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

I would limit it to a feat or perhaps a specific sub-class (a homebrew subclass of wizard, for example). If you want to make it a general spellcasting change, I'd require the spells to be cast with one higher spell slot each (without gaining any additional benefit), and maybe require a periodic concentration check.

OB1 said:

Welcome to the boards. Have some XP.

I'd vote for a feat, as then you don't have to rewrite any classes.

Feat
Concentrate
Prerequisite - 11th level in any spellcasting class
You gain 3 Concentration points. When concentrating on a spell, you can spend concentration points when casting another concentration spell to concentrate on both spells at once. Both spells must be of 5th level or lower. You cannot use this feature if you have 1 or more levels of exhaustion.
Same level and same class - 1 Point
Different level or different class - 2 Points
Different level and different class - 3 Points
You regain all of your concentration points when you finish a long rest.

Click to expand...

Cap'n Kobold said:

Concentration checks required for other reasons (such as taking damage) would be made at disadvantage.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

If you are going to this then consider only allowing a wizard to concentrate on combined effects up to his highest spell slot level.

So a wizard that. Can cast level 5 spells can concentrate on fly and invisibility but not fly and hypnotic pattern.

Click to expand...

Simplifying my original Feat with FrogReaver's excellent idea regarding total spell levels and adding Cap'n Kolbold's disadvantage idea to help limit it's use in every combat. I understand there are objections to using feats in general, but I think it's a fair trade off for the increase in character power.

Feat
Concentrate
You gain the ability to concentrate on multiple spells. The total of the spell levels being concentrated on must be equal to or lower than your highest spell slot. If you use this ability more than once without taking a short or long rest, you suffer disadvantage on concentration saves made to maintain concentration.

[MENTION=23716]Gadget[/MENTION] has it: you should definitely try your idea before you add it permanently, and few options are as permanent as a feat. A gadget (heh) with non-replenishable charges is a much better start.
[MENTION=6866167]Thurmas[/MENTION] has also an important point - whatever you do, keep it simple! ☺

That said, my focus is on explaining why NPC epic casters can do it.

So neither an item nor a feat cuts it for me. Take Vizeran from OotA for example - had he become involved in combat, I would definitely had him break most restrictions on Wizards.

But npcs generally don't take feats. I feel a feat solution isn't the true 5e way. Class features, on the other hand, are often replicated in monster stat blocks.

Re: an item - It makes the Archmage much less impressive if he or she must rely on a doodad. And items can be looted. And having NPCs rely on items that then make the party even more powerful is exactly what's wrong with d20...

At that point I thought "okay, so an Archmage prestige class!"

But that is pretty freaking far from keeping it simple... So in the end I settled for repurposing Spell Mastery.

It achieves everything I need.

Yes, it means that if you expect a lot of play at level 20, you're better off playing a wizard than a cleric or sorcerer.

But then again, if you expect to play at that level much, 5e really falls apart in general and you need an epic manual.

I am mostly thinking about level 10-15 heroes talking to (and possibly fighting) level 20 NPCs. I really think that's the top end of what the current rules support in actual play. Basically it boils down to the Archmage NPC state block, which is simplified to the point of being anemic. A repurposed Spell Mastery, allowing "dual concentration" goes a long way of rectifying that

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Given concentration can be broken, I see no problem whatsoever with allowing multi spell concentration. In fact it would make playing casters more interesting again, instead of buffbots, counterspellers and cantrip/ritual spammers.

Thurmas said:

If I were to suggest a change to the concentration rules, I would focus on keeping it simple. I think the biggest downside to concentration is you can choose to help your allies or suppress your enemies, but not both.

I'd suggest adding a new mechanic, called something like Willpower or something.

Concentration spells: Same as currently implemented, but concentration is only for buffs and other spells that effect you and your allies. (Aura of Vitality, Bless, Haste, etc)

Willpower Spells: Work the same way as concentration, but have to do with any spells that seek to control or impose your will on the environment or creatures around you. (Wall of Fire, Bigby's Hand, Hypnotic Pattern, etc).

You can only have one of each type of spell up at the same time.

A spell has either concentration or willpower required, but not both.

Click to expand...

Related to this, note that Concentration has two, separate, functions:

It makes you vulnerable to damage.

It prevents you from having two buffs/debuffs.

This is where I'd split it if I were in the business of changing Concentration.

In other words, each existing Concentration spell would have either or both of two keywords: where one denotes vulnerability to taking damage, the other requiring your focus (=preventing you from also casting another Focus spell)

This would allow a spell like Stoneskin to be useful to the Wizard. Currently it makes zero sense to cast a spell designed to mitigate damage when you risk losing it when you take damage. Currently you really need someone else to cast it on for it to make any sense whatsoever.

Stoneskin would then be a Focus spell but not a Vulnerable spell, if you get my drift.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Thurmas said:

I'll also say, while I like the thought, I disagree because it shouldn't be restricted to only Wizards. Other powerful characters, such as druids or clerics, should be able to attain it as well.

Click to expand...

Sure, but as long as the only characters that reach 18th level are NPCs, it matters little to me

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

jodyjohnson said:

Just make sure you still do 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests.

Click to expand...

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

Psikerlord# said:

Given concentration can be broken, I see no problem whatsoever with allowing multi spell concentration. In fact it would make playing casters more interesting again, instead of buffbots, counterspellers and cantrip/ritual spammers.

Click to expand...

This just sounds like you're dissatisfied. We won't just take your word for it

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I would allow this with a simple DC 15 Constitution check. If you fail, you stop concentrating on all spells, including the one you just cast -- which usually means you just wasted multiple spell slots. For most players, I think the possibility of wasting multiple slots is downside enough.

EDIT: I allow players to break pretty much any rule with a DC 15 ability check, and an appropriate downside. For example, if you want to double your speed for the round, make a DC 15 Dexterity check -- but on a failure, you fall prone. I offer the players these little "devil's bargains" throughout the session (similar to Blades in the Dark). They rarely take me up on them. This is why I think most DC 15 Constitution would be balanced and not abused.

77IM said:

EDIT: I allow players to break pretty much any rule with a DC 15 ability check, and an appropriate downside.

Click to expand...

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