D&D 5E Homebrew: Removing Concentration From The Less Popular Spells

[ad_hoc]

3rd Level:

Blinding Smite
Elemental Weapon
Lightning Arrow
Vampiric Touch

 

[Gadget]

In order for homebrew to be well designed and effective I believe it needs to follow KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

In that regard removing Concentration from spells in order to buff them is a good solution.

The point I was making is that Concentration is not necessarily the problem with many of these spells, and a blanket "remove concentration from all these spells" is not going to "fix" them, KISS principle notwithstanding. Plus, seriously, Flame Arrows isn't on your list?

 

[ad_hoc]

The point I was making is that Concentration is not necessarily the problem with many of these spells, and a blanket "remove concentration from all these spells" is not going to "fix" them, KISS principle notwithstanding. Plus, seriously, Flame Arrows isn't on your list?

So make another thread about making different changes to spells.

You can also suggest adding or removing spells from my list without attacking me. I made a quick list to give us a starting point.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

The point I was making is that Concentration is not necessarily the problem with many of these spells, and a blanket "remove concentration from all these spells" is not going to "fix" them, KISS principle notwithstanding.

I realize that removing concentration from a couple of spells will probably not fix them all. After all there are some real stinker spells out there. But rebalancing individual spells it out of scope for me at this time simply because I'm lazy and balance is hard work. For now I'll be satisfied if at least a couple of spells become viable and get picked up by my group. It's not a lot but it's a start.

This preparatory work did require effort, but I think having guiding principles to help keep my evaluations consistent is worth it. This way I'm less likely to drift my criteria half way through evaluating all of the spells. It also can reduce work overall as I go through if I can categorize a spell and get a good idea of which way to go just based on that.

 

[Laurefindel]

I just had a thought...

What if the target of a concentration spell can remove the concentration requirement but it uses one of the target's attunement slots (without the one hour requirement)? If a concentration spell targets multiple creatures or objects, you cannot use this feature (or maybe every target must all use an attunement slot?). If you like the idea but don't want it as a free feature, make this ability a feat or per use class feature for spellcasting or something.

This way, low magic item games could garner more use from magic spells, and in ones with more magical items you would have to choose more.

Any appeal?

So three floating "slots" which can be used for attunement an/or concentration. This would allow a caster to concentrate on four different spells however, which I think is swinging to far the other way.

Also, I'd still be worried that characters would eschew more "flavorful" magic items for the opportunity to concentrate on multiple spells.

The basic idea however is not without merit; I always forget about the three attunement slots as a character ressource that could be tapped for other things.

 

[ad_hoc]

So three floating "slots" which can be used for attunement an/or concentration. This would allow a caster to concentrate on four different spells however, which I think is swinging to far the other way.

Also, I'd still be worried that characters would eschew more "flavorful" magic items for the opportunity to concentrate on multiple spells.

The basic idea however is not without merit; I always forget about the three attunement slots as a character ressource that could be tapped for other things.

That depends on how many items are in a game. I can't imagine coming close to the attunement limit in the games I play. Maybe a couple characters get 2.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So three floating "slots" which can be used for attunement an/or concentration. This would allow a caster to concentrate on four different spells however, which I think is swinging to far the other way.

Also, I'd still be worried that characters would eschew more "flavorful" magic items for the opportunity to concentrate on multiple spells.

The basic idea however is not without merit; I always forget about the three attunement slots as a character ressource that could be tapped for other things.

A total of four might be too much, I don't know. But I think in a no- or low- magic item game it might work, and in a more typical game where most characters might have 1 or 2 attuned items, I don't think it would hurt...
YMMV of course.

 

[Laurefindel]

That depends on how many items are in a game. I can't imagine coming close to the attunement limit in the games I play. Maybe a couple characters get 2.

True. Now that I'm thinking of it, I can't recall any of my characters having more than two, let alone having to make hard choices to keep it down to three...

 

[DND_Reborn]

True. Now that I'm thinking of it, I can't recall any of my characters having more than two, let alone having to make hard choices to keep it down to three...

Yeah, but it seems (I could be wrong) most of the items that would really appeal to spellcasters have attunement as a requirement. The trick would be if it allowed the target of the spell to use their attunement slots, which was my original thought, and not just the caster....

 

[ad_hoc]

The point I was making is that Concentration is not necessarily the problem with many of these spells, and a blanket "remove concentration from all these spells" is not going to "fix" them, KISS principle notwithstanding. Plus, seriously, Flame Arrows isn't on your list?

I just looked it up. Flame Arrows isn't even in the PHB.

You were really reaching for something to complain about there.