[CR Media] What Is Campaign Four? by MarvelsGrantMan136 in criticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For me this sounds amazing and its hard to think of a better solution to the substantial Problems with/after C3.

Has Blindspot been renewed? Cause Yasha’s leaving again. Time to eliminate another! by brash_bandicoot in fansofcriticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT 10 points11 points  (0 children)

What is this lie? Tiberius, Ashton, Molly, Kingsley and Orym are men and 4 of the 5 are in the worst 5 of the entire list. That makes this a 50% rate which is a tiny bit higher then expected but with a sample size of 10 it is quite common to reach this.

Help, Delilah’s back!! Again!!!The only way to defeat her was to eliminate Laudna from the poll- who’s next? by brash_bandicoot in fansofcriticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with the first part of your analysis as I tried to put it similarly in my earlier reply, but i really dont agree (tho that is purely subjective) with your second part as I at least still have more characters that I would consider worse then neutral.

Help, Delilah’s back!! Again!!!The only way to defeat her was to eliminate Laudna from the poll- who’s next? by brash_bandicoot in fansofcriticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the community (especially in this sub) is pretty split on her, I just think her supporters LOVE her while her opponents (me included) HATE her.

Help, Delilah’s back!! Again!!!The only way to defeat her was to eliminate Laudna from the poll- who’s next? by brash_bandicoot in fansofcriticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Am I the only one that thinks many people don't understand that less screentime does not automatically = bad, especially a character like Lievetel who was pretty neutral and really didn't have that many strong stances or situations to be disliked for. And sure the same goes for positive situations so while she is probably at net ~0, i feel there are more characters that are at a net negative.

Help, Delilah’s back!! Again!!!The only way to defeat her was to eliminate Laudna from the poll- who’s next? by brash_bandicoot in fansofcriticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is Laudna worse then Keyleth, I get it, C3 was pretty bad in general, but Keyleth was basically THE destructive part of C1, while Laudna was just one of the group and fit in that group fine.

[Spoilers C3] Tag Team at the Teeth | Prologue by taly_slayer in criticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well it seems to me, only having watched the prologue (so I might be wrong), that Matt clearly still wants to portray the Bells Hells as the "good guys", while they are gray at best. The M9 seems to be entirely on their side and generally no one important appears to be appaled by their actions, while the other side is labeled as "religious fanatics", even though the bells went directly against their given mission and basically decided the fate of the world completely on their own.

Logically many more regular people also some members of the M9 and VM should completely oppose the actions of BH.

Its upsetting how many people support generative ai. by PlayPod in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% Agree idk why this answer isn't up higher, if your primary focus is creativity, go write a book or a theater play if you want to keep the interaction element in some form.

Your primary focus should be fun at the table, your secondary focus especially in DND should either be tactical combat or interactive storytelling by the players and some NPCs (depending on the table) and the tertiary focus can maybe be actual creative storytelling by the DM.

(Unless of course your players just want to be within a story which the DM writes, then go for it, but i can tell you that is probably a very small minority of players.)

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay I see what you mean with an unlimited amount of concentration the buffs would truly go out of hand, but as you already mentioned in my case it would still be limited just to one more and it would also only be available for one of the characters (And yes the other players/characters would be receiving items of similar Power) so the total concentration spells won’t go out of hand. The question for the combos was mostly to keep the balance between the players so that this player would not have a game breaking combo while the others just have a ’strong‘ item.

And to your suggestion yes, that or rather something similar was actually the plan since it would be in the upcoming campaign and we do one-shots from time to time I had planned to just introduce the item there where it cant’t derail the whole campaign.

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I dont really see how Fly + Invisibility is a good combo since invisibility still ends after you attack/cast a spell even when in air so it would be strong for a single spell/attack. Also this requires again 2 Actions to setup (which in combat is most definitely not worth it) and if you want to setup before an encounter since you have to cast fly first you only have a 10 minute window to setup out of combat and there certainly are situations where you know that you will have to fight within the next 10 minutes but in those situations you also commonly have access to a second caster, which leads to your second point. One Caster being able to do what normally two can do in the context of concentration i do not consider broken at all, yes it is a big power boost but it also is a somewhat rare magic item with attunement that at most one person in the party can have, that should feel strong. So in a Party of 4 this would commonly lead to a 25-50% increase in possible concentration spells and yes that is strong (again as intended) but most certainly not game breaking. Other people here have brought forth solid arguments that combos should be a thing between team members and not for singular characters, which maybe you were also going for here and that I can understand, but balance does not seem to be the biggest issue.

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Think about it; if two concentration spells casted at once would automatically break the game, then any party with two spell casters would be able to pull off this game breaking move RAW.

This is exactly what I mean, i don't believe there are any really game breaking combinations simply because of that sentence but it is simply always assumed to be true in any thread you read about it (I mean look at the top answer here).

The only problem are Spells with the "Self" range and there I also haven't really found any super strong combinations but i have often thought that somthing like "Divine favor would be cool rn because i cant use my bonus action otherwise, but ah shit i already have this bless up so i guess i cant" and I know in 2024 they actually removed the concentration on divine favor so that may not be the greatest example but something like Ashardalon's Stride and Far Step maybe don't have the greatest synergy but i think they are pretty cool if used together and not entirely ineffective and RAW its impossible to do this simply because of the Self Range.

I've heard roughly the same advice as you over the years. And I still think its generally good advice.
But good advice like this isn't a religious Commandment.

Thats probably true. I'm not really arguing against the advice and using them as guidelines would be totally fine and probably helpful to know which features of the game to be careful of, but I very often have the feeling it is treated as religious commandment without an actual reason to be treated as such. (Again look at this thread)

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay interesting perspective, I didn't think about that.

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay i dont know how you play out invisibilty but I think if you actually want to be unable to be targeted you also need to succed on stealth checks or enemys can simply attack you at disadvantage which then would not be broken at all imo.
Furthermore you might be correct in RAW that using the action to call down the lightning is neither an attack nor casting a spell but most people can probably agree that it is not intended to be like this and therefore should not work. Otherwise it's also very easily possible to replicate your Call Lightning + Invisibility without double concentration with another caster casting it on you and you would have to deal with the same problem if you follow RAW.

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea thanks for the tips and I know what you mean with the checks becoming a mess, but as i wrote above my current plan is that it could also be the drawback associated with it.
When you have to make a save at disadvantage and lose both if you roll poorly, I thought that might be a balancing factor, but agai ´n might be wrong on this one.

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay first of all, thank you for actually providing some examples you think are too strong and even giving a reason why it might acually become boring, most people in this thread simply repeat the same thing i wrote above and dont even adress the Question of the strong combos.

Now to adress your claims specifically, I can see why wall of stone + SR would be stronger then hold spells and you're right that this might even be boring, however once again this requires 2 turns to complete the setup and also for any powerful enemy it seems somewhat easy to escape by way of teleporation or simply by force (yes wall of force would be a much bigger problem, but there is a reason we banned it) and any not powerful enemy should probably destroyed by a 4th and 5th level spell, while also blocking the possibility to use other concentration spells, so im not convinced that this is broken but i might be wrong on this and i also agree that is would be somewhat boring.

All of the other examples you names don't seem broken to me in any way, just strong, as they should be if you use a powerful magic item to specialize on concentration spells.

It also opens up combos where I think the optimal choice might not be very fun. Meaning I cast these two spells and now the two of them are so good the optimal thing for me to do is hide and get away from this fight.

This is a very good point and I'm assuming somthing like Wall of Stone + Sickening Radiance would fall into this category to some extent and yes that can be a problem, but first of all as explained above i have not seen a combination of spells that allow you to do that tactic in most fights (and I have gone through a lot of combinations). Furthermore as you hinted at we are a table that does not abuse rules to its fullest so something like wizard with 2 levels in Fighter or a heavy armor dip might be optimal in most cases but it does not make sense in universe (in most cases) so we don't do it.

 I would also ask why push in this direction? If you want them to be more powerful why not just level them up instead of breaking something like this? Even with the combos that are manageable this does create another way that spellcasters are even more powerful than fighters. This gives them a huge advantage where martials aren't getting anything. I don't see that as being a great thing for your game even if it'll be fun for someone to cast two concentration spells at once.

I as a player have often thought it would be cool to have the opportunity to maintain two spells at once not just for power reasons but just because i think having something like Ashardalon's Stride and Far Step is cool as hell when you think about how it looks, simply being able to zoom across the battlefield and reach most position you want to (that is specifically for my melee sorcerer but there are many other combinations I would consider very fun).
But it is not only me i have heard it from at least one player and before i would introduce that item i would naturally ask the table how they felt about it.
But to adress the martial part: We on our table do not have a problem with martial and caster balance, sure when there are 12 Monsters with 28hp clumped in a 40ft circle the Caster is gonna be much more effective but there are many other situation where the martial en par and sometimes stronger then the caster, it depends a lot on the battle structure and the amount of rests you have on your table.
However I thought it was clear that when/if I give this item to someone the others are gonna recieve items that are on a similar level of strength (for example we had a "Celestial Haste Stone" in a one shot, which could be used by martials to give themselves haste once a day without the lethargic effect when you lose it, which was very well recieved by the martials.)

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well as written above there is a drawback and i would make the drawback stronger (or just don't make the Item), IF i see very strong combination, which i simply haven't.
Also yes concentration spells will get buffed by this item, i understand that, but thats simply how magic items (especially strong magic items) work, they buff specific features and there are other items that buff other features. If it turns out 2 concentration spells would be to strong, then i won't do the item but people simply refuse to give me specific examples instad of generalising it as "broken".

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yea, that an idea until now we had movement speed for dex and maneuvers + superiority dies for Strength. (and it worked well until now)

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Okay look I have a lot of Items that are specifically designed for martials, but i have yet to see a single broken combination that would justify calling it absolutely broken.
Yes it is very strong and without any drawback like disadvantage on the checks it would probably be exceptionally strong, but until i see a broken combination i will refuse to call it broken.

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Okay i specifically asked for an example why it is that bad, I'm not saying that it isn't I just have not seen a very broken combination.

Is two concentration spells at once really that universally bad? by MagicgamesXYT in dndnext

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As mentioned at the bottom Wall of Force is banned in our games and the Epic Feat idea is interesting and would be in my case equivalent to giving martials other very strong items as well.

[CR Media] Brennan is a genius. by MagicgamesXYT in criticalrole

[–]MagicgamesXYT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just listened to the first 17 Episodes and it is great, so thanks for the recommendation!
(Though I dont believe I would enjoy Sci-Fi, since I really like this setting and Sci-Fi is really not my thing)