1. This would make Extended compete with other Metamagic options.

[Kane0]

Not really. Recasting the spell could mean redoing saving throws or different targets, like if using this to add a couple rounds on to Fear. With Haste it means taking the penalties of ending the spell.

This would give a little longer to a spell, but with a significant cost associated. I doubt it comes up often, but it could be a significant help when needed.


Yes as I noted. My question is; how does this make combat more fun or interesting as a base capability?

[RSP]

Yes as I noted. My question is; how does this make combat more fun or interesting as a base capability?

It’s an additional option for spells. Ive had many combats go past 10 rounds of combat, for various reasons. In those situations, having the big spell you cast run out is less fun than having the option to extend it.

[PhantomSoul]

It’s an additional option for spells. Ive had many combats go past 10 rounds of combat, for various reasons. In those situations, having the big spell you cast run out is less fun than having the option to extend it.

But is it less interesting or consequential than having to think about adapting your strategy or dealing with the expected end-of-duration consequence? (Actual question, not rhetorical!)

[RSP]

But is it less interesting or consequential than having to think about adapting your strategy or dealing with the expected end-of-duration consequence? (Actual question, not rhetorical!)

Generally speaking, more options/choices of consequence, tends to mean more interesting.

I mean, you still have the same choices of adapting strategy or dealing with end-of-duration consequences. This adds an additional option.

Is it okay to let Fear expire? Will those that fled regroup and rejoin the fight?

Is it worth a 1st level spell (a casting of AE or Shield perhaps) to keep a 3rd level SB or Haste up for two more rounds?

Those questions add tactical options, at a cost of resources.

[PhantomSoul]

Generally speaking, more options/choices of consequence, tends to mean more interesting.

I mean, you still have the same choices of adapting strategy or dealing with end-of-duration consequences. This adds an additional option.

Is it okay to let Fear expire? Will those that fled regroup and rejoin the fight?

Is it worth a 1st level spell (a casting of AE or Shield perhaps) to keep a 3rd level SB or Haste up for two more rounds?

Those questions add tactical options, at a cost of resources.

That depends on whether it effectively becomes cost negation: removing the often limited "bite" of spell durations (and reducing the merit of longer-lasting spells for battles you think might go over the minute mark), removing penalties from some spells (saliently Tenser's, Haste), removing the natural end point of the effect until it's too late for it to be relevant (especially glaring for Hypnotic Pattern, but just overall removing that end point), and depending on implementation removing the slot cost of casting that or another spell again for a new or "refreshed" effect (so making your spellcasting even more potent and efficient). I was going in thinking this could reasonably be a restricted implementation (e.g. Wizards can only do it for their own school's spells, or only Sorcerers get this)... but I think I'm even less convinced it's beneficial the more I think through it.

[RSP]

That depends on whether it effectively becomes cost negation: removing the often limited "bite" of spell durations (and reducing the merit of longer-lasting spells for battles you think might go over the minute mark), removing penalties from some spells (saliently Tenser's, Haste), removing the natural end point of the effect until it's too late for it to be relevant (especially glaring for Hypnotic Pattern, but just overall removing that end point), and depending on implementation removing the slot cost of casting that or another spell again for a new or "refreshed" effect (so making your spellcasting even more potent and efficient). I was going in thinking this could reasonably be a restricted implementation (e.g. Wizards can only do it for their own school's spells, or only Sorcerers get this)... but I think I'm even less convinced it's beneficial the more I think through it.

My thinking is: a spell with a minute duration is usually enough to cover a standard combat, however, it’s more fun if some combats are more complex than just two sides running at each other and slugging it out for the standard 3-5 rounds.

It’s less fun to cast your big spell, only to learn, say, the initial attack was a feint by the opponents and the real battle is just about to kick off. This gives an option to pay a cost to keep Concentration spells up so they don’t feel “wasted”.

Note: extending the spell might not be the best option in any given situation, but it’s an interesting option.

[Sorinth]

I was hoping not to step on the toes of already existing options. I also wanted it to be a bonus for primarily martial types, while not being anything great or game changing.

+1 felt like enough that it made an interesting choice and a little boost to select classes, while not really disrupting the balance of the game.

Beyond simple game balance there's a question of is this extra layer of complexity and tracking of information worth the benefit. For something as small as a +1 bonus where only some characters are even doing it I have the feeling that lots of people would simply forget which stance they were in or that they did actually switch it last round, etc... It strikes me as something that might fall into the encumbrance rules that are mostly forgotten/ignored, though in this case they probably just set one stance and never change out of it, so I think you'd need more if you wanted to bring that tactical gameplay where players are looking at the battlefield and switching stances for maximum effect.

[RSP]

It strikes me as something that might fall into the encumbrance rules that are mostly forgotten/ignored, though in this case they probably just set one stance and never change out of it, so I think you'd need more if you wanted to bring that tactical gameplay where players are looking at the battlefield and switching stances for maximum effect.

Which is fine, if that’s what the player wants to do. It’s a slight buff to “martials”, with a basic choice.

[diplomancer]

Which is fine, if that’s what the player wants to do. It’s a slight buff to “martials”, with a basic choice.

I'd say the main problem with the Stance rule (apart from the added complication) is that, even if it's agreed that Martials need a buff, I don't think they need a combat buff, specially not a "MOAR NUMBERS" buff.

As to the "free" Disengage rule: it's a great boost to ranged attackers, specially Warlocks with Repelling Blast. I'm not sure that's a good idea, considering how Ranged combat is already quite powerful in this edition.

The extend spell rule is fine on its own, but a bit too situational, and for that reason might just be forgotten during actual play.

[RSP]

I'd say the main problem with the Stance rule (apart from the added complication) is that, even if it's agreed that Martials need a buff, I don't think they need a combat buff, specially not a "MOAR NUMBERS" buff.

Yes and no: it depends on what the Player finds fun. In a big picture view, “how do we balance classes across each pillar” way, sure, boost something else.

In a “I’m picking a fighter [or barb] to be a good combatant” way, yeah, it’s what the player wants.



As to the "free" Disengage rule: it's a great boost to ranged attackers, specially Warlocks with Repelling Blast. I'm not sure that's a good idea, considering how Ranged combat is already quite powerful in this edition.

My hope would be it works both ways: yes, ranged attackers can separate via this rule (assuming one threat), but they can also be gotten to easier as well.

[tiornys]

Attacks of opportunity are already far too weak in this edition; no need to weaken them further. I like the proposal of moving around your proficiency modifier.

[Catullus64]

If you were to implement the proposed changes to Disengage, I would want to see a number of improvements/boosts to other features that revolve around avoiding opportunity attacks, so that their relative utility to the baseline mechanics remains the same. Features that would be affected, so far as I can think of it:

Mobile Flourish (Subclass Feature, College of Swords)
Evasive Footwork (Subclass Feature, Battlemaster)
Step of the Wind (Class Feature, Monk)
Open Hand Technique (Subclass Feature, Open Hand)
Drunken Technique (Subclass Feature, Drunken Master)
Cunning Action (Class Feature, Rogue)
Fancy Footwork (Subclass Feature, Swashbuckler)
Tempestuous Magic (Subclass Feature, Storm Sorcery)
Shocking Grasp (Spell)
Zephyr Strike (Spell)
Mobile (Feat)

Not all of these are equally impacted; the ones that deny general use of a reaction, (Shocking Grasp or Open Hand Technique), are probably still fine, but could use a little help. But features that explicitly reproduce the benefit of the Disengage action (Drunken Technique, Step of the Wind, Cunning Action) are impacted the most. Evasive Footwork, already of questionable value by RAW, becomes even worse.

Summary: If you implement the Disengage change at table, consider re-working existing OA-avoidance features so that by enriching the general mobility of all characters, you don't impoverish mobility-specialist characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

First: Disengage costs 1/2 Speed, similar to Mounting rules, rather than an Action. To me, it’s never made sense that you have to turn your back on a combatant (and give them an AoO) unless you use an Action. I think this is more interesting and more in line with what I’d imagine as what could be done in ~6 seconds of combat: you can move away carefully, but doing so affects how much more you can move that turn. I am in a game like that (PbP with Max Wilson) and I don't care for it that much as a strait replacement. If that was an added option (either standard disengage or the 'withdraw with a speed penalty' as choices) for martial characters only - Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Monk) - I'd probably like how that opened up choices for Martial characters. While it's a little fiddly, I think it's teachable to new players without too much difficulty.

Second: for any class that gets a fighting style, in addition to whatever fighting style one chooses, when they get their FS characters of that class can choose to either be in an offense stance and get +1 to attack rolls, or a defensive stance and get +1 to AC. Too fiddly, which they were trying to get away from in 5e.


For the stances, I haven’t quite locked down how I want the timing to work. I don’t like the idea of getting the attack bonus during a turn, then switching to defensive as a BA for off-turn benefits (when most attacks against the character would occur). So maybe they decide at the start of their turn, and the effect lasts until the start of their next turn, when they can decide again. There you have it: too fiddly. :smallbiggrin:

Third: some way for casters to extend the duration of a spell that’s been cast by using additional spell slots as “fuel”. For instance, if it’s the last round of a casting of Shadow Blade, and you foresee the combat going a bit longer, you can “feed” the casting a 1st level slot to extend the duration 2 more rounds. Hmmm, does this scale up for higher level spells? And do you really have that many combats lasting 11+ rounds? Seems a bit fiddly for low value added, I'd suggest not.

For this, I’m leaning t1owards only allowing this for Concentration spells and only for spells that already last more than one round. My initial thought is the increase in duration would be [Spell Slot x 2] in rounds. I’m thinking this would take a BA to do. Given that it's the opposite of streamlined play, Not gonna see that at my table.

But thanks for posing the question, it got the gears in my brain to grind a bit this morning. :smallsmile:

[RSP]

Perhaps this: on your turn you can choose to add your prof bonus to your weapon attack rolls, weapon damage rolls or AC until the start of your next turn. No action to change, but once you pick which one youre going with its locked in until your next turn. Give this ability to anyone that is proficient with martial weapons, or perhaps any class that gains the extra attack or sneak attack features (of you get it via subclass you dont gain it until you get said feature)


I’m liking this option the more I think about it.

Also, I amended the OP to reflect the avoiding an AoO is only against 1 opponent.

[stoutstien]

As someone who uses a version of free desengage at 1/2 speed I found it helps but only if you also add in some restrictions for those who are casting spells and using ranges weapons. So adding triggering AO if you cast a spell with an action or making a ranged attack. Let's be honest the disadvantage clause is to easy to circumvent for them.

Also having AOs trigger when they move into reach or move within a weapon's reach(shifting around) without moving out of it even at half speed gives melee users a larger impact on positioning then they do now which is mostly non-existent.

[Bobthewizard]

I think your rationale is good but not sure I'd implement any of these suggestions.

1. In theory this makes sense, but it's terrible for game balance. Disengaging for movement is a huge boost to ranged characters and spell casters and a huge nerf to melee characters, which I think is bad since melee characters already miss out on some of the game. As described above, it's also a nerf to a lot of abilities that help you disengage, ruining quite a few subclasses. The most important one is you've just made cunning action much less useful.

2. This is too fiddly. If you want to boost fighting styles, just give martial characters +1 to AC and +1 to hit when they gain their first fighting style. Don't make them choose every round and keep track of it.

3. Resource management is one of the only limits on high level spellcasting. Make the PCs sweat when their spell is about to run out. It gives an automatic timer to the fight which increases the tension. By letting them extend a high level spell with a low level slot, you take away that tension. It also makes spell casters more powerful at higher levels which is not something that needs to be done.

[RSP]

3. Resource management is one of the only limits on high level spellcasting. Make the PCs sweat when their spell is about to run out. It gives an automatic timer to the fight which increases the tension. By letting them extend a high level spell with a low level slot, you take away that tension. It also makes spell casters more powerful at higher levels which is not something that needs to be done.

This expands on resource management: is it worth a casting of AE or Shied for 2 more rounds?

I know the believed “standard” combat is 3-5 rounds, but I’m surprised by the amount of disbelief of combats going longer than that.

Do no other tables here do more complex combats where enemies can come in waves (either based of PC action or independent of it)? Do no other tables have enemies tactically withdraw to more favorable terrain?

Does everyone really do 3-5 rounds of straight in your face HP attrition as the only combat they experience?

If so, then, yeah, I guess this option is meaningless. If not, it gives an option to casters.

Maybe that next wave is being held off by a Wall of Fire and the party needs those two rounds to finish preparing (healing, setting traps, positioning, whatever).

A very basic tactic of any intelligent creature in these game worlds would be to wait out any powerful spells.

This offers a choice against that tactic; however, it is a costly one (in my opinion).

[PhantomSoul]

This expands on resource management: is it worth a casting of AE or Shied for 2 more rounds?

I'm not convinced "expanding" on resource management is the right description here; as in the post you're quoting, you're proposing to remove of the limits on spells and removing the need to cast again (which means additional saving throws, different spell slot, etc.). I'm not yet seeing that either is a benefit, and the first is a particular red flag to overcome.



I know the believed “standard” combat is 3-5 rounds, but I’m surprised by the amount of disbelief of combats going longer than that.

Do no other tables here do more complex combats where enemies can come in waves (either based of PC action or independent of it)? Do no other tables have enemies tactically withdraw to more favorable terrain?

Does everyone really do 3-5 rounds of straight in your face HP attrition as the only combat they experience?

3-6 is definitely the norm for my groups, but far from the only option. And waves only feel like one long combat depending on their timing.



If so, then, yeah, I guess this option is meaningless. If not, it gives an option to casters.

Maybe that next wave is being held off by a Wall of Fire and the party needs those two rounds to finish preparing (healing, setting traps, positioning, whatever).

A very basic tactic of any intelligent creature in these game worlds would be to wait out any powerful spells.

This offers a choice against that tactic; however, it is a costly one (in my opinion).[/QUOTE]

I haven't yet seen a reason to think adding this is better than only retaining existing options (Extend Spell Metamagic, casting the spell again). If those two rounds are so crucial, why not three? Why not a new casting if it's THAT important. And if you planned ahead and Extended the Spell, all the better! That Metamagic could frankly use its limited use cases.

[RSP]

I'm not convinced "expanding" on resource management is the right description here; as in the post you're quoting, you're proposing to remove of the limits on spells and removing the need to cast again (which means additional saving throws, different spell slot, etc.).

It’s not removing the limits, the durations are still there.



I haven't yet seen a reason to think adding this is better than only retaining existing options (Extend Spell Metamagic, casting the spell again). If those two rounds are so crucial, why not three? Why not a new casting if it's THAT important. And if you planned ahead and Extended the Spell, all the better! That Metamagic could frankly use its limited use cases.

Extended doesn’t apply here: it needs to be used at the casting. One cannot choose to use Extended in these situations.

Just to be clear: my thinking isn’t that the Players know what type of combat is coming and therefore would say “I should use Extended on this spell casting because we were told by the DM this will be a “waves” combat.” So Extended is not an option.

The idea here, is when the information about the enemies changes, the Player has a choice to burn further resources to adapt to that new info.

[PhantomSoul]

Extended doesn’t apply here: it needs to be used at the casting. One cannot choose to use Extended in these situations.

Precisely why I said:

... if you planned ahead and Extended the Spell, all the better!
(Emphasis added to original post)

And yes, your spell ends. It has a duration. I'm not seeing why adding "undo/delay spell ending" is good here! You chose a one-minute-duration spell, the spell lasted that duration, and now the known limitation on that spell has arrived, potentially affecting battlefield considerations. That seems like everything working properly and now you can decide to cast the spell again or to do something different, but the crowd control and/or terrain hasard and/or buff and/or debuff has ended -- perhaps mercifully and more interestingly, depending on the spell.

[RSP]

And yes, your spell ends. It has a duration. I'm not seeing why adding "undo/delay spell ending" is good here!

I’ve explained it a few times already: I’m not sure doing so again will help.

I appreciate the feedback.

[Pex]

So thought of three new potential houserules that (mostly) affect combat. Basically, just brainstorming on ways to add a bit more to combat.

First: you can avoid an AoO from one enemy at the cost of 1/2 Speed, similar to Mounting rules, rather than spending an Action on Disengage (which is still an option for the no AoO from anyone). To me, it’s never made sense that you have to turn your back on a combatant (and give them an AoO) unless you use a full Action. I think this is more interesting and more in line with what I’d imagine as what could be done in ~6 seconds of combat: you can move away carefully from a single opponent, but doing so affects how much more you can move that turn.

I don't find half speed a significant cost to avoid the opportunity attack. Small creatures can have a field day with this in tight area since they can attack and move through allies legs away from the bad guy. It also doesn't account for someone having used some movement to reach the opponent. If I have 30 ft movement and move 15 ft to reach an opponent then want to use this rule to move away, how much can I move away? What if I moved 5 ft? 20 ft? Then there are barbarians and monks who have higher movement speeds. In general melee warriors like to be next to bad guys to attack if they move away. Now any monster or bad guy can move away free and clear to attack someone else close by.


Second: for any class that gets a fighting style, in addition to whatever fighting style one chooses, when they get their FS characters of that class can choose to either be in an offense stance and get +1 to attack rolls, or a defensive stance and get +1 to AC.

For the stances, I haven’t quite locked down how I want the timing to work. I don’t like the idea of getting the attack bonus during a turn, then switching to defensive as a BA for off-turn benefits (when most attacks against the character would occur). So maybe they decide at the start of their turn, and the effect lasts until the start of their next turn, when they can decide again.

This could be its own fighting style, but then it's better than defensive. Warriors could use love, but this is a free generic +1 for combat. A player could switch, but there's thought to the idea this gives archery a permanent +3 to hit and defensive a permanent +2 AC. You gave great weapon masters and two-weapon warriors equivalence to a shield. Two-weapon warriors get +3 AC when they take their feat. Sharpshooters are only -2 to hit for +10 damage. 5E math falters.



Third: some way for casters to extend the duration of a spell that’s been cast by using additional spell slots as “fuel”. For instance, if it’s the last round of a casting of Shadow Blade, and you foresee the combat going a bit longer, you can “feed” the casting a 1st level slot to extend the duration 2 more rounds.

For this, I’m leaning towards only allowing this for Concentration spells and only for spells that already last more than one round. My initial thought is the increase in duration would be [Spell Slot x 2] in rounds. I’m thinking this would take a BA to do.


Thoughts?

Let sorcerers alone do metamagic stuff. Some wizard schools get a specialized version, but for spellcasters as a whole this is a sorcerer thing.

[RSP]

It also doesn't account for someone having used some movement to reach the opponent.

It most certainly does! Half Speed is half Speed, regardless of movement. If a monk’s Speed is 40’, then this (like standing or mounting) would take 20’, regardless if they’ve moved or not.

[Kane0]

Do no other tables here do more complex combats where enemies can come in waves (either based of PC action or independent of it)? Do no other tables have enemies tactically withdraw to more favorable terrain?


Absolutely, and I find forcing a casters hand is a better end result. Do they go for a risky push to end the fight before haste ends, bite the bullet and eat the lost turn or stay conservative and hope someone else in the party can save the situation? Simply burning an additional slot to continue the effect that is currently working well changes none of the dynamics of the encounter other than how much you spent on your chosen tactic, and will negate a few potential drawbacks to boot.

[RSP]

Simply burning an additional slot to continue the effect that is currently working well changes none of the dynamics of the encounter other than how much you spent on your chosen tactic, and will negate a few potential drawbacks to boot.

Not sure why this is your assumption. Why doesn’t an additional couple rounds (or more) of a spell not change anything in the dynamics of an encounter?

[Amechra]

The thing that's weird to me about the "casters can burn low-level spell slots to avoid having to recast a big, impactful spell in a long fight" is that no such consideration is being given to Barbarians or Paladins, who both have big, impactful, character-defining abilities (Rage, Channel Divinities) that last one minute or less with a much more limited set of uses than what casters have to deal with¹. It also laughs in the face of Warlocks, since they don't have any low-level slots to burn. Those classes probably need more attention vis-a-vis "fixing" them for longer, spaced-out fights than spellcasters who might get sad because their Wall of Flame ran out.

Also, I dunno about other people, but I think this kind of rule removes one of the interesting parts of multi-stage combats, which is that they punish you for spending your resources too quickly. Spending your big scary spells on a feint by your enemies should make you feel a little silly.

¹ Yeah, sure, Barbarians theoretically have a bunch of Rage uses, but any fight worth the name is going to involve them raging, and any lulls in a fight will practically guarantee that they have to spend another use (prior to 15th level, at least).

[PhantomSoul]

Not sure why this is your assumption. Why doesn’t an additional couple rounds (or more) of a spell not change anything in the dynamics of an encounter?

If I interpret them correctly, it's that it's just extending a status quo, not creating a new dynamic. It's just a power boost and/or consequence avoidance option, but not one that is creating a new interesting outcome or changing how that fight is being fought (and negating the entirely valid strategy of waiting out a problematic spell or reprioritising/restrategising while it's active).


The thing that's weird to me about the "casters can burn low-level spell slots to avoid having to recast a big, impactful spell in a long fight" is that no such consideration is being given to Barbarians or Paladins, who both have big, impactful, character-defining abilities (Rage, Channel Divinities) that last one minute or less with a much more limited set of uses than what casters have to deal with¹. It also laughs in the face of Warlocks, since they don't have any low-level slots to burn. Those classes probably need more attention vis-a-vis "fixing" them for longer, spaced-out fights than spellcasters who might get sad because their Wall of Flame ran out.

Also, I dunno about other people, but I think this kind of rule removes one of the interesting parts of multi-stage combats, which is that they punish you for spending your resources too quickly. Spending your big scary spells on a feint by your enemies should make you feel a little silly.

¹ Yeah, sure, Barbarians theoretically have a bunch of Rage uses, but any fight worth the name is going to involve them raging, and any lulls in a fight will practically guarantee that they have to spend another use (prior to 15th level, at least).

Wholly agreed!

[Kane0]

If I interpret them correctly, it's that it's just extending a status quo, not creating a new dynamic. It's just a power boost and/or consequence avoidance option, but not one that is creating a new interesting outcome or changing how that fight is being fought (and negating the entirely valid strategy of waiting out a problematic spell or reprioritising/restrategising while it's active).


Aye, that's basically it.

Edit: Also agreed with Amechra.

[Bobthewizard]

This expands on resource management: is it worth a casting of AE or Shied for 2 more rounds?

This offers a choice against that tactic; however, it is a costly one (in my opinion).

I often run combats longer than 10 rounds. I think it would be the overwhelmingly obvious choice to use a 1st or 2nd level slot to extend your 5th or 6th level spell a few more rounds rather than let it expire. At high levels this isn't even a costly choice. This option is so much better than other options, that it takes the other options away, reducing the choices the player must make.

Knowing that your wall of force or haste is going to expire next round, though, leads to a lot of good tension and makes the players think of other things to do.

[RSP]

The thing that's weird to me about the "casters can burn low-level spell slots to avoid having to recast a big, impactful spell in a long fight" is that no such consideration is being given to Barbarians or Paladins, who both have big, impactful, character-defining abilities (Rage, Channel Divinities) that last one minute or less with a much more limited set of uses than what casters have to deal with¹.

Not sure anyone thinks the Paladin needs an adjustment (particularly since, as a caster, they’d benefit from the house rule they’re being used to argue against), however, I wouldn’t be opposed to something like “Rage can be extended by using a Hit Die.”

[Amechra]

Not sure anyone thinks the Paladin needs an adjustment (particularly since, as a caster, they’d benefit from the house rule they’re being used to argue against),

The thing about Paladins is that their good spells generally aren't ones that only last a minute, and those that do would be competing with Divine Smite.

The aspect of Paladins that do have a strict, relevant-in-a-long-fight time limit are Channel Divinities and their capstone (which, admittedly, isn't going to come up much). If I'm a Devotion Paladin, I'm going to care more about hitting the one minute duration on Sacred Weapon than, say, Compelled Duel.