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

[jodyjohnson]

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 still require saves when taking certain kinds of damage (see the Lingering Injuriy option in the DMG). Basically when they get hit with a critical.


It seems like one of the main reasons for dropping the 'Save on Damage' aspect is that it is fiddly. Yet most of the alternate methods take the fiddly element up a notch (escalating DCs, complicated If/then clauses, options to maintain and get critted). It's like they took the 'keep it simple and fast' mantra of the design and then said, "Hey someone gave feedback that said they didn't like concentration, let's make it more complicated".

It is out of sync with the design and out of sync with the way they wanted to treat hit points as a nebulous undefined entity.

 

[Magil]

I don't think the problem is so much Concentration as it is that too many spells require it. I understand the design intent and I am absolutely on the side of erring cautiously in keeping magic in balance--I still feel that full casters have significantly more power to affect the game and the world than non-casters--but some spells simply don't need Concentration. Common examples are Hunter's Mark and Hex, and there are others mentioned in this thread, like Blur. The poor paladin's spell list is something like 85% Concentration spells! At least they get Divine Smite to use those slots for other purposes.

I appreciate it from a game design standpoint--it gives casters something to aim for in addition to simply augmenting their ability to spell cast. They should make decisions that improve their ability to Concentrate on spells, such as boosting Constitution and investing in the War Caster feat. But perhaps the implementation could be reviewed.

Personally I'm glad I play primarily online--I simply mark my token with a colored indicator when I have a concentration spell active, and ask my players to do the same in games I run. It helps prevent forgetfulness!

 

[slaughterj]

The poor paladin's spell list is something like 85% Concentration spells!

Yeah, and a Paladin isn't proficient in CON saves, CON is not the primary ability score, and Paladins are in melee and thus getting hit often so triggering concentration checks, so I don't even bother with the smite spells (plus I have Shield Master which uses my Bonus Action anyway).

 

[Tony Vargas]

But the other issue, about the chance of disrupting a spell by attacking the caster, I don't think this adds anything interesting to the game. It's a complication, because some spells can be disrupted while others cannot.

It's a nod to the old-school magic system when any spell could be disrupted (nullified and expended) if you took damage while casting (or 'concentrating,' though the meaning was looser back then). That added a level of tactical/dogmatic 'interest' in that it was important to protect casters so they could, well, cast.

In 5e, you can cast any spell in melee, only concentration spells are in the least limited in that regard, so it's a smallish nod.

I would largely prefer a common rule for disrupting spells. ... "you can disrupt any spell by hitting the caster while the spell is active", or "you can disrupt any spell by hitting the caster while the spell is being cast".

Make that 'or' an 'and,' and we're back to old-school. That would pair well with better 'defender' mechanics, since you suddenly have a very good reason for preventing attacks on (caster) allies.

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.

Or an astounding success, if the point was to meaningfully limit those spells.

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.

Another case where 'both' works, IMHO. Save per round keeps a single bad roll vs a single spell from trivializing a combat. But, 5e save bonuses can be pretty stagnant, while save DCs can be fairly high, so having ways for allies to free a locked-down character (or enemies to free a locked-down monster) that bring others on both sides into it would be to the good. Keeps things interesting.

 

[Celtavian]

It's a nod to the old-school magic system when any spell could be disrupted (nullified and expended) if you took damage while casting (or 'concentrating,' though the meaning was looser back then). That added a level of tactical/dogmatic 'interest' in that it was important to protect casters so they could, well, cast.

In 5e, you can cast any spell in melee, only concentration spells are in the least limited in that regard, so it's a smallish nod.

Make that 'or' an 'and,' and we're back to old-school. That would pair well with better 'defender' mechanics, since you suddenly have a very good reason for preventing attacks on (caster) allies.

Or an astounding success, if the point was to meaningfully limit those spells.

Another case where 'both' works, IMHO. Save per round keeps a single bad roll vs a single spell from trivializing a combat. But, 5e save bonuses can be pretty stagnant, while save DCs can be fairly high, so having ways for allies to free a locked-down character (or enemies to free a locked-down monster) that bring others on both sides into it would be to the good. Keeps things interesting.

There were no opportunity attacks in the old edition, so a caster could run back and cast.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There were no opportunity attacks in the old edition, so a caster could run back and cast.

Actually, pre-opportunity attack versions of the game had other ways of stopping a caster from just "run back and cast" if their enemies had closed into melee range - the inclusion of the opportunity attack enabled such tactics (at an obvious price).

 

[CapnZapp]

I started a thread on one possible way to alleviate the "only one spell" aspect of Concentration:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473947-Concentration-combining-two-effects

This aspect is what is destroying spells that can't compete for the sole concentration "slot" (that is, spells nobody uses since another spell always gets precedence) but could see more use if they could be combined.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This aspect is what is destroying spells that can't compete for the sole concentration "slot" (that is, spells nobody uses since another spell always gets precedence) but could see more use if they could be combined.

Or, maybe the 'other spell' is the problem...

There were no opportunity attacks in the old edition, so a caster could run back and cast.

There was a 'parting shot' for running away, and casting in melee ran a risk of your opponent landing a blow in the middle of your spell. What that risk might have been was hard to pin down since the DMG gave two separate ways of handling in two different sections. But, you're right, those sorts of rules hadn't been consolidated into AoO's, yet.

 

[Li Shenron]

Or an astounding success, if the point was to meaningfully limit those spells.

Really? I am not saying that people really are avoiding those spells (because I don't know, but overall I don't think it's the case... losing concentration is annoying but I don't think people avoid concentration spells entirely) but if they really did, it's not an astounding success but an astounding crap of wasted design effort... if they really wanted to limit those spells to the point that nobody uses them, then they should have not have those spells at all.

 

[Celtavian]

Actually, pre-opportunity attack versions of the game had other ways of stopping a caster from just "run back and cast" if their enemies had closed into melee range - the inclusion of the opportunity attack enabled such tactics (at an obvious price).

2E had a ready action, which players often used. It made it very easy to disrupt enemy casters given parties usually had actions to spare to screw up an enemy caster. Not sure if 2E started out with a ready action or it came in the Combat and Tactics book. I recall that action being used. That was usually accomplished by a archer. Then again pre-3E stoneskin was an awesome spell that pretty much set you up to be nearly invincible against martial attacks. I had to laugh one time when one of my not very good at the game players tried to cast stoneskin in melee range. The results were very amusing. No one had any idea why he did that given stoneskin had a multiple day duration prior to 3E.

1E didn't have any mechanic to stop casters from taking off in the base game from what I recollect.