D&D 5E Losing Concentration

[Kobold Avenger]

I'll have to see how that plays out, in both situations where the DM is lenient towards the caster or the DM has decided to pick on the caster for the week (some DMs I know pick a different PC every week to concentrate on).

If the combat caster feat returns as defense against losing concentration and it's a no-brainer for all buffers to pick, then the damage ends concentration rule might be too much.

 

[MechaPilot]

If a big spell hits you and you take 50 damage, well good luck succeeding on your DC 25 Con save. I'd much rather have to succeed on several DC 10 saves than one DC 25 save.

Assuming a +0 Con mod and 4s on all die rolls for gaining HPs as you level, a mage can't even survive taking 50 damage until level 12 (6 HP at level one and 4 HP per level afterward means 50 hp at level 11).

If a mage takes 50 damage, losing concentration is the least of her concerns.

 

[Stalker0]

Its funny because right now we are all focused on wizard blowing fighters away and the like, but who knows after we all play it for awhile we might come back and say

"Damn fighters, I can't get one buff spell on my body before taking a sword in the face!"

 

[pemerton]

If a big spell hits you and you take 50 damage, well good luck succeeding on your DC 25 Con save. I'd much rather have to succeed on several DC 10 saves than one DC 25 save.

Its funny because right now we are all focused on wizard blowing fighters away and the like, but who knows after we all play it for awhile we might come back and say

"Damn fighters, I can't get one buff spell on my body before taking a sword in the face!"

I raised this issue on the other thread. It seems that fighter do damage in multiple modest-sized packages, whereas damage from spells comes in increasingly larger chunks. Which doesn't change the way they interact with the basic damage rules, but does change the way they interact with concentration.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If a big spell hits you and you take 50 damage, well good luck succeeding on your DC 25 Con save. I'd much rather have to succeed on several DC 10 saves than one DC 25 save.

Concentration is surely an afterthought when you're taking 50 damage in a single attack on a PC with 1d6+con mod HP/level? Assuming 4 HP/level (6 at L1) +1/level from CON 12, you'd have to be Level 9+ to even still be standing!

 

[Li Shenron]

The only weirdness/goofyness of the concentration rules is that you might have situations when the Wizard casts a long-duration spell (e.g. Invisibility or Magic Weapon) on a target, then the target goes away on its own (say, a Rogue ally who scouts ahead invisibly). You'll have this Wizard at the other side of town who is remotely concentrating on her own while the recipient of the effect is far away...

Not a mechanical problem per se, but at least it feels weird to me, because there's no range limit. Technically that Rogue can enter a portal and exit at the other end of the universe. Or not?

One of the changes from the last public playtest packet is that you can lose concentration if you're damaged. There's a Constitution saving throw to be made with a DC or 10 or half the damage taken, whichever is higher.

The concern I have is that the DC goes up the more damage a caster takes. Damage scales considerably as you go up in level, while things like checks and saving throws are subject to bounded accuracy (hit points and damage are not bounded). At higher levels, the DC is going to often be much, much higher than 10, while the caster's con saves haven't really improved at all (since neither clerics nor wizards are proficient with con saves). If a caster is struck by a higher level effect that does 40 or more points of damage (which I imagine is fairly common at higher levels), he's pretty much guaranteed to fail the saving throw and lose his concentration.

What would you two think about introducing a Concentration skill that can be used in place of this Constitution ST?

It would allow a Wizard to apply the proficiency bonus to these situations, if such Wizard has invested in the skill.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What would you two think about introducing a Concentration skill that can be used in place of this Constitution ST?

It would allow a Wizard to apply the proficiency bonus to these situations, if such Wizard has invested in the skill.

Is this a joke? I hope this is a joke. Casters should not easily get to apply proficiency on this, especially not for the cost of a single skill. This is exactly the kind of creeping change that lead to casters dominating 3.XE/PF. At level 9, say, Proficiency and, say, 14 CON would mean hits for less than 22 damage only had a 15% chance of breaking Concentration, as opposed to 35%, which is pretty huge.

Damage does go up, but the "saves don't improve" issue isn't caster-only. All classes have that problem. Damage making Conc more likely to break is supposed to be the counter-balance this (one would think), given many CC spells will be very hard for Fighters and the like to save against by the higher levels.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is this a joke? I hope this is a joke.

No, it's a serious suggestion.

Casters should not easily get to apply proficiency on this, especially not for the cost of a single skill.

It costs the character one of her four skill proficiencies. And on average I'd rather worry it might end up as a poor investment since you won't choose how often you'll need to make concentration checks.

This is exactly the kind of creeping change that lead to casters dominating 3.XE/PF.

If you are referring to 3e concentration rules, they are different enough. The concentration skill in 3e was most often used for casting spells in melee (which is not the case in 5e) rather than resisting spell disruption IMXP.

At level 9, say, Proficiency and, say, 14 CON would mean hits for less than 22 damage only had a 15% chance of breaking Concentration, as opposed to 35%, which is pretty huge.

Damage does go up, but the "saves don't improve" issue isn't caster-only. All classes have that problem. Damage making Conc more likely to break is supposed to be the counter-balance this (one would think), given many CC spells will be very hard for Fighters and the like to save against by the higher levels.

I don't understand why you're talking about damage, what spells scenario do you have in mind?

You need this Constitution ST only when (a) you're casting a 1-action spell and someone has readied an action to disrupt you or has an ability allowing him to use his reaction to attack you, and (b) you're casting a long-casting time spell during combat.

I don't think these 2 cases are so frequent that a proficiency bonus (only to those spellcasters who willingly gave up another skill prof to get this) would imbalance the game. The vast majority of spells in the game IMXP just get cast in 1 action with nobody disrupting them at all.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't understand why you're talking about damage, what spells scenario do you have in mind?

You need this Constitution ST only when (a) you're casting a 1-action spell and someone has readied an action to disrupt you or has an ability allowing him to use his reaction to attack you, and (b) you're casting a long-casting time spell during combat.

I don't think these 2 cases are so frequent that a proficiency bonus (only to those spellcasters who willingly gave up another skill prof to get this) would imbalance the game. The vast majority of spells in the game IMXP just get cast in 1 action with nobody disrupting them at all.

Re: question: All the buff and hard-CC spells that require Concentration to maintain them.

Is someone confused here? My understanding is that, if you are, for example, maintaining Hold Person (requires Concentration), when you are struck, you must make a Con save to continue maintaining Concentration.

Thus making that save easier seems ill-advised. This on page 79 and 80, btw.

 

[Psikerlord#]

im hoping theres a fix feat in phb, but if not an optional fix in dmg is fine. I fear there may not be any fix though, coz underpowered stuff doesnt break the game, it just kinda fades into the background and doesnt get used much. which would be a shame.