Allowing some Concentration Stacking - With big costs

Stalker0 · Dec 8, 2018

I'm always torn about concentration. On the one hand, I think it was a key tool in 5e that combated a lot of the ills of bulk casting in 3e. On the other, it kills me when I watch my casters pick spells....see something cool, and immediately turn away when they see "concentration" on the description. Concentration has really limited the spell selection my casters want to use.

So I've been thinking of a way to let them bypass the system...but at a nice step cost. Here is the concept.

[SIMPLE] The simple keyword is applied to certain concentration spells. This spell can be cast without breaking concentration on an existing effect.

Simple Casting: When a caster casts a concentration spell, they can choose to apply the simple keyword. To do this, they must expend a slot one higher than the slot used by the spell. This is in addition to the normal spell slot cost.

Concentration Checks with Multiple Effects: If a caster is maintaining multiple concentration effects, and is forced to make a concentration check, they make 1 check at disadvantage. On a failure, all concentration effects are lost.

So in summary, the caster can pay higher level spell slots to allow for some concentration stacking. The cost is very high, meaning casters will only generally use it on their lower level spells, and can never use it on their strongest spells. Further, it increases the risk of disruption, to ensure its not a gimme option once the caster has a lot of slots. I also ensure that multiple effects does not increase the amount of concentration checks so as not to slow down the game.

Note that the order of effects matters. If I have a regular concentration spell in effect, and cast a simple spell....everything is good. If I have a simple spell up, and then cast a regular concentration spell....the simple spell is lost per normal rules.

Thoughts?

5ekyu · Dec 8, 2018

Stalker0 said:
I'm always torn about concentration. On the one hand, I think it was a key tool in 5e that combated a lot of the ills of bulk casting in 3e. On the other, it kills me when I watch my casters pick spells....see something cool, and immediately turn away when they see "concentration" on the description. Concentration has really limited the spell selection my casters want to use.

So I've been thinking of a way to let them bypass the system...but at a nice step cost. Here is the concept.

[SIMPLE] The simple keyword is applied to certain concentration spells. This spell can be cast without breaking concentration on an existing effect.

Simple Casting: When a caster casts a concentration spell, they can choose to apply the simple keyword. To do this, they must expend a slot one higher than the slot used by the spell. This is in addition to the normal spell slot cost.

Concentration Checks with Multiple Effects: If a caster is maintaining multiple concentration effects, and is forced to make a concentration check, they make 1 check at disadvantage. On a failure, all concentration effects are lost.

So in summary, the caster can pay higher level spell slots to allow for some concentration stacking. The cost is very high, meaning casters will only generally use it on their lower level spells, and can never use it on their strongest spells. Further, it increases the risk of disruption, to ensure its not a gimme option once the caster has a lot of slots. I also ensure that multiple effects does not increase the amount of concentration checks so as not to slow down the game.

Note that the order of effects matters. If I have a regular concentration spell in effect, and cast a simple spell....everything is good. If I have a simple spell up, and then cast a regular concentration spell....the simple spell is lost per normal rules.

Thoughts?

If it bothers you just let them run as many as they want and leave concentration as risk of losing it when hurt distracted. You obviously dont want them to have to choose, so don't make them.

Stalker0 · Dec 8, 2018

5ekyu said:
If it bothers you just let them run as many as they want and leave concentration as risk of losing it when hurt distracted. You obviously dont want them to have to choose, so don't make them.

Oh I do want them to choose to a point, I don't want to return to 3e days of just stacking buffs and creating supermen. I recognize the concentration mechanic is an important balance element, so I want to bend it not break it.

clearstream · Dec 8, 2018

Stalker0 said:
I'm always torn about concentration. On the one hand, I think it was a key tool in 5e that combated a lot of the ills of bulk casting in 3e. On the other, it kills me when I watch my casters pick spells....see something cool, and immediately turn away when they see "concentration" on the description. Concentration has really limited the spell selection my casters want to use.

I've experienced the same thing. The contention forces even players who would rather not worry about optimising, to optimise.

Stalker0 said:
[SIMPLE] The simple keyword is applied to certain concentration spells. This spell can be cast without breaking concentration on an existing effect.

Simple Casting: When a caster casts a concentration spell, they can choose to apply the simple keyword. To do this, they must expend a slot one higher than the slot used by the spell. This is in addition to the normal spell slot cost.

Concentration Checks with Multiple Effects: If a caster is maintaining multiple concentration effects, and is forced to make a concentration check, they make 1 check at disadvantage. On a failure, all concentration effects are lost.

These are well-conceived costs. Using a keyword allows the benefit to be targeted precisely. The spell slot cost provides a reason to not do it. The single check is good streamlining, and applying disadvantage doubles-down on producing a genuine decision. Do I stack, and have a greater risk of losing all? I think I would add one rider: a simple spell can be stacked with a different spell. This preserves the value of Sorcerer "Twinned" metamagic, and is a common sort of designer precaution against unexpected consequences.

I might try these out in my campaign. To do that, I think my ideal would be to translate this into a caster item, either with charges or that I can easily remove from the campaign.

5ekyu · Dec 8, 2018

Stalker0 said:
Oh I do want them to choose to a point, I don't want to return to 3e days of just stacking buffs and creating supermen. I recognize the concentration mechanic is an important balance element, so I want to bend it not break it.

Admit its been a while but i dont recall 3e having damage making you roll checks to keep spells up. So, if thats the case, then just removing the one spell limit is still way from 3e days.

Iirc Taldorei setting has had multi concentration as a feat for quite a while now.

One slot higher etc is not avoiding optimization or eliminating at all the very thing you said drove you to this - its just changing the decision point to favor some spells over others.

"On the other, it kills me when I watch my casters pick spells....see something cool, and immediately turn away when they see "concentration" on the description. Concentration has really limited the spell selection my casters want to use"

Alsi, in a game with so many limited use "fail roll reroll" features, one conc check covering multiple spells is not increasing the risk compared to conc check for each. Thats another case of simply driving them to optimize differently - pushing say diviner portent and lucky feats higher in the "choose me over cool stuff" calculus you claim to want to solve by this change.

Finally, the simple first or simple second fiddly bit seems complicating for sake of complicating... How does making them keep the order in which teo spells are cast serve to not drive them to optimize or to not dismiss cool ideas for mechanical concerns?

Your stated goal as expressed in your post by the stated use case driver problem is not eliminated or solved by this set of new variables in the equation.

So, was there a different goal in mind thos actually addresses or was this a swing and a miss?

Simonb1 · Dec 8, 2018

Hi all,

OP a great suggestion, but I also agree with 5ekyu about the order of using the simple spell with a concentration spell.

Also I am assuming that by upcasting you have to choose between upcasting the spell as usual, and making a spell a simple spell?

I also would only allow 1 simple spell.

Simon

Gladius Legis · Dec 8, 2018

Just have more concentration spells follow the model of Bestow Curse (removes concentration requirement when cast 2 slots higher). No keyword needed.

I'd only apply that to lower-level concentration spells, though. Say, no higher than 3rd level, with maybe some very rare exceptions.

schnee · Dec 8, 2018

Q1: What are you doing to buff the martial classes to balance out the increased power and action economy of spellcasters?

Q2: What situations are you putting in the game that are much more difficult due to no Concentration spells?

Q3: Are you using opponents with Concentration spells against them, so they see the power and utility of those effects rather than just the limitations?

Q4: Does it come down to a few spells, that are nerfed too much due to Concentration, that might be balanced enough with a bit of surgical homebrew? (Looking at you, Flame Blade.)

DEFCON 1 · Dec 9, 2018

My methodology for multiple concentration spells was simply that a caster could concentrate on a single personal buff spell and a single external spell at the same time (whether it be a party buff, or an enemy debuff). If a spell would affect both the caster and other party members, it would count as both concentration spells.

This allows someone like a Ranger to have Hunter's Mark up, while also being able to throw out the occasional Entangle, and a Wizard could then have Stoneskin up and still throw up a Wall of Fire.

Satyrn · Dec 9, 2018

Stalker0 said:
I'm always torn about concentration. On the one hand, I think it was a key tool in 5e that combated a lot of the ills of bulk casting in 3e. On the other, it kills me when I watch my casters pick spells....see something cool, and immediately turn away when they see "concentration" on the description. Concentration has really limited the spell selection my casters want to use.

So I've been thinking of a way to let them bypass the system...but at a nice step cost. Here is the concept.

[SIMPLE] The simple keyword is applied to certain concentration spells. This spell can be cast without breaking concentration on an existing effect.

Simple Casting: When a caster casts a concentration spell, they can choose to apply the simple keyword. To do this, they must expend a slot one higher than the slot used by the spell. This is in addition to the normal spell slot cost.

Concentration Checks with Multiple Effects: If a caster is maintaining multiple concentration effects, and is forced to make a concentration check, they make 1 check at disadvantage. On a failure, all concentration effects are lost.

So in summary, the caster can pay higher level spell slots to allow for some concentration stacking. The cost is very high, meaning casters will only generally use it on their lower level spells, and can never use it on their strongest spells. Further, it increases the risk of disruption, to ensure its not a gimme option once the caster has a lot of slots. I also ensure that multiple effects does not increase the amount of concentration checks so as not to slow down the game.

Note that the order of effects matters. If I have a regular concentration spell in effect, and cast a simple spell....everything is good. If I have a simple spell up, and then cast a regular concentration spell....the simple spell is lost per normal rules.

Thoughts?

I'd give it a go.

Although I thInk I'd make it only simple spells stack, to eliminate any confusion that might be caused by that order of effects thing, so when a player asks "can these spells stack?" the answer is always a straightforward "if they're all simple, yes." At least I'd keep this option in mind while playtesting what you got as written.

Allowing some Concentration Stacking - With big costs

Stalker0

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Stalker0

Legend

clearstream

(He, Him)

5ekyu

Hero

Simonb1

Explorer

Gladius Legis

Legend

schnee

First Post

DEFCON 1

Legend

Satyrn

First Post

Similar Threads