D&D 5E Concentration spells over 10 minutes can be a pain in the a**

Titles says it all, almost...

At first, I was thrilled with the concentration mechanic. Now, I find that concentration for spell lasting more than 10 minutes is really constraining on the players and DMs alike!

The logic behind concentration is to avoid having players and monsters stacking spells upons spells on themselves and become the monsters we all saw in 3x ed. Yet, some spells should not require concentration such as the fly spell, flame arrow, polymorph, magic weapon and many others I consider should be on the fire and forget category. A duration should be ample enough.

For some other spells, I do considered concentration to be quite appropriate. Levitation, Telekinesis, Paralysis to name but a few. In fiction and legends, these are usually describde as a contest of will or intense concentration to be maintain.

I feel that the concentration mechanic is not what it should be and it is more a bad control attempt than a good way to prevent abuses.

I'm still musing on removing concentration from some spells, mainly those belonging to the enhancing weapon category and stating that an object can only have one long duration spell at a time.

Am I the only one?

I'm content with the current concentration mechanic. Stating that an object can only have one long duration buff is more... contrived to me than using the concentration mechanic. And it does change it from items/targets being limited to the number of buffs from the caster being only able to cast/hold one buff at a time. Which changes concepts a bit (i.e. if a target can only have one buff at a time, then I limit the utility of having both a buffing cleric and a buffing wizard in the party, but make the versatility of a single buffing character bigger).

I do say that spells cast from wands don't require concentration. For instance, a wand of web is able to cast and have usable more than one web spell/area/effect at a time. Which does make it much more useful than a wand that if the caster uses he has to maintain the concentration of.

To me, your desire from wanting to remove concentration from things like Fly is probably just in how you have used it and imagined it in the past. Nothing wrong with that. You've already identified the stacking buff issue if you allow such.

Allowing stacking of buffs like fly or polymorph in addition to other buffs that are concentration would be a return to the pre-battle buff syndrome vof 3.X. I wouldn't want that.

I think part of the issue you're expressing is a desire for concentration to be a battle of wills more than just maintaining the spell.

If true casters could concentrate on more than one spell, maybe two with disadvantage, it would be much more flexible.

What I do not like is spells with long duration prevents concentration (or not depending on the spell) on combat spells with a shorter duration. All that seems pretty arbitrary and I do feel that some spells should be concentration free.

Example. A ranger casts Flame Arrows on arrows in his quivers. He is now prevented from using hunter's Mark for as long as he needs to maintain concentration on the Flame Arrows spell. For some reasons, this bothers me to no end.

Our 10th level ranger is stuck with only two attacks and shoots two arrows for a small bonus of 1d6. (and one d8 if hunter)
Yet, our rogue 10th level rogue, will have 5d6 consistently. If our rogue gets xbow expert, he becomes much more dangerous.

And let's not talk about our 10th lvl fighter...

Concentration should be for short term spells. The kind that has direct effect on combat and that can go poof if the character is struck while trying to maintain the effect in combat.

Then again, it may just be that I'm old and cranky...

I'm not seeing how the choices they made are arbitrary. The line seems to be "Is this too strong when combined with another strong buff or continuous damage spell? If so then it's concentration"

What you're asking for is an outright buff to all casters which would cause much mechanical unbalance.

Helldritch said:

Example. A ranger casts Flame Arrows on arrows in his quivers. He is now prevented from using hunter's Mark for as long as he needs to maintain concentration on the Flame Arrows spell. For some reasons, this bothers me to no end.

Click to expand...

This example is actually an issue with Hunter's Mark imo. Hunter's Mark is expected in the Ranger's damage and shouldn't be concentration.

Helldritch said:

Our 10th level ranger is stuck with only two attacks and shoots two arrows for a small bonus of 1d6. (and one d8 if hunter)
Yet, our rogue 10th level rogue, will have 5d6 consistently. If our rogue gets xbow expert, he becomes much more dangerous.

Click to expand...

An Ranger with a longbow does about 25 DPR at level 10. Or 30 DPR at 11 with volley. Math
A rogue with crossbow expert using 1 hand crossbow to shoot twice is getting 27 DPR at level 10. Or 31 at 11. Math

Those classes are perfectly balanced as a Ranger inherently has spells. Now if Hunter's Mark didn't have concentration then flame arrows would act as the true damage boost at a spell slot cost that is expected. Whereas now it replaces the expected damage boost at the cost of a slot (Hunter's Mark).

Helldritch said:

And let's not talk about our 10th lvl fighter...

Click to expand...

10th level fighter can achieve 35 DPR, but a fair amount of that is a result of -5/+10 from GWM which is inherently problematic. Math

Helldritch said:

Concentration should be for short term spells. The kind that has direct effect on combat and that can go poof if the character is struck while trying to maintain the effect in combat.

Click to expand...

Concentration, as designed, is to prevent multiple strong buffs or effects at the same time.
The spells you mentioned earlier have great effects on combat:
Levitate/Fly: Caster is now invulnerable to the majority of enemies (most monsters in the monster manual lack ranged attacks or spells). Definitely deserves Concentration. Levitate used offensively is very hard CC for much the same reason: The enemy is now vulnerable to your parties attacks and can do nothing.
Telekinesis is a hard CC spell which can easily disable enemies. Definitely deserves Concentration.
Paralysis: You'll have to specify which spell is causing the paralysis. Hold Person? Ya, that's incredibly strong CC.

One of the jokes about earlier editions of D&D was that the wizard would always end up flying and invisible, regardless of whatever else they were doing, which isn't something that you see in any other depiction of a wizard anywhere. Concentration solves that by making Fly and Invisibility mutually exclusive, and not always your best options.

I do think they went a little bit overboard, for the short-duration concentration spells that only last until your next attack, but that could have been solved more easily by making those spells not require concentration.

Saelorn said:

I do think they went a little bit overboard, for the short-duration concentration spells that only last until your next attack, but that could have been solved more easily by making those spells not require concentration.

Click to expand...

So the handful of smites - on those I agree as well.

I'm playing a warlock (well, sorc-lock but still), so I feel the limitations of concentration and its choices and drawbacks every session. I'm still convinced it was a brilliant design decision, as much as I curse it. (see what I did there?)

But can anyone find me an area control spell that isn't concentration besides Grease? Seriously.

Hex is in the same boat as hunter's mark. Warlock does about 15% of the HP of an equivalent level monster at most levels up until level 17. That's including Hex. A Fighter is doing around 25%. A Ranger is doing about 20%.

Hex having concentration isn't needed for balance and it just heavily limits the Warlock's playstyle more than it already is.

Sounds to me like it is working as intended.

Powerful spells have concentration and if you use them then you need to choose between them.

There are buffs that don't require concentration, they're just not as good.