D&D 5E Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I feel this is all getting a bit unnecessary tbh.

 

[KarinsDad]

Um...not to be difficult or anything, but the rule is called Concentration because the caster has to concentrate on the spell to keep it going...

The rule is called concentration because the game designers called it that.

Can you hold more than one object in your hand?

Can you hold more than one number in your head at the same time?

If you buy into the idea that casters HAVE to concentrate to maintain a spell, that's fine. I don't buy into that concept at all. Except for a few rare occurrences, it was not part of the game for 40 years now.

A simple counter argument could be "How come a caster can concentrate on a spell AND/OR move AND/OR cast another spell AND/OR climb a wall AND/OR jump a pit AND/OR do a bonus action AND/OR do a reaction?". How come he doesn't have to actually stay put and concentrate and do nothing else? You see my point. It's only the way it is because the designers made it that way. It has no real "plausibility" other than what a given table is willing to give it.

You like it? Fine. I find it to be totally artificial and forced and I just don't like the "computer game" aspect of it that "the check boxes for the rest of these spells grey out if you cast one of them". It feels artificial and mechanical.

 

[Mouseferatu]

That's what the ready action is for. Monsters can target ranged attacks at such a foe when he casts a spell.

The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.

Presented without comment.

 

[KarinsDad]

Presented without comment.

Not making a comment is a comment.

But, touche.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

See my previous post for the reasons why they called it that...
However, re: why not stand still, google videos of people playing Kabaddi. You'll see people can concentrate (verbally anyway) on one thing, and move sportily at the same time.
A spell would - to me, in the fantasy novel/movie we are enacting at the table - be a pretty involved thing. Not having harnessed the unfathomable powers at the heart of creation personally, I'm in no position to comment - but I'd bet it takes some effort. More than remembering a cell phone number in my head, for sure.
Possibly akin to holding six odd shaped things in one hand whilst flawlessly executing the hand version of an Argentine tango and remembering the precise wording and intonation of several lines of Ancient Greek. All at once. I couldn't do it - but then I failed my Hogwarts entrance exam. Trained wizards are taught how to do these things, along with classes in Defence Against the Bully's Arts and Combat Manoevres for the Martially Challenged.
But to maintain the power of their will over these unimaginably huge cosmic forces for more than an instant's release of power, I'd say that even for trained wizards a little concentration might be in order.
This seems less video gamey and more fictiony/filmic - to me.
But, I refer the honourable gentleman to my last post. I'd really rather not engage in what is clearly a never the twain conversation. Some of the tone in this thread (and I accept that I can come across as somewhat sarcastic myself, so mea culpa), is feeling rather adversarial and I'm simply not interested in a Forum that becomes an Againstum.

 

[KarinsDad]

See my previous post for the reasons why they called it that...
However, re: why not stand still, google videos of people playing Kabaddi. You'll see people can concentrate (verbally anyway) on one thing, and move sportily at the same time.
A spell would - to me, in the fantasy novel/movie we are enacting at the table - be a pretty involved thing. Not having harnessed the unfathomable powers at the heart of creation personally, I'm in no position to comment - but I'd bet it takes some effort. More than remembering a cell phone number in my head, for sure.
Possibly akin to holding six odd shaped things in one hand whilst flawlessly executing the hand version of an Argentine tango and remembering the precise wording and intonation of several lines of Ancient Greek. All at once. I couldn't do it - but then I failed my Hogwarts entrance exam. Trained wizards are taught how to do these things, along with classes in Defence Against the Bully's Arts and Combat Manoevres for the Martially Challenged.
But to maintain the power of their will over these unimaginably huge cosmic forces for more than an instant's release of power, I'd say that even for trained wizards a little concentration might be in order.
This seems less video gamey and more fictiony/filmic - to me.
But, I refer the honourable gentleman to my last post. I'd really rather not engage in what is clearly a never the twain conversation. Some of the tone in this thread (and I accept that I can come across as somewhat sarcastic myself, so mea culpa), is feeling rather adversarial and I'm simply not interested in a Forum that becomes an Againstum.

It feels to me that your entire position boils down to a rationalization of "that's the way they wrote it, so that's how it should be". There's no game mechanics balance or other reasons for your position beyond "holding the magic requires concentration". Why? Why is that important? Why does that have anything to do with fiction other than the one scene in HP where Snape is concentrating to prevent the bludger from hitting Harry and even his concentration was disrupted via loss of line of sight.

Why is a concentrating caster able to cast any other spells? Why does that make sense? Why doesn't Frightened or Blinded or Deafened or Poisoned or Charmed or Grappled or Restrained not have at least some chance to interrupt concentration? Why does that make 100% total sense to you? Sorry, these do not really make much sense to me. A frightened creature is not in total control, hence, concentration should not be a sure thing. The rules are only that way because the designers wrote them that way. 1 hit point of damage requires a save, but being frightened or grappled does nothing.


What would make total sense to me is for casters to have to concentrate on higher level spells, but not lower level spells. But, the rules are not that either.


And Kabaddi is not a great example of any sort of concentration. Holding their breath and using little of it to say "Kabaddi" over and over again is something trained into these players over many years or a decade. I doubt that they concentrate much on it at all and are more focused on touching foes and escaping. Saying Kabaddi is like the somatic components more than concentration (i.e. something someone not trained would have difficulty doing, but something that comes easy to someone trained). Kabaddi is a way to decrease the duration of moving through enemy territory, not something that takes away the focus of the player.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it (haven't read all 10 pages), but there are only about 3 things that Mike Mearls (and the DMG) specifically call out as things that will potentially break your game if you mess with them. The two I remember are concentration and attunement.

So feel free to mess with them, but you are definitely voiding your warranty, so to speak.

 

[Unwise]

Not coming from a D&D background we have no issue with concentration at all. Even the fighter who is the main recipient of buffs said that if he could get more than one per caster it would feel like the wizards were winning the melee for him. The casters all say that they don't want one class being able to dominate the buffing by itself. They like the fact that they have to all chip in to make an awesome plan or uber-buff somebody.
They also love the 'get the caster' imperative in fights once they work out that the goblin warlord has stoneskin, the race is on to try and get it turned off. They would hate it if they could not disrupt enemy concentration.

 

[Warbringer]

I'll tell you what, I failed my concentration check on this thread ...

 

[neobolts]

The assumption that spellcasters should not lose their concentration on spells underlies a lot of arguments here - and is faulty.

I'm definitely not advocating blanket unbreakable concentration. There are certainly other spells that have a duration and provide a buff to the PCs without being concentration. My arguement is that concentration breaks too easily and takes the joy out of these spells. I've never really had a problem with individual buffs in prior editions, just with the buff stacking that was going on.

I don't know if anyone mentioned it (haven't read all 10 pages), but there are only about 3 things that Mike Mearls (and the DMG) specifically call out as things that will potentially break your game if you mess with them. The two I remember are concentration and attunement.

So feel free to mess with them, but you are definitely voiding your warranty, so to speak.

Mearls on concentration is something that I would like to read. Can I trouble you for the source?