D&D 5E Abandoning attunement and scaling back concentration

[werecorpse]

Personally as a DM I don't care about attunement as a magic item control option either, I can control that on my own (I rarely give out magic items). However, I do like it from a fantasy and world building perspective. The idea that you have to connect to the item to use it properly. I think it could be expanded actually. Non-attune gives some benefit, attunement gives additional benefit (maybe a deeper attunement gives even more). I think you may be missing the RP options available with this game element

I can see this and will happily use it for this

 

[werecorpse]

I posit D&D did not do "fine" without concentration. Buffing was a huge problem in some earlier editions, especially 3.0 and 3.5. Casters who were ridiculously better than martials at martial things because they were super buffed. Quadradic wizards - it wasn't because of direct damage.

Any arguement about concentration that talks about it not being around before is easily demonstrated to be an argument for concentration. But really, different editions had different mechanics and balance points, what came before is at best a warning and not and argument about the balance of spells in 5e.

Agree to disagree about D&D without this mechanic, my experience with it was enjoyable.

 

[werecorpse]

Okay, flat out - you are giving an ability to casters. This makes them more powerful regardless if there is an open question about how much more powerful. What equal ability are you giving to non-casters and half-casters (whom don't get the higher level spell slots to really take advantage of this) are you granting to keep the classes balanced? Or are you otherwise nerfing casters to balance out this boon?

Yes I am giving an ability to casters, it will give them more flexibility and thus more power to them and the party as a whole. I’ve given most other classes stuff as well - not Paladins. But I don’t really want to go through that, I am just posting about these two changes.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes I am giving an ability to casters, it will give them more flexibility and thus more power to them and the party as a whole. I’ve given most other classes stuff as well - not Paladins. But I don’t really want to go through that, I am just posting about these two changes.

I confess, I was starting to wonder what the point was to this thread after this.


Post changes in vague form, say dont wsnt comments about balance, dismiss a variety if comments about what folks see as issues, then refuse to give context (other equitable changes for other vlasses.)

"I hunted around a bit to see how others have dealt with these issues but couldn’t find much so I’m posting this to see what others have done and what they think."

Then I went back to the OP and saw that even tho knew has to expect the responses you get when posting significant house rules, you actually did not ask for discussion of your rules, just posted the long set of rules and buried the lead... you want to know what other folks did about concentration and attunement.

So, in that vein...

As a GM I do not prefer as heavy handed management of gear by GM fiat as it feels like you describe. Any significant facet of "balance" I can make a PC choice and character trait is to me a good thing.

So, for instance, I removed "healing potions as common" and replaced them with "recovery elixirs" which allow your character to spend HD without a rest. So, your "common" healing is using a character resource that is spent and recovered etc. This took away the twixt-combat sack of bonus HP only limited by the GM allow to purchase altogether and moved it to a known character based limited feature.

Atonement to me is another such feature - it takes a lot of the GM fiat for balance and influence out of treasure choices. The PCs can divide loot and I dont have to script the loot for them. For reasons others described.
.
For ne that has worked well.

In a prior 5e game, I shifted atonement to be tier+1, not just flat 3, so that again it was character-based instead of flat 3. That fits my taste better, but it did not make much difference and so in the current games I just went back to 3 - online systems hard code it so less work.

For concentration, my campaigns have been fine with it as is. I have made no changes as it seemed to work within the context of 5e system. I have lots of house rules but this was not one i tinkered with.

It seems to me in play that there are more than a few cases where "is not concentration" and its opposite are obviously hard coded into balance between things so before i make any change, any sweeping change, it would require spell-by-spell power-by-power analysis and frankly, i have not seen a driving or compelling reason in play to warrant that much work.

In our gameplay, the ability to disrupt some powerful spells by tactical choices other than dispel magic has added a lot to combat in good ways. Going back to the days where once cast spells just ran and only your casters could stop them as common... would be seen as a loss, a lowering of fun.

So, nope, not gonna mess with removing that from the game.

 

[Blue]

Agree to disagree about D&D without this mechanic, my experience with it was enjoyable.

Try google. Please research things like CoDzilla.

That your particular game didn't have problems is not indicative that there weren't problems as a whole with unrestrained buffing in earlier editions, especially 3.5. "Agree to disagree" where there are facts available that only supports one side is like an ostrich sticking their head in the sand. Don't be like that - make informed choices.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There's two component of Concentration in 5e
1) You cannot stack more than one effect
2) Enemies can destroy the spell by breaking concentration

You seem to have a problem with point 1) more than you do with the second point. People also seems to focus more on the idea that, with your rules, spells would not be interrupt-able. So why not houserule only the point you have a problem with?

- Keep concentration, but you can concentrate on more than one spell at the time, but spells can be interrupted as normal by taking damage. This way, the mage can have multiple effects at the same time, but one nasty hit and they lose all their preparation, forcing them to play more tactically.

 

[dave2008]

Putting together @5ekyu and @vincegetorix suggestions, how about this:

You can concentrate on a number of spells equal to your tier. Thus, casters get better as they level (makes sense) and can stack more and more spells, and concentration can still be broken and spells disrupted.

 

[CapnZapp]

My only suggestion would be to allow Archmages to bend or break these limitations.

Not merely any level 8 or 12 spellcaster.

 

[werecorpse]

Try google. Please research things like CoDzilla.

That your particular game didn't have problems is not indicative that there weren't problems as a whole with unrestrained buffing in earlier editions, especially 3.5. "Agree to disagree" where there are facts available that only supports one side is like an ostrich sticking their head in the sand. Don't be like that - make informed choices.

I know about CoDzilla, I still don’t accept that D&D was not a fine game before the 5e concentration mechanic. The facts don’t only support one side of the argument. 3e/3.5/Pathfinder without this mechanic has been successful. I know people who still primarily play it without experiencing a problem with unrestrained buffing. I accept that some people did and for their playstyles the 5e RAW type of concentration mechanic may be a good solution. This suggestion of allowing upcasting of spells to remove the concentration requirement of some spells may not be for them. Others may find it a useful way to consider tinkering with the game.

 

[werecorpse]

There's two component of Concentration in 5e
1) You cannot stack more than one effect
2) Enemies can destroy the spell by breaking concentration

You seem to have a problem with point 1) more than you do with the second point. People also seems to focus more on the idea that, with your rules, spells would not be interrupt-able. So why not houserule only the point you have a problem with?

- Keep concentration, but you can concentrate on more than one spell at the time, but spells can be interrupted as normal by taking damage. This way, the mage can have multiple effects at the same time, but one nasty hit and they lose all their preparation, forcing them to play more tactically.

You are correct the main issue I have experienced an issue with is the limit on the number of concentration spells. I’ve done a spell by spell review on the upcasting mechanic but will look at how a multiple stacking option would work.