D&D 5E Is Concentration Bugging You?

I did run into someone who was casting Silence on objects and carrying them around so the AE was mobile. DM realized that wasn't how the spell worked when he tried to figure out how to cast it directly on a caster or caster's gear and folks saw that it had to be a point in space like any other AE.

I wonder if folks who are finding it extraordinarily effective are using it differently.

If you have a Sentinel around to lock someone down, seems solid. Otherwise it feels like a convoluted way to potentially force an opportunity attack or two, or make an enemy give up an action. It would probably work well in one group I have (who does not have the Silence spell) with a druid with Sentinel (who also frequently prones as a wolf) and a warlock who pushes on attacks. That'd make it harder to get out and stay out.

Eejit said:

The thing is even situational spells can be pretty strong when those circumstances arrive. By making it stronger the rest of that time you make it even more powerful when it has its chance to shine.

My group made good use of it a couple of weeks ago when we were pinning a large group of orcs in a bottleneck (doorway) and the flaming sphere behind their lines was causing them all sorts of difficulties as our moon druid rammed it into them and it forced them to re-deploy themselves and put out fires in wooden support beams in the building they were in. This was a fairly protracted fight btw, like over 10 rounds by the end of it, and losing flaming sphere to a concentration check definitely played its part in extending it!

Click to expand...

A different more tactically minded DM might just have the Orcs retreat and make a barrier across the doorway and suddenly, the spell's utility drops to zero. In fact, I cannot remember the last time we managed to get a large group of foes in a bottleneck. A lot of this really depends on the situations the PCs encounter, how tactical the NPCs are (and how good the DM is able to make them, a DM who is poor at tactics will make almost every encounter easier), the NPC abilities, the other PC abilities, and how tactical the players are together.

Eejit said:

So just... be very careful when tweaking things like that, there can easily be unintended consequences.

Click to expand...

I am always careful as DM with house rules. I won't be removing concentration from any spells, that was just a thought experiment. I am going through with the house rule at the beginning of this thread and if it doesn't work out, I'll remove it. I suspect that it will work just fine considering the increased percentages of multi-concentration spells getting disrupted though.

KarinsDad said:

A different more tactically minded DM might just have the Orcs retreat and make a barrier across the doorway and suddenly, the spell's utility drops to zero.

Click to expand...

Not really.
A) we were right up in their faces, no time to build a barricade unhindered (especially with a sphere zooming around setting fire to things)
B) this was their strategically important (but basic) guard tower we were attacking, retreating and letting us burn it to the ground isn't a win they can bring back to their boss.

And of course there was lots more to the fight than my summary of the impact of a single spell described,,,

Eejit said:

Not really.
A) we were right up in their faces, no time to build a barricade unhindered (especially with a sphere zooming around setting fire to things)
B) this was their strategically important (but basic) guard tower we were attacking, retreating and letting us burn it to the ground isn't a win they can bring back to their boss.

And of course there was lots more to the fight than my summary of the impact of a single spell described,,,

Click to expand...

I think you are focusing on that particular battle and missing my point. A different more tactically minded DM might have had Orcs with a much more difficult fortification to crack. In a world of ranged magical fire, simple towers, especially ones that can burn easily, are subpar fortifications.

Some DMs create some very unique or even difficult scenarios that correspond to the fact that it is a world of magic. Some DMs don't.

So the utility of any given spell is dependent on a lot of factors. What works great at your table might be really sucky at mine and vice versa. This assumption that spells in the game system are mainly good or are mainly bad can be somewhat true most of the time, but specific combinations of PC abilities, player tactics, and DM scenarios (and capabilities) can change that.

As two simple examples: a DM that has a lot of ranged attack capable NPCs in his game would make concentration spells harder to maintain than a DM that has few; a DM who throws few easy fights at a group might make concentration spells less useful (due to it being easier to break concentration, and due to the concentration spells existing for a lower percentage of the overall rounds) than a DM who throws many easy fights.

An example from our game, our PC Bard has Invisibility. She has never cast it. Not once. We just have not had a situation occur in the game yet where having an invisible PC or sending someone ahead invisible was advantageous. We can all think of a lot of scenarios where that would be helpful, but it just hasn't happened yet. In a different campaign, she might have been casting it multiple times per adventuring day.

DaveDash said:

As someone who plays a War Cleric (low levels, mid, and high levels), and who has invested in Resilience Feats etc, my game experience does not match your fears. Note - prior to taking resilience, yes, my War Cleric lost concentration a lot, and it was an issue. But one feat and the issue is no more.

Click to expand...

Considering that a feat is a heavy investment....and technically an optional rule, I would not consider its presence to indicate there is no problem.

Stalker0 said:

Considering that a feat is a heavy investment....and technically an optional rule, I would not consider its presence to indicate there is no problem.

Click to expand...

It's really not a heavy investment.

Ultimately I nor my players have much of an issue with losing concentration anywhere near as much as some people in this thread, across all levels of the game.

I can see it being more of an issue if your DM doesn't allow feats, but I think that's far more an exception than a norm.

keterys said:

I did run into someone who was casting Silence on objects and carrying them around so the AE was mobile. DM realized that wasn't how the spell worked when he tried to figure out how to cast it directly on a caster or caster's gear and folks saw that it had to be a point in space like any other AE.

I wonder if folks who are finding it extraordinarily effective are using it differently.

If you have a Sentinel around to lock someone down, seems solid. Otherwise it feels like a convoluted way to potentially force an opportunity attack or two, or make an enemy give up an action. It would probably work well in one group I have (who does not have the Silence spell) with a druid with Sentinel (who also frequently prones as a wolf) and a warlock who pushes on attacks. That'd make it harder to get out and stay out.

Click to expand...

I wonder if people who DONT see how effective this spell is use theatre of mind instead of grids.

20ft radius is enough to fill most rooms, and even forcing casters to double move for a round out of it is a HUGE advantage. You've just wasted 1/3 of their action economy.

What's even better is it can be cast as a ritual. My players cast it at a door then open the door, if any caster wants to get line of effect on them they have to move through it.

Outdoors it's not going to be anywhere near as effective, but you can combine it with grapple and other effects. The list of spells that are always effective in every situation are small.

DaveDash said:

I wonder if people who DONT see how effective this spell is use theatre of mind instead of grids.

Click to expand...

I have seen amazing variance between the effectiveness of various abilities depending on TotM or grid.

Of course, I've seen amazing variance in both depending on DM as well.

The last 5 casters I ran into in D&D were all outside, though, for reference. 2 of the 5 were on a grid; and all could have moved out of silence with a single move.

Of the other 3, I'm positive the DM would have had them move out with their move, though it's possible we could have maneuvered to trap one in a silence-filled alley with people on both sides.

Someone posted this in the common rules mistakes thread:

If you ready a spell you must concentrate on it, even if it's not normally a concentration spell.


I totally forgot about this. This makes concentration even more problematic. If you have a concentration spell up (and a lot of casters might in 5E), you cannot ready any spell without dropping the first spell. Yikes!

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] here is something.

At our table, we interpret the "source of damage" wording to be per creature, as in a creature is one single source of damage. If a Dragon was to breath on you AND claw you, that's one single source of damage (the Dragon) so you only make one concentration roll.

If your DM interprets a source of damage to be a type of damage, or even worse, each attack, you are statistically speaking going to fail a lot more concentration rolls (until your bonus is +9 at least). I personally don't think that's the intention of the rule, but the wording is ambiguous.