D&D 5E Is Concentration Bugging You?

[CapnZapp]

I hate the whole "Well, it's an NPC, it's allowed to work with different rules" concept. I like a world where the physics of magic work the same for PCs and NPCs alike.

In theory, I agree.

In practice, however, the idea completely falls apart. I am not interested in building a high-level NPC spellcaster from the ground up ever again. The effort simply isn't worth it.

The basic truth is that mid- to high-level characters are incredibly complex. That's a good thing for me, since I enjoy how D&D makes building your character not only a role-playing challenge, but a mechanical challenge as well.

But as a DM, I simply do not need that level of complexity for a critter lasting two rounds of combat. In fact, I absolutely refuse to DM a game that doesn't simplify high-level monster building.

That doesn't mean I can't understand if players get miffed if NPCs display powers they themselves simply cannot replicate (or loot!).

4th ed went too far in this direction, making up stuff no matter how implausible.

But I'm happy with what I've seen of 5th ed monsters so far.

 

[KarinsDad]

In theory, I agree.

In practice, however, the idea completely falls apart. I am not interested in building a high-level NPC spellcaster from the ground up ever again. The effort simply isn't worth it.

I wasn't talking about building them. I'm all for simple NPC builds.

I was talking about stuff like "Hey, how come he can cast verbal spells in a Silence spell area?" or "Hey, how come he can cast spells with a material component after I stole his arcane focus?". In other words, if the spell has a material component, humanoid-like spell casters need a focus or component. Not so much dragons and beholders and monsters that do some type of innate casting (there are sometimes exceptions that are required), but basically NPCs of the same racial types as PCs (or Bugbears, Giants, whatever).

Player: "How come he can cast spells that target AC at range when within 5 feet of me without disadvantage?"
DM: "Err, ah, I made up a new feat. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. He has a feat that allows him to melee cast ranged targeting spells." (whew)
Player: "What's the name of this feat? Can I get it?"
DM: "Err........"

 

[DaveDash]

Well my NPC casters are now more like monsters. That means a CR16 Wizard has between 200-300 hitpoints.

At first some players (used to 3.5) hated that, but now they're used to it, because they got bored of rolling NPC casters in round 1 (and I got tired of making them, only to have them die without doing anything).

 

[Beleriphon]

Well my NPC casters are now more like monsters. That means a CR16 Wizard has between 200-300 hitpoints.

A reskinned beholder actually makes a pretty terrifying wizard if that wizard has learned some arcane secret, or soaked himself in some horrifying magical mixture that lets him blast with multiple spells per round. As a one off I'd even go with an antimagic amulet that explodes upon death (if only to keep it out of the hands of players).

 

[Mouseferatu]

Saying that something wasn't broken in 3E or 4E, therefore it's not broken in 5E, is pretty tenuous logic. They've made a pretty big point of how the 5E math--"bounded accuracy"--is more constrained. A +1 bonus to hit is a much bigger deal here than it was in 4E, for instance. Weapons and armor don't go past +3, unless they're artifact-level items. Low-level monsters can still prove a real threat against higher-level characters.

All that being the case, it's quite possible that "Factor X" was viable in prior editions but would break this one. Whether or not concentration is one of those may be worth discussing, but to dismiss the concern based on older editions is simply not a viable basis of argument.

 

[Stalker0]

Concentration preventing two buffs doesn't bother me a bit, but the disruption rules are on my watch list.

Even the dc 10 saves are easy to miss when you consider how often a melee caster takes a hit. Some basic math shows that a melee caster in a few rounds of combat has a high likelihood of losing their buff.

Overall I think that wotc combined two fixes to spell casting in one package....which may have been overkill.

Does it make sense for a caster to lose their dominate, or summons, or big dot spell if they get hit? Sure

But losing their shield of faith, barkskin, or bless? That's a greyer area to me.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I wasn't talking about building them. I'm all for simple NPC builds.

I was talking about stuff like "Hey, how come he can cast verbal spells in a Silence spell area?" or "Hey, how come he can cast spells with a material component after I stole his arcane focus?". In other words, if the spell has a material component, humanoid-like spell casters need a focus or component. Not so much dragons and beholders and monsters that do some type of innate casting (there are sometimes exceptions that are required), but basically NPCs of the same racial types as PCs (or Bugbears, Giants, whatever).

Player: "How come he can cast spells that target AC at range when within 5 feet of me without disadvantage?"
DM: "Err, ah, I made up a new feat. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. He has a feat that allows him to melee cast ranged targeting spells." (whew)
Player: "What's the name of this feat? Can I get it?"
DM: "Err........"

Then you say "Sure, its got the pre-req of being an NPC. Wanna hand over your sheet?"

5E really missed out by not adopting 4E's monster design philosophy for humanoid NPC's as well. Let the pathfinder DM's obsess over pointless minutia of a dude with a life expectancy of 1-3 combat rounds.

 

[Gadget]

Personally, if I was thinking of altering the concentration rules, I would look at: A) altering some spells from concentration to other durations (i.e. does web really need this limitation?), and/Or B) elimination the Con save for damage and make it so concentration is automatically maintained until the caster looses consciousness, reaches 0 hit points, releases the spell, casts another concentration spell, or the duration expires.

I find the heavy handed balancing in the Charm and invisibility spells more grating, even if I think I understand the reasons. With this edition having auto scaling based on the spell slot, it would have made sense to have invisibility start out as a camouflage type spell that grants a bonus to stealth/hiding, than layer on effects as a spell slot used goes up, perhaps adding in older edition spell effects like 'blur' or 'displacement' along the way until the 'Improved Invisibility' effect is achieved. This would be preferable to the 'You're invisible, but it ends if you attack someone, cast a spell, break wind, compose a haiku, say Shazam!, etc.

 

[sithramir]

Which edition was this not possible in? Casters have always been glass cannons. If you can hit them, they go down fast One of the other reasons to focus fire on them.

HP aren't lower in this edition. They're actually higher compared to multiple editions. Particularly for the wizard types, with the bump to d6.

ACs are a more complicated question, but relative to attack bonuses ACs actually tend to be effectively higher in this edition, especially if you factor in a Shield spell.

You must be playing a different game than I am. In other editions casters could cast multiple defensive spells, did not have a 20 stat max, had access to stat boosters (magi items and spells) for more con, could have extremely high AC making it hard to hit, were able to use any attack spell without losing defensive concentration spells, had contingency, had access to many spells that just won't be available in 5e, had ability to quicken two spells that didn't just have a cantrip, etc.

If in melee you have limited options now or a quick death. Disengage doesn't guarantee much, misty step away but can't cast another non cantrip, etc.

It is definitely a big difference

 

[DaveDash]

Concentration preventing two buffs doesn't bother me a bit, but the disruption rules are on my watch list.

Even the dc 10 saves are easy to miss when you consider how often a melee caster takes a hit. Some basic math shows that a melee caster in a few rounds of combat has a high likelihood of losing their buff.

Overall I think that wotc combined two fixes to spell casting in one package....which may have been overkill.

Does it make sense for a caster to lose their dominate, or summons, or big dot spell if they get hit? Sure

But losing their shield of faith, barkskin, or bless? That's a greyer area to me.

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.

Again the maths is misleading.

You're not always fighting your equal CR creatures, and they don't always hit. A War Cleric for example can get 20-22 AC (and Arcane Casters using the Shield spell can get pretty high AC as well) which means you're generally not taking a lot of hits. The good majority of DC's work out to be around 10 for the most part, and if you take resilience and have a decent con, you're looking at +4 to +11 on your con saves, which makes DC10 pretty easy to make even at the low levels.

I have had DC's go over 20 but those times are not that common, and by that stage you usually have a ton of spell slots to burn. Also if you really *must* hold onto concentration usually you and your party have a lot of ways of making sure that happens (inspiration, bless, causing disadvantage on an attack roll, cutting words, etc).

You also just need to be a bit smarter. Don't cast bless until after the Dragon has breathed on you.