D&D 5E Concentration spells over 10 minutes can be a pain in the a**

[Helldritch]

I'm glad ppl pointed out the commander's stike

The Battle Master is not sacrificing that much dmg. Barely 1d8+5 as he took defender style with shield blocking.
The paladin is the same so I often end up attacking the rogue at disadvantage and believe me, I know what I am doing in combat but so do my players. Do not forget that the BM is only sacrificing one of his two attacks not both (and soon to be 3 if all goes well). So in effect, our BM is doing more dmg by allowing the rogue to attack more.

Even if he were GWM. It would mean losing only 2d6+15 or an average of 22 (Max 27) where our little rogue does 27 (max 41) (not counting the manoeuver dice). It is more profitable this way. And yes our BM has taken the extra maneuver dice from the feat (next ASI will probably be either con increase or the shield master feat).

The more I read from your posts and comments, the more I get convinced to remove concentration from Hunter's mark and Hex (for the latter I'm not sure where it would lead as Warlock are not on the weak side dpr wise but consistency should be maintained).
@auburn2
Sneak attack dmg can be done consistently as long as the ennemy target is within 5' of an ally. RAW and RAI. The only draw back is that without an ally, you need to have been hidden (and that way you'll get both sneak and advantage). And yes, you can argue that it is the BM/Rogue combination that is the problem but it is still very different from haste. Haste won't give you an other sneak. Commander's strike will. (I now shudder at the thought of two BM with a rogue... brrrrrrrr.... ).

And please do not assume that I don't know how to handle combat. I do know how to, I have quite a long experience behind me in all editions and even other rpg (35 years of DMing should count). I'm not afraid to PK or even TPK if the events leading to that are justified by players actions or inactions. But beside that, your comments are quite welcome and appreciated. Thx a lot.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The Battle Master is not sacrificing that much dmg. Barely 1d8+5 as he took defender style with shield blocking.
The paladin is the same so I often end up attacking the rogue at disadvantage and believe me, I know what I am doing in combat but so do my players. Do not forget that the BM is only sacrificing one of his two attacks not both (and soon to be 3 if all goes well). So in effect, our BM is doing more dmg by allowing the rogue to attack more.

Commander's strike would be a really crappy ability if it didn't provide a net benefit over a basic attack. What your players are doing is called teamwork. System functioning as intended.

 

[Helldritch]

Commander's strike would be a really crappy ability if it didn't provide a net benefit over a basic attack. What your players are doing is called teamwork. System functioning as intended.

Agreed. But some target for that ability are clearly stronger than others
To most ppl, it only means a d6 or d8 additional dmg. But to a rogue... It's a killer. Welcome to my world.

 

[Satyrn]

Since the issue is long spells versus short spells, instead of eliminating concentration from the long spells create another category of concentration that applies to those long spells. Call it Focus, say.

So, a caster can focus on one spell, and concentrate on another.

And perhaps add in some penalty represinting strain if they do focus and concentrate at the same time. Disadvantage on something, for example. But only if this turns out to be too big an improvement for casters.

 

[Kryx]

The S&B fighter is without shield master is doing 85% damage of a shield master fighter due to prone. Prone also helps allies hit by a significant margin. The end result is the fighter is giving up significant DPR and other ways of helping his party to boost the rogue's damage. That is not the ranger's fault and should not count against his worthiness.

Regarding Warlock Damage: Warlocks and Rangers are dealing about the same damage. Warlocks without concentration on Hex will still be heavily limited by 2 spell slots per short rest. And when they do have extra spell slots they won't be damage spells, but mostly spells that disable enemies.

The same is true for a Ranger except Flame Arrows which increases damage.

 

[Helldritch]

[MENTION=6670944]Kryx[/MENTION]
Shield master is useful yes. But prone target means that ranged attackers are attacking at disadvantage not really practical for many characters especially if they are ranged attackers like most casters and bowmen. In my party's composition it would be quite detrimental save for the two clerics. Better push the enemy than have him prone. Both the Paly and BM are defensive style so most of the dpr is coming from the other characters.

And even then, pushing the enemy might mean that the rogue does not have an ally near the target anymore, thus preventing her from using sneak attack with her bow, reducing her damage by a significant amount.
[MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION]
Allowing that, to concentrate on two spell at once might become too powerful. As I wrote, the more we discuss the more I am convinced that the problem is from the fact that Hunter's mark and Hex are concentration spells and not class features as they should be. Removing concentration from these two spells in my games should solve my problems.

What I'm looking for now is pros and cons for removing the concentration from these two spells. I might miss something and many heads are better than just one.

 

[Satyrn]

Well they will stack with each other when multiclassing. But I dobt see that mattering.

 

[Helldritch]

Well they will stack with each other when multiclassing. But I dobt see that mattering.

Good point, that's why I would keep them as spells and it may be the reason why they are not class features as before.

Keeping them as spells, but w/o the concentration will not prevent a multiclass combo but then again, 2d6 for two spell slot might not be that of a bargain as both ranger and warlock do not have zounds of spell slots. Furthermore, both classes are not really compatible as Ranger needs Wisdom and Warlock needs Charisma. It would not be a multiclass option seen frequently (at least it's what I believe).

 

[Ancalagon]

As someone who's played a bit of a warlock, the concentration for Hex is a bit of a drag yeah.... but then again, that slot you used on hex may be 50% of your slot complements so...

 

[Satyrn]

Good point, that's why I would keep them as spells and it may be the reason why they are not class features as before.

Keeping them as spells, but w/o the concentration will not prevent a multiclass combo but then again, 2d6 for two spell slot might not be that of a bargain as both ranger and warlock do not have zounds of spell slots. Furthermore, both classes are not really compatible as Ranger needs Wisdom and Warlock needs Charisma. It would not be a multiclass option seen frequently (at least it's what I believe).

That's why I don't see it mattering. But I mentioned it so that it can be dismissed.

Also consider a bard selecting these spells. I don't see a problem there, either.

I also see no problem with a ranger gaining hex through Magic Initate, or warlock getting hunter's mark.