D&D 5E Re-opening discussion on multiple spell concentration.

[mikebr99]

I like the idea of adding penalties to other actions/reactions if you are trying to concentrate on multiple spells... I wouldn't base it solely on a harder concentration check... or bladesingers with the resilient (con) and warcasting feats become the best at this multicasting ability. YMMV.

 

[snickersnax]

I like the idea of allowing a familiar to maintain the concentration of a spell.

I like it because:

1) It seems to fit the rules (touch spells cast through your familiar act as if the familiar cast the spell) : Yes I'm aware that Crawford has clarified that the original caster is the one who is supposed to be maintaining concentration...

2) It fits the literature and historical descriptions of familiars:

In European folklore and folk-belief of the Medieval and Early Modern periods, familiar spirits (sometimes referred to simply as "familiars" or "animal guides") were believed to be supernatural entities that would assist witches and cunning folk in their practice of magic. (wiki familiar spirits)

3) If familiars can maintain concentration on one spell it allows spell casters to cast concentration spells on themselves that would normally likely be subject to concentration checks: blur, fly, haste, gaseous form, protection from energy, stoneskin come to mind. This helps resolve weirdness around these spells being less effective if a wizard casts these spells on themselves vs if they cast them on someone else.

I realize that this adds power to the already powerful find familiar, but the flavor is so good I don't care.

 

[LapBandit]

Spellcasters are powerful enough without people inventing reasons/rules to make them more so. I'd never allow this at my table.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Few actually do that, so any rule depending on it is an unpractical rule in my book.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Whaaaat? You mean you don't want to grind out several hours of pointless combats every adventuring day?

I'm personally against adjusting the concentration mechanic itself. Part of the reason it exists is to limit what a caster can do at any one time. This helps curb their power in low encounter days, since they cant blow everything at once. It also limits the buff-prep-gank garbage that 3rd edition really ingrained in people to completely trivialize encounters by having a ton of different effects running, and slowing down play when those effects expired. Overall, its a huge boost to the health of the game, and caster/non-caster balance.

That said, I do think a few concentration spells could be scaled back to not require them. The wall spells are a good example, particularly since they've always been kind of terrible anyways.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd say that however you plan on implementing multi concentration, whether it is by feat, item, or class ability, that you just implement it but let the players know it is a trial run and that it might be removed at a later date if it seems like it breaks anything.

Personally, I like the idea of a magical ring that can hold your concentration of a spell, perhaps the 5e version of a ring of wizardry (usable by any caster) allows an extra concentration slot but damage can still break both spells.

Boop!

 

[Stalker0]

A pretty good rule of thumb in general.

It reminds me of previous-ed players that doesn't realize you don't need more than three DCs in 5e:

DC 10, DC 15, and DC 20.

Yes, really.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Hehe wait till you play with a high level bard. The “impossible” DC 30 becomes very possible at that point

 

[Caliban]

Simple rule I implemented (used with a magic item that allowed you to concentrate on a level 1 divine spell and one other spell at the same time - in theory more powerful version of the item would allow higher level spells):

When concentrating on two spells at once, you are at disadvantage on all concentration saves, and if you fail the check you lose both spells.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If familiars can maintain concentration on one spell it allows spell casters to cast concentration spells on themselves that would normally likely be subject to concentration checks: blur, fly, haste, gaseous form, protection from energy, stoneskin come to mind. This helps resolve weirdness around these spells being less effective if a wizard casts these spells on themselves vs if they cast them on someone else.

This "weirdness" is intentional. It incentivizes team play rather than buffing yourself into god mode a la 3E. If the wizard casts haste and dominates the battle, then the fighter is unhappy. Much better if the wizard casts haste on the fighter and they dominate the battle together.

Plus, there's plenty of precedent in fantasy fiction for magicians not being able to cast spells on themselves at all, generally along the same principle that you can't lift yourself into the air by your bootstraps. So I wouldn't call it weirdness on that front either.

 

[snickersnax]

This "weirdness" is intentional. It incentivizes team play rather than buffing yourself into god mode a la 3E. If the wizard casts haste and dominates the battle, then the fighter is unhappy. Much better if the wizard casts haste on the fighter and they dominate the battle together.

I have to wonder how intentional it is considering there are plenty of self-only wizard combat spells that require concentration: alter self (natural weapons), blur, vampiric touch

Also paladins have a bunch of melee concentration spells which were presumably for buffing themselves: magic weapon, elemental weapon, shield of faith, heroism

And druids have barkskin and flame blade in this category.

Given that many magic items bypass concentration spell effects and are permanent as well (magic weapons, flaming sword, displacer cloak, items of flying, plenty of potions...)

Given that concentration is a cumbersome mechanic that others have noted is very easy to lose track of and misplay.

Given that there is almost always one concentration spell that is better than all the others for non-wizard's (ehem... bless. hunter's mark, hex), effectively eliminating all other concentration spells

I think on my next campaign I'm going to travel out on the heresy limb and eliminate concentration and see how it goes.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hehe wait till you play with a high level bard. The “impossible” DC 30 becomes very possible at that point

But why penalize him with inflated DCs?

Of course, you might have meant rewarding him with "okay, so the DC to get the Queen to agree the Dragon's loot is all yours after you kill it is DC 15. If you surpass that by 5, she throws in the Princess hand with your reward. If you surpass that by 15, she herself dumps the King to be your willing consort..."

Or something like that...

Anyway, my point is that's extra. It really doesn't increase the task DC. And it shouldn't - the perk of being a high-level bard SHOULD be to pretty much auto-succeed at any adventure-critical social roll...

...Introducing DC 30 tasks just so the bard can still fail completely undermines the whole purpose of becoming said bard. Then you could just play a Charisma 16 fighter and have fun making the standard DC 15 checks...

It's just d20/4E numbers inflation all over again...

What people don't realize - and the PHB doesn't flag - is that anytime you bring along a bard in your party, that's code in 5e for "we will auto-succeed at any critical atomic roll".

In other words, the problem is the way WotC designed the Bard abilities. In combat, you make so many rolls that getting +10 (or whatever) to any single one of them won't matter much - it's never overpowered.

But out of game it's a whole nother story. Most of us are hinging at least some social and exploration developments on single rolls,and these are absolutely destroyed by Bards.

I see several solutions:
* prohibit the bard from saving his abilities for these "atomic" rolls
* don't use "atomic" rolls. If each such development requires five checks over time, say, the issue goes away

or

* simply allow it. That's clearly what the Bard was designed to bring to the table: near automatic successes when it really counts.

What I would avoid, however, is artificially high DCs in games with bards that aren't present in games without them.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app