D&D 5E Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns

[Paraxis]

This is why we rule that one source of damage is per creature, not per damage type. Concentration is also fairer for the players at lower levels this way (less checks less chance of failing).
The rules themselves are ambiguous as to what a source of damage is, in any case it's not meant to be per hit or they would have stated that.

By the current rules it is per hit now. A creature claw/claw/bites you making 3 attacks and all 3 hit that is 3 seperate concentration saves. Same goes if four different goblins all shoot 4 different arrows at you, even if they all go on the same initiative.

Now if you mean something like X spell does (2d6)fire and (2d6)radiant damage, that is just one spell so it is only 1 concentration save, only spells that have multiple attack rolls would force multiple concentration rolls if they all hit.

 

[DaveDash]

By the current rules it is per hit now. A creature claw/claw/bites you making 3 attacks and all 3 hit that is 3 seperate concentration saves. Same goes if four different goblins all shoot 4 different arrows at you, even if they all go on the same initiative.

Now if you mean something like X spell does (2d6)fire and (2d6)radiant damage, that is just one spell so it is only 1 concentration save, only spells that have multiple attack rolls would force multiple concentration rolls if they all hit.

It is not per hit. It is per "source of damage", and what that means is ambiguous. Their example doesn't help either.

But if it was meant to be per hit, why didn't they just say "When you are hit.."? They don't. They talk about sources of damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

3) What sort of concentration tweaking magic items would you design/allow?

And the answer is...

-It could be keyed to a specific concentration spell so as a DM I don't open a Pandora's Box.
-It could remove the concentration property from that spell.
-It could make that spell not break on damage.
-It could be cast alongside another concentration spell (allowing two concentration spells).

...exactly this.

I would never add a generic concentration-limitation-busting item or power.

I would focus on concentration spells on the disused end of the spectrum.

That is, those spells that consensus says are too weak might become quite alright if some or all of the limitations imposed by concentration are lifted.

This would widen the catalog of viable spells as well as providing a nice gesture to a player feeling smothered by the mechanism.

 

[Paraxis]

It is not per hit. It is per "source of damage", and what that means is ambiguous. Their example doesn't help either.

But if it was meant to be per hit, why didn't they just say "When you are hit.."? They don't. They talk about sources of damage.

Each hit is a source of damage, why say source vs "hit" because plenty of things cause damage that don't hit. Spells many of them are take X amount or save for half, dragons breath, and falling are all good example of why they wouldn't use the term "hit".

This is what the rule says,
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.

You will notice where it says "an" arrow, so if a fighter shoots and hits with 3 arrows that is 3 concentration checks.

This might be one of those things where people just see things differently, but to me the rule seem very clear as to mean each successful hit against the target. Like I said I also think that leads to a bunch of extra rolls for concentration saves that slow the game down, so why I might argue the way I see the rules I commend you on the way you apply them at your table.

 

[DaveDash]

Each hit is a source of damage, why say source vs "hit" because plenty of things cause damage that don't hit. Spells many of them are take X amount or save for half, dragons breath, and falling are all good example of why they wouldn't use the term "hit".

This is what the rule says,
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.

You will notice where it says "an" arrow, so if a fighter shoots and hits with 3 arrows that is 3 concentration checks.

This might be one of those things where people just see things differently, but to me the rule seem very clear as to mean each successful hit against the target. Like I said I also think that leads to a bunch of extra rolls for concentration saves that slow the game down, so why I might argue the way I see the rules I commend you on the way you apply them at your table.

It really isn't that clear. The fact that they use the terminology "sources of damage" instead of simply "When you take damage..." indicates to me they had something else in mind that simply a concentration check per damage.

And in any case all that rolling seems contrary to game design philosophy as you've noted, and rolling per attack is also quite punishing to lower level characters.

 

[SirAntoine]

It really isn't that clear. The fact that they use the terminology "sources of damage" instead of simply "When you take damage..." indicates to me they had something else in mind that simply a concentration check per damage.

And in any case all that rolling seems contrary to game design philosophy as you've noted, and rolling per attack is also quite punishing to lower level characters.

It was poor writing if they didn't mean it was per hit. The language suggests clearly it is per hit in my opinion. Rolling per hit is the same as per source of damage. The arrows don't attack by themselves, for example. It would say the shooter or the dragon, not the arrow or the dragon.

 

[DaveDash]

It was poor writing if they didn't mean it was per hit. The language suggests clearly it is per hit in my opinion. Rolling per hit is the same as per source of damage. The arrows don't attack by themselves, for example. It would say the shooter or the dragon, not the arrow or the dragon.

Then why not write "As soon as you take damage, make a concentration saving throw...." And then we wouldn't be having this argument.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

The rules say "whenever you take damage". This is pretty unambiguous, surely.
It then gives examples of sources of damage - which can be other than from a weapon. The rules cite as examples an arrow and a dragon's breath. This seems perfectly clear to me.
Whenever you take damage = whenever an attack hits you (multi attack dragon claws you twice? That's two checks. Dragon breathes on you? Single check).
I think there is a focus on "source of damage" where there shouldn't be. The rule explicitly states "whenever you take damage". You take damage when you're hit. If you're hit multiple times, each blow makes you take a separate chunk of damage. Therefore each hit requires a check.
You might be able to maintain concentration through that left hook, but that doesn't mean that you're immune to the effects of the follow-up gut punch. Why should it?

 

[DaveDash]

The rules say "whenever you take damage". This is pretty unambiguous, surely.
It then gives examples of sources of damage - which can be other than from a weapon. The rules cite as examples an arrow and a dragon's breath. This seems perfectly clear to me.
Whenever you take damage = whenever an attack hits you (multi attack dragon claws you twice? That's two checks. Dragon breathes on you? Single check).
I think there is a focus on "source of damage" where there shouldn't be. The rule explicitly states "whenever you take damage". You take damage when you're hit. If you're hit multiple times, each blow makes you take a separate chunk of damage. Therefore each hit requires a check.
You might be able to maintain concentration through that left hook, but that doesn't mean that you're immune to the effects of the follow-up gut punch. Why should it?

Why mention at all then that "If you take damage from multiple sources you must make a saving throw" then? Just finish it at the first statement.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Why mention at all then that "If you take damage from multiple sources you must make a saving throw" then? Just finish it at the first statement.

It is to clarify checks are made for each successful individual attack, rather than for each round in which damage is received. In the examples cited, the caster has taken damage from two successful attacks in the same round - from Dogberry the kobold archer and from his dragon master, Halitosis. The use of dragon's breath in the example serves two purposes: to identify non-weapon-based damage as needing a check, and to signify multiple attack damage.
Otherwise, if they had just left it at the first statement, players would argue that they took damage in that round already, so a check isn't needed for the second wound they receive. By writing it as they did they outline that each damage-inducing attack requires its own check.