D&D 5E Multiple Concentration

[Mistwell]

Let me know what you think about my house rule mechanic. We are about to start up another campaign and the player who will be DM'ing that has decided he liked the house rule enough that he is going to adopt it into his campaign as well (Yay! for my Hexblade Shadow Sorcerer).

Thank you so much for posting that. It looks great! I agree that at least in theory (for me - practice for you) it does not sound like it would break anything. It has good logical consistency with the level limitations. I would probably add a rule making concentration checks more difficult if you are concentrating on more than one spell, since I think it would be more complicated. But aside from that, seems good!

 

[Yunru]

I think the larger part is it widens the disparity between casters and non-casters, which wouldn't necessarily show in a caster-heavy party.

 

[dave2008]

I liked the way 4E did it, and I feel that could be applied to 5E fairly easily.
You get one "concentration slot." Representing your simple mental ability to concentrate on something.
You may sacrifice your bonus action(s) and reaction(s) to concentrate on a two things.
You may sacrifice your Action(s) and movement to concentrate on three things.

I don't see it as unreasonable that a spellcaster may be so deep in concentration that they are unable to move, simply standing in one place channeling magic.

I like that as an idea, but in 4e you could always do something with a minor (bonus) action, so that was more of a penalty. I would probably flip it:

1) One concentration slot
2) Sacrifice your Action and half movement to gain 1 concentration slot (2 total)
3) Sacrifice all movement and actions (Action, Reaction, Bonus Action) to gain 1 concentration slot (3 total)

 

[Particle_Man]

Have not read the whole thread but isn’t extra concentration the sorcerer’s thing via twin spell? Seems like giving it to other casters treads on the sorcerer’s toes.

 

[CapnZapp]

Have not read the whole thread but isn’t extra concentration the sorcerer’s thing via twin spell? Seems like giving it to other casters treads on the sorcerer’s toes.

Which many of us considers a flaw in the sorcerer design.

Effectively this argument is saying that the only thing that keeps the sorcerer cool is denying stuff to other classes.

I would much prefer if every class is cool on its own, and didn't get its unique schtick from putting its boot on the throat of others.

High-level Wizards should definitely be able to bend or break some or all of 5E's limitations on magic. The sorcerer will have to get another claim to fame, because "I'm the only one who gets to break the harsh limits on magic" is unacceptable in D&D.

As proof I give you the coolest high-level NPCs that already do that. They have legendary actions and saves. They even have special exceptions (such as more spell slots).

While the RAW is fine for most of the game, it becomes boringly constricting once play enters Tier IV.


Zapp

PS. If that makes you counter with the argument "but if Wizards get cool stuff at levels 17+, so should Fighters and other classes too!"...

... then you would get no objection from me! I absolutely agree, as long as you don't pull off the inverted argument "since Fighters don't get cool stuff, Wizards should not get cool stuff either!"

This is balderdash - of course Archmages should have much more tricks up their sleeves than the outright anemic NPC stat block suggests!

(The Archmage NPC stat block is fine for the purpose of offering up a quick and simple stat block during single-digit level play, where an Archmage outlevels the party by a significant margin, and where having to fight one would likely indicate the party did something wrong at an earlier turn.

Once a Wizard with level 9 spells becomes an "level-appropriate threat", you need more from a stat block if that creature is to look and feel archmagey even a little. Unless you're cool with having "archmages" as dime a dozen henchmen opponents, who cast one spell and then die)

 

[Particle_Man]

Wizards at high levels are powerful enough for me. If you want them to break the rules you can make the appropriate house rule.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which many of us considers a flaw in the sorcerer design.

Effectively this argument is saying that the only thing that keeps the sorcerer cool is denying stuff to other classes.

I would much prefer if every class is cool on its own, and didn't get its unique schtick from putting its boot on the throat of others.

High-level Wizards should definitely be able to bend or break some or all of 5E's limitations on magic. The sorcerer will have to get another claim to fame, because "I'm the only one who gets to break the harsh limits on magic" is unacceptable in D&D.

As proof I give you the coolest high-level NPCs that already do that. They have legendary actions and saves. They even have special exceptions (such as more spell slots).

While the RAW is fine for most of the game, it becomes boringly constricting once play enters Tier IV.


Zapp

PS. If that makes you counter with the argument "but if Wizards get cool stuff at levels 17+, so should Fighters and other classes too!"...

... then you would get no objection from me! I absolutely agree, as long as you don't pull off the inverted argument "since Fighters don't get cool stuff, Wizards should not get cool stuff either!"

This is balderdash - of course Archmages should have much more tricks up their sleeves than the outright anemic NPC stat block suggests!

(The Archmage NPC stat block is fine for the purpose of offering up a quick and simple stat block during single-digit level play, where an Archmage outlevels the party by a significant margin, and where having to fight one would likely indicate the party did something wrong at an earlier turn.

Once a Wizard with level 9 spells becomes an "level-appropriate threat", you need more from a stat block if that creature is to look and feel archmagey even a little. Unless you're cool with having "archmages" as dime a dozen henchmen opponents, who cast one spell and then die)

So why do wizards get to know and prepare the most spells than a sorcerer? Why is he getting his unique shickt by putting his bootstrap on the throat of others? Further, whatever new unique shickt the sorcerer gets couldn't you make the same argument as a reason the wizard should get it as well?

 

[CapnZapp]

Wizards at high levels are powerful enough for me. If you want them to break the rules you can make the appropriate house rule.

I would rather have an official supplement that details official (optional, just like Xanathar's) rules that you can ignore and I can purchase and then discuss here at the forums with others of like mind

 

[Blue]

Personally I don't like the way that 5E used Concentration (but I'm also an old 1E DM) - so my house rule is that character's can Concentrate on spell's equal to their Proficiency bonus - and then I'm ruthless in making them roll to check it, and equally ruthless in applying penalties.

D.

That's a rather large buff for casters. I'm not saying it's not something you should not do, but if you are giving that much to casters do you have other house rules that give things to martial characters?

 

[Thurmas]

It's always struck me that the problem isn't the concentration mechanic, which I think is fine. It is instead that there are too many spells that require concentration that shouldn't. Passive effects that you shouldn't actually have to think about, such as Wall of Stone or Web shouldn't require concentration. Those are just physical manifestations that with enough time, crumble or fade away. It's the active effects, such as Telekinesis or Flaming Sphere that should require concentration.

Don't change the concentration mechanic. Change the spells that require concentration.