D&D 5E Concentration mechanic can ruin plots in adventures

[Henry]

You've pointed out this glaring example of bad design in 5e a few times now.

The OP, I think, is looking for ways to overcome this bad design so as to maintain some internal consistency in his/her setting while at the same time being able to run the adventure s/he wants to.

Got any suggestions?

Problem is, your bug is my feature, so the answers are going to differ widely depending on how one sees it. Having NPC use the same back-end mechanics as PCs used to drive me crazy in 3e, 3.5, and Pathfinder because they had dozens of stats I didn’t need for someone who was going to last for one or two sessions and get killed- or worse, five minutes and get splattered. AD&D didn’t require it (many adventures had poisons invented for a single scenario, villains who had powers that weren’t in any class features, etc) which is why I was glad when 5e built In ways around it.

However, sounds like Helldritch has found a solution, so all is well.

 

[Bohandas]

Not unless at least one item was sentient, per my understanding of the rules. If you use a magic item to cast or otherwise generate a spell that requires concentration, you need to do the concentrating. Only exception is sentient items, which are specifically described as "doing the concentrating."

What about items that are self activating?

 

[Helldritch]

Sorry for the confusion about Charm person. I was reading the dominate person spell as this spell is the closest to what was possible to the original spell in 2ed. In the writing in the post, I simply forgot to adjust. And even with a one jour duration for Charm it is clearly not long enough. Dominate person allows a save every round. So one is not long enough and the other is too short and allows a save every round. The charm trope is still out of reach. The geas spell is the solution.

 

[billd91]

2) Excapode is NOT a BBEG type boss. He is a wimp, a twit, a weakling, that is using others to fight for him. He does not have lair action. He is not legendary. He's just a 10th level enchantor with a hole in his sanity.



4) Since he is such a wimp, giving him special powers kinda of defeat the spirit of what he is.

He may have a wimpy disposition, but being a 10th level enchanter isn't exactly a base for being a complete wimp in any edition. Moreover, compared to most people, being a 10th level enchanter is clearly being loaded up with plenty of special powers. That's all the justification you need to adapt him into 5e with a special power or spell or other method to control people.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

A good idea but again, I want to stay as close as RAW as possible. If NPCs can avoid the concentration rule, so should the players (in my games at least).

By the way nice play by post for: GREYHAWK CY 576: GREAT LEGENDS RETOLD -- CAMPAIGN THREAD.
It's a nice read.

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it.

The following is not a rant, nor a criticism. Just something to think about:

Does 5e NOT allow for the research of new spells, through collaboration with the DM? That's what I was getting at, and the PCs would necessarily have access to the NPC's spell at the end... but I'd think that most players would want the bonus xp for destroying the spell.

Just my humble opinion, but DM-created / PC-created content is at the heart of what Gygax intended; the individual flavor of a given campaign is the result of the added / custom content. I have always held to the following maxim:

RAW requires one to define whom it is that gets to do the writing.

In my humble opinion, that's YOU, dude. Embrace it. It's your campaign. You get to decide.

And no matter what you do end up deciding, I am sure that it will be the right choice.

Cheers!

 

[prabe]

What about items that are self activating?

Seems as though there is a solution looming for the larger question of the thread, but I'll answer this. My understanding, looking at the rules, are that the user of a magic item is responsible for concentrating on an effect that requires concentration unless the item says otherwise (like a sentient item that concentrates for you).

 

[NotAYakk]

Ring of Spell Storing. These are under a Geas to cast Charm spells on others, giving control to the mad enchanter.

 

[ad_hoc]

You've pointed out this glaring example of bad design in 5e a few times now.

The OP, I think, is looking for ways to overcome this bad design so as to maintain some internal consistency in his/her setting while at the same time being able to run the adventure s/he wants to.

Got any suggestions?

It's great design.

The alternative would be a nightmare. It was one of the worst aspects of 3e.

I don't have any other suggestions because it isn't broken. My suggestion is just to use it as intended. Saying the world is only as large as the PCs is needlessly limiting the world.

 

[billd91]

It's great design.

The alternative would be a nightmare. It was one of the worst aspects of 3e.

I don't have any other suggestions because it isn't broken. My suggestion is just to use it as intended. Saying the world is only as large as the PCs is needlessly limiting the world.

Oh, gimmie a break. It wasn't a freakin' nightmare. It was just different and a little more complicated and time consuming. It wasn't a Sisyphean task or anything.

NEITHER is bad design. They're just different and follow different goals. I like a bit of both, frankly, depending on my goals for particular encounters.

 

[Lanefan]

It's great design.

The alternative would be a nightmare. It was one of the worst aspects of 3e.

IMO it's something 3e got bang-on right, though it went overboard with commoner classes etc.

I don't have any other suggestions because it isn't broken. My suggestion is just to use it as intended. Saying the world is only as large as the PCs is needlessly limiting the world.

I'm saying that what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, otherwise the setting has no internal consistency.

Put another way, there has to be an underlying mechanical explanation for anything that happens in the fiction, even if said explanation consists of "wild magic surge" (which, by the way, is another option for @Helldritch to mull over).

And several have said that building NPCs in 3e was a pain; but why? You could always just assign numbers and abilities and whatever rather than rolling everything up - all that matters is that the end result is something a PC could in theory also achieve.

In this example, a PC can't long-term charm a bunch of people and thus explaining how an NPC can do it is going to take some fancy talkin'.