D&D 5E Abandoning attunement and scaling back concentration

[Wiseblood]

Have you considered a limit of X number of spell levels can be concentrated on? ( based on caster level or ability bonus )

I wish it was easier to break concentration. ( in game ) irl you couldn’t keep concentration if I so much as shot you in the face with a rubber band.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry dude, Haste and Wall of Sand share the most important similarity of all.
The concentration tag.

No more relevant - probably slightly less - than that they're both 3rd level.

fact they share a subsystem excluding a play from using them both isn't important compared to the fact they're both third level?

A number of details of the casting system make you choose between casting 3rd level spells. Slots & known spells, for instance. You only have one 3rd level spell slot left, you have to choose between Haste or Highly Localized Sandstorm (or Fireball). They're /meant/, according to the 3rd level slot they cost, to be equivalently-potent/useful options.

or we need to adjust concentration in a way it can be played around with.

Don't think it needs much adjustment to play around with a bit.
For instance, all spells with duration could be concentration, it'd create a more meaningful/difficult choice dynamic for casters.
Concentration could also be required for casting, so, once concentrating, no casting anything else.
Heck, concentration could take your action every round.
Casters'd be more challenging to play, but not exactly underpowered.

 

[jamesstreissand]

I'm sorry, I flat out do not believe that in the game as a whole (not just at your table) that removing concentration would not provide a class balance problem. We have a lot of historical evidence from earlier editions. We have evidence in this edition about the changes to class balance with a 5 minute work day.

I'm glad it worked well at your table, but there is far too much showing balance issues with unrestricted casters for an anecdote about it not being a balance issue at a table to move that needle.

Nah. I should specify I didn't remove concentration from the game entirely (though even that is preferable to current concentration). In both games I tiered concentration according to spell level.

The second game was the more refined iteration, makes more sense within the game world, and provides a more fulfilling experience for individual casters and their party alike.

Concentration is tiered. You may concentrate on a spell of 0-2nd level, 3--5th level, and 6-9th level. Failing a concentration check causes you to stop concentrating on all active concentration spells.

Most of spell layering BS gets swallowed up by action economy (most fights last 3-4 rounds anyways), getting damaged (spellcasters are slightly more dangerous, therefore enemies target them more), etc. It's fun!

 

[jamesstreissand]

No more relevant - probably slightly less - than that they're both 3rd level.

A number of details of the casting system make you choose between casting 3rd level spells. Slots & known spells, for instance. You only have one 3rd level spell slot left, you have to choose between Haste or Highly Localized Sandstorm (or Fireball). They're /meant/, according to the 3rd level slot they cost, to be equivalently-potent/useful options.

Don't think it needs much adjustment to play around with a bit.
For instance, all spells with duration could be concentration, it'd create a more meaningful/difficult choice dynamic for casters.
Concentration could also be required for casting, so, once concentrating, no casting anything else.
Heck, concentration could take your action every round.
Casters'd be more challenging to play, but not exactly underpowered.

That's incredibly silly, and you're talking past concentration's influence on the spell selection.


Lack of choice =/= challenging so much as frustrating. You've gone past ignoring conceptual changes to ignoring the numbers of the game; all of the additional "ways to play with concentration" (which are all just nerfing casters more) would absolutely nuke their ability to stay competent while using concentration spells.

Why even include those spells in the game at that point?

 

[Tony Vargas]

you're talking past concentration's influence on the spell selection.

Concentration keeps you from maintaining two spells with the same tag at the same time, while letting you continue to cast other spells. Frankly, that's a little off - even overly "gamist," if one objects to that sorta thing.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for you to be able to concentrate on casting a new spell while Concentrating on an existing one. Really, /taking actions/ while concentrating seems, conceptually off, too. Concentration should just plain take an action. That'd put a bow on it. Taking an action instead of being broken by damage (unless, y'know, you're KO'd by said damage or something), might be an interesting compromise, but, really, it's not like casters need a lot of breaks.

all of the additional "ways to play with concentration" (which are all just nerfing casters more) would absolutely nuke their ability to stay competent while using concentration spells.
Why even include those spells in the game at that point?

TBH, with those ideas, I was channeling the classic game a bit. It's a "kids these days don't know how good they got it" thang.

 

[jamesstreissand]

Concentration keeps you from maintaining two spells with the same tag at the same time, while letting you continue to cast other spells. Frankly, that's a little off - even overly "gamist," if one objects to that sorta thing.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for you to be able to concentrate on casting a new spell while Concentrating on an existing one. Really, /taking actions/ while concentrating seems, conceptually off, too. Concentration should just plain take an action. That'd put a bow on it. Taking an action instead of being broken by damage (unless, y'know, you're KO'd by said damage or something), might be an interesting compromise, but, really, it's not like casters need a lot of breaks.

TBH, with those ideas, I was channeling the classic game a bit. It's a "kids these days don't know how good they got it" thang.

Imagine using "Gamist" as a derogitive here.

Say I take all that as being true, and that concentration is all-encompassing and holds total dominion over your focus;
Shouldn't we take out concentration entirely? After all, why can't a player just summon a tornado and let it run loose? Summon a churning wall of sand until the fount from the plane of earth deigns to close it?
Remember, dont' say it would be unbalanced; that would be gamist.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Imagine using "Gamist" as a derogitive here.

Thus "if one objects..." I don't, generally...

Shouldn't we take out concentration entirely? After all, why can't a player just summon a tornado and let it run loose? Summon a churning wall of sand until the fount from the plane of earth deigns to close it?
Remember, dont' say it would be unbalanced; that would be gamist.

Well, back in the day, you /could/ Conjure an Elemental, lose concentration, and it would stick around uncontrolled. It just might kill you. OTOH, there were spells that 'wound down' after you finished concentrating, with a short, continuing duration after.
Conceptually, it'd be fair & sensible for any spell that you retained control over for its duration to require concentration. Likewise, conceptually, any spell that represented a continuous application of magical power, like a tornado or sandstorm or the like. Spells that required neither control nor ongoing power might, instead, be instantaneous, just leave a permanent effect sitting there, like a Pile of Sand.

But, a lot of concepts in D&D are pretty thin. Spell prep, for instance, very little precedent for it in genre, none in myth/legend - it'd be conceptually more appropriate, if we were abandoning any hint of gamism - for all spells to be ritual-only.

 

[jamesstreissand]

Thus "if one objects..." I don't, generally...

Well, back in the day, you /could/ Conjure an Elemental, lose concentration, and it would stick around uncontrolled. It just might kill you. OTOH, there were spells that 'wound down' after you finished concentrating, with a short, continuing duration after.
Conceptually, it'd be fair & sensible for any spell that you retained control over for its duration to require concentration. Likewise, conceptually, any spell that represented a continuous application of magical power, like a tornado or sandstorm or the like. Spells that required neither control nor ongoing power might, instead, be instantaneous, just leave a permanent effect sitting there, like a Pile of Sand.

But, a lot of concepts in D&D are pretty thin. Spell prep, for instance, very little precedent for it in genre, none in myth/legend - it'd be conceptually more appropriate, if we were abandoning any hint of gamism - for all spells to be ritual-only.

Hold on here, why is that? Why do mages need to concentrate at all? Conceptually, moving your hand doesn't take all of your focus, mental ability, etc. Why can't a one short thought or wave of one's hand do?


That's an interesting deviation on what's conceptually accurate; I disagree, we wouldn't have clerics as is in D&D if we were adhering purely to established concepts. Anyone who's been through the Appendix N list knows where these concepts come from (and they ARE American myth, as far as I'm concerned). I think that's contrary to the spirit of the game and the reason for engaging in the game to begin with; the game provides the unique opportunity (if designed well) to create/modify archetypes and tropes. I don't trust designers who abandon the gamist element in their design.

 

[Blue]

Are you saying the fact they share a subsystem excluding a play from using them both isn't important compared to the fact they're both third level? I'm sure that sounded more clever in your head, but no, concentration is still their most important feature when a spellcaster considers spell selection.

Are you saying that 3rd level spells aren't balanced against is other is less important than they share a subsystem? I'm sure that sounded more clever in your head, but no, a spell underperforming against it's peers is not the fault of a subsystem. That subsystem may help define who it's peers are, but not that it's poorly designed in the first place.

Should a 1st level concentration spells and a 5th level concentration spell be balanced against each other. There is only one sane answer, and it's the one that shows that concentration is NOT the most important factor.

I'll give you that spell level and concentration are both important for determining what spells to compare. But while you are cherry picking one pair of spells with a high performer and a low performer, I can show dozens of equal level concentration spells that do get picked against each other.

At that point, it should be clear that it's not concentration since there are plenty of pairs of spells that are both likely candidates to pick, it's an under-performing spell.

 

[Blue]

That's incredibly silly, and you're talking past concentration's influence on the spell selection.


Lack of choice =/= challenging so much as frustrating. You've gone past ignoring conceptual changes to ignoring the numbers of the game; all of the additional "ways to play with concentration" (which are all just nerfing casters more) would absolutely nuke their ability to stay competent while using concentration spells.

Why even include those spells in the game at that point?

Your "lack of choice" is like saying a rogue should be able to stab with her dagger and shoot with her bow in the same round. You can choice to case any spell- you have that choice. It's that there are repercussions to your choice. For exampole, you might not want to cast a second concentration spell because it will end your first. (I've done it.) Just like you might not want to charge the giant with 4 HPS left because he could pound you into cheese flavored dog food.