D&D 5E concentration in 5th edition, whats your fix?

[schnee]

Am I saying this would have been better? No - but it would have been less of an abrupt change from the mentality of prior editions, and I've had been worried about the knee jerk reaction to concentration that we saw when the edition was released.

I'm not worried about previous editions, or the people that prefer them. I'm worried about this one.

Like I said, I'm a gray Grognard, and I'm fine. If other Grognards can't be fine, it's because they are too sentimental, and want to play the old game, and not this new one. They should go play that old game. God knows I don't need them at the table with the literal line of new players we have waiting to get a spot at ours.

I'm fine with 95% of Concentration. It's made me a more mindful caster, and much more strategic, knowing I can't just stack effects until I'm unbeatable. Every spell has an upside and a downside, I don't always have an answer, and I'm there to 'stack' the battlefield in one direction to help my allies, not to trivialize the whole encounter by myself.

When I try to think through the few quibbles I have (i.e. Flame Blade is nerfed a bit too much), I see that fixing those edge cases would cause more problems than it solves. So, I just chalk it up to 'Pobody's Nerfect' and be thankful for the rest of the game being so good.

It's better than previous editions, and getting rid of all the stacking is one of the biggest reasons why.

 

[happyhermit]

I did not think this level of agreement was possible when discussing ttrpgs on the internet

 

[ad_hoc]

I did not think this level of agreement was possible when discussing ttrpgs on the internet

To be fair it is on the 5e forum.

The question is basically asking 'do you like 5e?' There will always be a few dissenters but the selection bias is strong.

Other interesting questions:

Should there be dungeons?

Is it necessary to have spells in the game?

Is water wet?

 

[happyhermit]

To be fair it is on the 5e forum.

The question is basically asking 'do you like 5e?' There will always be a few dissenters but the selection bias is strong.

What? No. The questions is 100% different than that.

 

[Thurmas]

I'm fine with the Concentration mechanic as is. I would only slightly reduce the number of spells that actually require concentration. Some just don't make sense to require it in my mind.

 

[Wiseblood]

Wow....

 

[jimmytheccomic]

Concentration is by far my favorite thing about fifth edition. I stopped running third edition because of the huge list of buffs and debuffs I always had to deal with, it slowed gameplay to a crawl and felt more like homework than a game.

Me: A pack of orcs kicks down the door!

*The tension drains away as the players spend forty minutes figuring out what spells are on, what spells should be cast, and what everyone is actually rolling*

The concentration mechanic, and the simple advantage/disadvantage system brought me back to D&D after 15 years with other systems.

 

[Monayuris]

Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Concentration is up there with Advantage as being one of the 5E killer apps.

i remember my 3.5 days, where we would spend 4 rounds behind the door, before every combat to cast stacking buff spells. I’m SO glad that insanity is over with.

Along with tracking overly situational bonuses and individual initiative, that element of play has been dumped into my been there, never doing it again pile.

 

[the_redbeard]

Given that my preferred edition is 1e, I don't see any problem with spells simply having a duration....

As the DM:
So if I were fixing this in a vacuum I'd just drop the concentration mechanic.
But I'm not fixing it in a vacuum. So I just let the players decide if they wanted to keep it as is or change it somehow.
For the time being they've chosen to play it as is. We'll revisit the question next campaign.
And as the DM my monsters are not hindered by this if I don't want them to be because monsters don't have to work exactly like PCs.

As a player? I'll let the table/DM know my preferences. Then I'll roll with whatever the group has decided.
It's just a question of do I solve the problem using x aproach or y.

I'm a long time runner of 1E and other OSR systems. I hate to ask (because it sounds condescending) but have you played/DMed high level casters in 3.x or 5e?

Sure, 1E doesn't have the Concentration mechanic, but here are limiting factors to spellcaster power in 1E that 3.x did away with:

1. If you cast a spell, you can't move that round. At all. Sure, maybe your ring of invisibility will pop back up, but with your spell you've given the enemy your location. In 3.x, you cast, you move, you're invisible again.
2. You had no way to improve the DC of the saving throws against your spells; in 3.x you had several ways to game your spell DC.
3. Every class and every monster decreased (improved) ALL of their saves as they leveled/had higher hit dice. The fighter wasn't a liability to a measly Charm Person spell, but could laugh off "save or die" effects and then slice the spell caster in half. In 3.x and 5e, a spellcaster has the repertoire to choose spells with a variety of ability saves and tailor their cast to the target, sometimes ensuring that it will fail its save. (At least 5e, while keeping some 'save or suck' spells, gives the power low save critters a chance to save each round.)
4. You couldn't pick your spells: each level you learned ONE random spell. You had to find the rest as treasure, purchase them, etc. Oh, your first level spell is Push. Yeah, you can be creative with it, but you know everyone wants Sleep. In 3.x, wizards get to choose, and they get 2 of them.
5. Spell memorization times. At higher levels, it can take days or even a week for a wizard to re-memorize their spells. You had to _very_ carefully conserve your spell slots. Want to re-memorize in the dungeon? Enjoy a zillion random encounter chances. It takes an hour in 3.x if I recall.
6. Magic Item creation. It was nearly impossible to create magic items besides potions and scrolls, considering that Permanency, an 8th level that requires a whole POINT of Constitution, was necessary. (Yep, according to the 6th level "Enchant an Item" spell, no magic would be permanent unless Permanency was cast). 3.x let you be a veritable custom to order factory of magic items.

I won't even say this list was all-inclusive. Your hit points couldn't benefit from above a 14 constitution unless you were a fighter, for instance. There were so many ways that spell casters, for all that they did have Save or Die spells, were less powerful and more fragile than in 3.x

5e keeps many of the 3.x changes, but keeps spell casters somewhat in check with Concentration.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think if you just look at a list of spells regardless of class and which ones have concentration and which don't, you'll get a misleading impression of how the mechanic works. Having played in games with a few different spell casters now, it seems that some classes have concentration heavy spell lists by design as a way of balancing them.

Still doesn't answer the very many questions.

For instance, any buff that presupposes you will be in melee should not be breakable by taking damage, that's just elementary spell design. Spells like Stoneskin become "cast on others, never on self" spells.

The Paladin gets lots of Concentration spells. Only problem is, the Paladin is a melee combatant. It's much better to simply use those slots for smites and simply forget about the Paladin spell list, especially the Concentration spells. The opportunity cost of casting a Concentration spell is simply to high. Even if you only fail Concentration checks on rolling a 1, you might have to make three such rolls per round on average. Coupled with the fact your spellcasting cost you a couple of d8 smite dice, it just doesn't add up.

I agree the Light mechanism should have been utilized to a much larger degree. That is, removing Concentration and instead saying "As soon as you cast a second Aura (or whatever) the first one ends"

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app