D&D 5E Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns

[Jiggawatts]

My issue with Concentration isn't about buff stacking at all, but that this edition seems to punish you if you play anything but a blaster style wizard, where I much prefer the role of battlefield tactician. I want an Evards Black Tentacles on the group to the left, a Hold Person on the healer, and at least a single buff spell on an ally.

Our main DM has said he is going to play around with getting rid of concentration should we make the switch. Most likely getting rid of it but adding old school "magic is dangerous" balancing measures.

 

[Eirikrautha]

My issue with Concentration isn't about buff stacking at all, but that this edition seems to punish you if you play anything but a blaster style wizard, where I much prefer the role of battlefield tactician. I want an Evards Black Tentacles on the group to the left, a Hold Person on the healer, and at least a single buff spell on an ally.

So what is the rest of the party going to do while you solo the encounter?

Seriously, though, that kind of play is pretty much what concentration was designed to stop. Not saying it's bad. Just saying that in a previous edition all that led to was a martial character who felt like he was the janitor, mopping up after his superiors were done casting.

Our main DM has said he is going to play around with getting rid of concentration should we make the switch. Most likely getting rid of it but adding old school "magic is dangerous" balancing measures.

Well, so long as everyone is a caster, could be good fun. Though I do like the need to make hard choices that concentration requires. I don't know when "tactics" came to mean "stack spells until the opponent is crushed under the weight of them." That always seemed like easy-mode to me. Having to choose what you cast based on a variety of logistical considerations always fit the definition of "tactics" much better to me...

 

[jgsugden]

In 3.5 and before, Spellcasters ruled the highest levels. Their stacks of spells, their huge number of spells, and their general power level meant that melee classes were essentially relegated to bodyguards while the wizard adventured. The mechanics of 4E and 5E attempt to balance the scales. 4E did it by making all the classes more similar in mechanics at every level of the game. 5E does it by providing more significant limitations on the traditional mechanics of the spellcasters. Those limitations are fewer spells, concentration being easier to disrupt and concentration serving as a limit on spell stack size.

5E is not prior editions. It has some of the flavor, but the mechanics are designed around different balance goals. I suggest trying them out - as written - for 6 or so months before trying to make substantial changes.

 

[Celtavian]

In 3.5 and before, Spellcasters ruled the highest levels. Their stacks of spells, their huge number of spells, and their general power level meant that melee classes were essentially relegated to bodyguards while the wizard adventured. The mechanics of 4E and 5E attempt to balance the scales. 4E did it by making all the classes more similar in mechanics at every level of the game. 5E does it by providing more significant limitations on the traditional mechanics of the spellcasters. Those limitations are fewer spells, concentration being easier to disrupt and concentration serving as a limit on spell stack size.

5E is not prior editions. It has some of the flavor, but the mechanics are designed around different balance goals. I suggest trying them out - as written - for 6 or so months before trying to make substantial changes.

Yep. I think it was a great decision by Mearls and the team. Kept the power of magic in spurts, but put a hard limit on it. Removing concentration and making easy to buy/create scrolls, wands, and staffs would screw that balance up immensely.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm not so sure that is in the DMG. It may have been from another (unofficial?) source. I have not seen anything like it in the DMG on a casual review.

Well, well, looks the DM made it up. I thought that item was pretty powerful. I was jealous of the bard for getting it. I guess it might be in the Tiamat module we're playing. I doubt it. So our DM is breaking the game. So far it hasn't been so bad. It mostly lets him cast a party buff and not be so limited with his choices for offense. Wish I had an item like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My issue with Concentration isn't about buff stacking at all, but that this edition seems to punish you if you play anything but a blaster style wizard, where I much prefer the role of battlefield tactician. I want an Evards Black Tentacles on the group to the left, a Hold Person on the healer, and at least a single buff spell on an ally.

Our main DM has said he is going to play around with getting rid of concentration should we make the switch. Most likely getting rid of it but adding old school "magic is dangerous" balancing measures.

The way I see it, it's the reverse. Playing a battlefield tactician is no longer the obvious choice to someone who knows the system well. To be fair, I can accept that it would be frustrating to be used to dropping multiple useful spells per combat, only to find that half the things you want to do require Concentration. At the same time, though, are you expecting to do this every combat? You're talking about several relatively high-level spells. If you're doing this all the time, what are your fellow players contributing that a band of hired NPC mercs couldn't, in terms of offensive capability? (Edit: by this I mean that other players obviously contribute their RP presence and make the game interesting, but offensively would they really be doing much other than cleaning up once you've locked down the battlefield?)

Maybe I'm reading too far into your post. But it sounds a lot like you're saying, "I want my spells to win several combats a day, every day," and that just sounds to me like you're wanting too much of the spotlight too often. If I'm wrong about that, cool--and regardless, there may be some design space we could hash out to help your DM help you feel like the Tactical Wizard you want to be without overshadowing your fellow players.

 

[Jiggawatts]

I would probably be more ok if you could have, at the bare minimum, one offensive concentration and one defensive concentration active at the same time. This would let me help out my allies while still allowing me to play the type of Mage I enjoy. Maybe a custom feat, although it just seems like another feat tax.

Its interesting how everyone always talks about "the earlier editions" in this argument, when they are really just talking about specifically 3E in order to make their point. Yes, casters were unbalanced in 3E, this was due to a plethora of reasons, not the least of which was removing the drawbacks of magic. They also gave the previously warrior exclusive multiple attacks to everyone whilst removing his advantages (superior saving throws, exceptional strength, exceptional con, better magic item access, etc). Not to mention there was no such thing as a concentration save in AD&D, if you got hit in the process of spellcasting you automatically lost the spell. All of those things combined (and more) is the reason we got the unbalanced nature of things in 3E.

And because the question was asked, I very much love the team concept of D&D, i'm always the first one to congratulate someone on a good idea, give encouragement, and celebrate other peoples natural 20. I'm not looking to overshadow anyone or relegate my party members to glorified henchmen, then again this has never been the case of our group anyway. Although I love the mental exercise I get from coming up with clever uses or combinations of spells to tackle a problem we face, it is part of my enjoyment of the game. Sometimes being part of a team also means letting your fellow teammates take center stage, whether this is the Rogue using stealth, deception, lockpicking, and trap disarming to successfully break into the sultans treasure vault, the Bard using a combination of bardic performance, diplomacy, and roleplaying to bypass an encounter completely, the Barbarian saying "I got this" as he charges and wades through swaths of enemies in melee, or the Mage doing his thing with his spells, it's ok to sit back and enjoy the show sometimes. (All of these things are real life examples from our games btw).

The funny thing is, I love almost every part of 5E, from the focus on roleplaying to capturing that intangible "feel" of D&D, my only two real nitpicks are the aforementioned magic system, and going from 1 hit point to 100+ with 8 hours of sleep, other than those two things they nailed it.

 

[DaveDash]

I would probably be more ok if you could have, at the bare minimum, one offensive concentration and one defensive concentration active at the same time. This would let me help out my allies while still allowing me to play the type of Mage I enjoy. Maybe a custom feat, although it just seems like another feat tax.

Its interesting how everyone always talks about "the earlier editions" in this argument, when they are really just talking about specifically 3E in order to make their point. Yes, casters were unbalanced in 3E, this was due to a plethora of reasons, not the least of which was removing the drawbacks of magic. They also gave the previously warrior exclusive multiple attacks to everyone whilst removing his advantages (superior saving throws, exceptional strength, exceptional con, better magic item access, etc). Not to mention there was no such thing as a concentration save in AD&D, if you got hit in the process of spellcasting you automatically lost the spell. All of those things combined (and more) is the reason we got the unbalanced nature of things in 3E.

And because the question was asked, I very much love the team concept of D&D, i'm always the first one to congratulate someone on a good idea, give encouragement, and celebrate other peoples natural 20. I'm not looking to overshadow anyone or relegate my party members to glorified henchmen, then again this has never been the case of our group anyway. Although I love the mental exercise I get from coming up with clever uses or combinations of spells to tackle a problem we face, it is part of my enjoyment of the game. Sometimes being part of a team also means letting your fellow teammates take center stage, whether this is the Rogue using stealth, deception, and thievery to successfully break into the sultans treasure vault, the Bard using a combination of bardic performance, diplomacy, and roleplaying to bypass an encounter completely, the Barbarian going through swaths of enemies in melee, or the Mage doing his thing with his spells, it's ok to sit back and enjoy the show

The funny thing is, I love almost every part of 5E, from the focus on roleplaying to capturing that intangible "feel" of D&D, my only two real nitpicks are the aforementioned magic system, and going from 1 hit point to 100+ with 8 hours of sleep, other than those two things they nailed it.

You can still come up with combinations, they're just different. Posters like KarinsDad don't get it, still trying the stuff that worked in older edition and complaining that those things no longer work, but failing to realise there are new combination now.

For example when you get higher level you can Hold Person a bunch of enemies (with DC18 vs -1 to +2 wisdom save on average they're as good as dead), then walk up to one doing up to 36d6 damage.

You can still stack buffs by scouting with your familiar, then charging in with blink, mirror image, and greater invisibility. You're going to be VERY hard to hit.
And you can still drop VERY powerful crowd control spells like force cage.
There are also some great spells that do direct damage and stack debuffs, like sunbeam, which are probably being overlooked.

The combinations are still there, they're just different. The main difference is now direct damage is back, and one of the main ingredients in your combinations at higher levels especially.

 

[Celtavian]

Yep. Combinations are different. Spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut that used to be relatively useless can be major factors to a coordinated party. Planar Binding allows you to bring on some additional martial power with a special ability for fights against common martial enemies. Stacking damaging effects is the way to do damage. Setting up the martials is another way to increase damage for your entire group. Banishment is an incredibly powerful crowd control spell allowing you to piecemeal enemies or get rid of fiends quickly. wall of force is great for protecting the party for healing or locking a creature away from the battle. Wizard still fun, useful, and powerful at higher levels.

I'm thinking I'm going to take misty step and chromatic orb as my 18th level at will spells. I can stay extremely mobile with misty step staying out of melee range and can effectively attack anything bypassing resistance with chromatic orb and take advantage of vulnerabilities.

 

[KarinsDad]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike.4

Brief but pretty firm view. Near the bottom.

Taken out of context yet again.

He is talking about OGL and that third party vendors should not do that. He immediately follows that up with people can do whatever they want at their own home games.

Nice spin though.