D&D 5E Break my concentration redesign!

[Helldritch]

My take on concentration is way simpler.
1) If a concentration spell allows a save at the end of each turn, then as long as the concentration is not broken, the caster can reactivate the effect on the target with a bonus action. If two targets save at the same time, the caster must choose between the two. The reactivation must done immediately on the caster's turn following the target's save. If the target saves on reactivation, the spell ends for that particular target only ( if more than one target were affected).

2) Spells that requires concentration for an ongoing effect can now make that effect with a bonus action. Only cantrips can be cast if you use a bonus action to apply an ongoing effect. Not applying an ongoing effect does not remove or end a concentration. But allows to cast a spell of 1st level or higher.

Only two spells had their concentration's feature removed. Hex and Hunter's Mark.

This is a new rule that we are trying. It is about six months old and so far everyone love how it is going. Witch bolt is used again. But the re enacting part is interesting. Especially on hold spells where the battle of wills is the way we describe the target save and the caster re applying the spell as a contest. It really fun storytelling wise. It also bring cocentration to a new level.

 

[GlassJaw]

My take on concentration is way simpler.

I certainly don't think this is simpler. I'm actually having a little trouble fully understanding. Lots of exceptions and if-thens.

Putting more stress on the bonus action economy is certainly not something I would do either.

 

[Helldritch]

You really have trouble understanding?????

1 st part has two "if". Two conditions. Target is affected, save at its end of turn. Reactivate the spell on a bonus action on caster's turn. The spell ends on that target if it saves on reactivation. You can only reactivate on one target at a time. What can be simpler? (Answer: No modifications).

The second part is the same rule for casting a bonus action spell that you have on the PHB.

The rule works on any spells with concentration. What can be easier? An endless list of modifications?

The stress on the action economy is exactly doing its purpose. Casters have almost nothing to do with bonus actions save a few exceptions.

The two spells I removed from concentration have nothing to do with my rule. This is a personal taste that has been done almost at the start of 5ed.

 

[Laurefindel]

After concentration popped up again in a recent thread, I dug out my own notes and revisited the topic. Here's my quick take on the concentration mechanic:

1. The concentration mechanic has been a great addition to 5E.
2. Some spells are hurt more than others by requiring concentration and therefore, rarely - if ever - get used.

I'd really like to see #2 addressed. I'm also willing to allow casters to concentrate on two spells at a time, depending on the spell combination. This won't significantly affect balance. If anything, it will make for more interesting gameplay if a wider range of spells are used.

Here's my basic criteria for evaluating concentration spells:

• Does it require an attack roll (Ray of Enfeeblement, Searing Smite, Witch Bolt)?
• Does it require an action every round to continue to use (Witch Bolt)?
• Does it allow a save every round (Ray of Enfeeblement)?
• Does it require the caster to be in melee (Vampiric Touch, smite spells)?
• Is it rarely used?

However, you can't simply remove concentration from a group of spells to solve the problem. It's a start but it has far-reaching consequences if concentration is removed from too many spells, mainly buff-stacking, which I would argue was the primary design goal of the developers when implementing the concentration mechanic. However, after 6 years of "playtesting", it's clear some spells are hurt significantly by it.

My redesign is twofold:

1. Remove concentration from a small group of spells, and
2. Put concentration spells into 2 categories. A caster can maintain concentration on two spells at a time, one from each category.

Concentration Categories
Ally (A): The spell affects yourself or one or more allies
Enemy/Environment (E): The spell affects the environment or one or more enemies

If you take damage while you are concentrating on two spells, the DC equals 15 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you fail, you lose both spells.

Remove C

I like your ally/enemy dichotomy. I think you could expand it to buff spells and something else spells. Is the target of the spell "you" or "an ally creature"? If the answer is yes, then the spell is in category A. Otherwise, it's a category B spell (or E). Simple. Straightforward. You don't need a table to use as a reference. It may cause a few questionable results but i'd just roll with it (Magic Weapon for example targets a non-magical weapon, so category "B" it is even if it's more a buff than an attack or a debuff for the enemy). Magic works in mysterious ways...

Otherwise I agree that some spells (like barkskin and stoneskin) shouldn't require concentration. Some other spells you mentioned (like call lightning and smites) should conserve their concentration tag IMO (although smite spells could be removed from the spell list altogether and re-worked as Divine Smite options).

In any case, I'd be tempted to first establish a blanket clause that would establish the basic idea you're after. Then, make a separate list of spells that you subjectively choose as exceptions and have their concentration removed. At this point you don't need a reason or a deep logic; it's your prerogative as a DM, point final. Keep this list short and sweet.

I like the base DC 15 for double concentration or lose both spells. It is pretty harsh however; in itself it could be a deterrent to double concentration, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The smite spells automatically go off with your next hit, so you can't store them for one devastating attack. In addition, the 1 minute duration prevents building them up in advance. If the party has the ability to set up almost a minute before an attack, this benefit is going to pale to other spells (IME that much time usually ensures victory before the end of the 2nd round, and often before the enemy has a chance to respond).

It takes a bonus action to cast the Smite spells. This means you can build up your attack in any combat round where you can't make an attack, or any time the PCs might trigger the encounter. "Okay, I'm going to cast Thunderous Smite three times, then we open the door," isn't a play pattern you really want to encourage, IMO, especially when they do things like push, frighten, knock prone, or blind on each failed save. Even if it ends up not being broken, it's poor game design.

That's fair, but if someone wants to invest that many actions and spell slots, I'd almost be inclined to let them. That's certainly not in the spirit of those spells though. Easy enough to remedy: add a line to each of the smite spells that says "You can only have one smite spell active at a time."

I think that's probably fine for a house rule, but it wouldn't work well for a published rule.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'll say this, concentration stinks in many ways. I'm interested in some kind of alternate.

 

[J-H]

Modify every spell is a bulk task.
Why don’t try using upcast to add feature aiding concentration.
Upcasting a spell one level make concentation unbreakable for this spell for the duration.
Upcasting X levels allow to add the spell on Ongoing concentration.
the classic example is fly and greater invisibility, does the fly spell cast at level 5 worth it? Level 6?
of course these Upcasting don’t trigger usual Upcasting, but can be combined if sufficient high level slot is used.

I like this idea a lot. Maybe make it 2*spell level-1, so a no-Concentration Improved Invisibility is level 7, no-Concentration 3rd level is 5th, a 2nd is 3rd, and a 1st-level with no concentration is 2nd level?

 

[GlassJaw]

I like this idea a lot. Maybe make it 2*spell level-1, so a no-Concentration Improved Invisibility is level 7, no-Concentration 3rd level is 5th, a 2nd is 3rd, and a 1st-level with no concentration is 2nd level?

It's an interesting mechanic but my designer gut instinct says there's still potential for balance issues since most of the stackable buffs are low-level. For example, bless without concentration as a level 2 spell is a no-brainer.

It's why I went with a simple classification of spells. I white boarded a LOT of mechanics but at the end of the day, you simply can't open up concentration to any combination of spells. That's where the issue occurs.

My decision to split concentration into 2 categories did require looking at each concentration spell but it also doesn't add any new mechanics. Honestly, once the design was done, aside from a select few spells, classifying the spells was the easy part.

It's also a much easier task than taking a new mechanic and checking it against a wide range of concentration spell combinations. If you start finding combinations that are still problematic, then what? Add more rules to fix those exceptions while trying to keep your new mechanic intact?

 

[Gadget]

I don't understand why Friends and Flesh to Stone is in category "A?" Shouldn't they be in category "E?" Also I would add Flame Arrows to the list of spells with concentration removed (perhaps with a caveat that if you cast the spell again on a second quiver, it ceases on the first).

That said, I agree that the concentration mechanic puts a quite a bit of pressure on the spell design to make the spell "worth it" for the caster. Over the years, I've stopped and started a house rules list of modified spells to help fix the problem. Some spells are just poorly designed, with or without concentration (True Strike, Witch Bolt, etc.). I question weather or not Flesh To Stone needs concentration at all, as it already has a fail x times before succeeding x times mechanic to slow it down and help mitigate the effect; having to maintain concentration for a full minute seems like overkill.

 

[Krachek]

I like this idea a lot. Maybe make it 2*spell level-1, so a no-Concentration Improved Invisibility is level 7, no-Concentration 3rd level is 5th, a 2nd is 3rd, and a 1st-level with no concentration is 2nd level?

Something like that. Obviously it can produced some deadly combo, but high level spell also.
I have faith in players, they will find the right price to pay to cheat with concentration.
if you ban it or give concentration for free we will never know the price in spell slot the players are willing to pay for those features.