D&D 5E Ditching concentration - did you do it?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And by the way, if it's really true that players are avoiding concentration spells because they think they are not worth the risk of losing them or don't want to bother to keep track of them, then it means the concentration rule is a failure.

That's not actually true, though, since whether the risk of losing the effect is "worth it" is completely subjective. The only objective measurement of whether the concentration rule succeed or fails is this: does the rule accomplish the goal it is intended to? If the goal is to make it so that the "old standard" of layering on every buff the party can get their hands on and spells that resolve in a single die roll but kick a player out of the game for the entire rest of a typical combat, then the rule is succeeding even if the way it is delivering that success involves some number of players deciding to just not use concentration spells (which is no different from when players used to avoid any spell that required material components in order to avoid their ability to even try one of their spells being subject to the DM's whim of exactly how many glow worms or bits of guano or whatever they had in their pockets).

I would prefer those cases to rely on target's saving throw each round, so that the chance of ending the effect earlier doesn't depend on what your allies do (i.e. attack the caster), and how many they are.

I think the save to end the effect early each round is sufficient too, but I also think that "smart play" in 5th edition involves using ability score increases and/or feats to shore-up what would be a character's weaker saving throws... other folks tend to think the save each round is basically worthless beyond occassionally catching a lucky break and bring up house-rules like adding 1/2 proficiency to non-proficient saves, but they also tend to think that "smart play" in 5th edition involves cranking a few ability scores to maximum as quickly while wholly neglecting the rest (presumably because that's how other versions of D&D worked, and they haven't come to the realization than simply not carrying the "baggage" of other versions into the way they play this version solves a multitude of perceived problems).

 

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

For those that also leave out the Con check due to damage, have you had a 10th level Conjurer yet? Focused Conjuration (PHB p. 116) prevents the conjurer from losing concentration on conjuration spells due to taking damage. If so, what did you put in place of that ability?

 

[neobolts]

In our group we set a minimum damage threshold to cut down on the number of concentration checks (i.e. when the caster takes 10 or more damage from a single attack).

As for removing concentration checks, I would recommend an exception-based approach, rather than wholly removing concentration. In my campaign, I am using items that when equipped remove the concentration property of a specific spell.

 

[Li Shenron]

The only objective measurement of whether the concentration rule succeed or fails is this: does the rule accomplish the goal it is intended to? If the goal is to make it so that the "old standard" of layering on every buff the party can get their hands on and spells that resolve in a single die roll but kick a player out of the game for the entire rest of a typical combat, then the rule is succeeding even if the way it is delivering that success involves some number of players deciding to just not use concentration spells (which is no different from when players used to avoid any spell that required material components in order to avoid their ability to even try one of their spells being subject to the DM's whim of exactly how many glow worms or bits of guano or whatever they had in their pockets).

That's only the first purpose of the rule, and I think most people agree it was a good purpose and the rule succeeds at that. The most layering you can achieve, is have each caster in the party cast one concentration spell on the same ally, plus any other spell that doesn't require concentration. But at least it's clear that you cannot have anymore a party where each caster buffs herself with lots of spells.

Then there is the second purpose, which is allowing spells to be disruptible by attacking the caster. I don't even care if it succeeds, my criticism is about having that purpose in the first place. It could be like that, or it could have been something else. I don't like it because in my opinion it doesn't make the game better in lieu of the complications required.

 

[Eejit]

A concentration roll per attack is tedious. I think I'm going to write a house rule that is a concentration roll per enemy per turn. If they make the concentration check on the first hit, they make it for the turn. A round is six seconds, so all these hits are supposedly happening at some point in the six second round. One could imagine that stabbing someone two or three times successfully in a span of a second or two wouldn't be any more difficult to concentrate than being stabbed a single time.

Hmm, could work - but what if a later hit in the turn has much higher damage (e.g. from a crit) with a significantly harder concentration check?

 

[CapnZapp]

There are two main elements offhand to Concentration spells though:
1. Concentration spells can be disrupted through a DC from damage, and
2. If you have a Concentration spell running, you can't have another running.

You could probably dispense with #1 without impacting balance much, so long as you still had #2.

Thank you for bringing up this crucial and important point.

That damage breaks concentration is very bad news for, say, the Ranger that had hoped to maintain Hunter's Mark in melee.

But it is an interesting check on full spellcaster awesomeness.

The other part, however, condemns dozens upon dozens of spells to nonuse and oblivion.

The solution is NOT to lift the restriction (either in full, or the second part only) since that would only mean the Wizard would cast two of the best-in-class spells she's already casting.

A much more interesting solution would be:
Step 1: Identify at least one, preferably dozens, spell(s) that optimization guides rate poorly and that you never see used at your table.
Step 2: Add "rings of concentration" and similar magic that allows you to use those spells (and only those spells) even if you're already concentrating.

Specific rules language to follow; this just the general idea.

The ideal would to allow you to combine one buff that is currently rated red or purple, with another buff also currently rated red or purple.

You should not expect to combine any buff with one currently rated blue or gold, since that would be a direct power-up.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

No, but you can wield an unlimited number of weapons simultaneously and wear an unlimited number of armor suits.

You have obviously never met my DM. ;>

 

[CapnZapp]

#1 that you mention is less part of the game to keep PC spell usage in check, and more part of the game so that stripping obnoxious buff spells from monster/npc spellcasters or ending their "Dave doesn't get to play until this spell ends" effect is a possibility no matter what class you are playing or spells you have prepared.

It just happens to affect PCs as well because the decision was made not to have an inconsistently applied rule where one didn't actually rate as necessary since a PC typically has far better chances to avoid taking damage in the first place given the dynamics of how the game is usually played.

But the problem is that it's easy for the DM to design encounters to work around the concentration checks. Since the monsters are about to die anyway, just give them spells without concentration.

This heavily disadvantages the players. They lose much more from the rule than monsters.

Put otherwise: dropping the concentration checks in general is MUCH more beneficial for the players than the monsters.

 

[dmnqwk]

For those that also leave out the Con check due to damage, have you had a 10th level Conjurer yet? Focused Conjuration (PHB p. 116) prevents the conjurer from losing concentration on conjuration spells due to taking damage. If so, what did you put in place of that ability?

I forget all the time about concentration because I honestly don't think it adds anything to the game. Since you can only concentrate on 1 spell I don't believe that spell slot numbers are balanced around the prospect of constantly losing concentration on spells, so I generally just ignore it as a rule.

To answer your question I would allow the person to maintain a conjuration concentration spell "for free" so they can maintain both a conj spell AND another spell of their choice, for up to 1 minute per short rest. You might consider the 1 minute per short rest too restrictive, but I was fearful of it being too powerful compared to other 10th level abilities.

 

[slaughterj]

That damage breaks concentration is very bad news for, say, the Ranger that had hoped to maintain Hunter's Mark in melee.

That in particular has been an annoyance for me. Rangers are not trained in CON, and CON is not their primary attribute, Hunter's Mark is expected to be a main ability of theirs, yet (at least for melee Rangers) they won't be able to maintain it with any consistency. It basically puts a feat tax on Rangers for either Warcaster or Resilient CON to have a decent shot at maintaining a primary character class attribute, which seems wrong. Fixing concentration checks could take care of this, or if it was simply a feature of the class rather than a spell (e.g., Rangers at second level get Hunter's Mark class feature, which allows them to use a Bonus Action to examine a foe in sight for a weakness, and thereafter get +1D6 damage per attack on that foe, this feature is usable on one foe at a time and resets upon taking a short or long rest).