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

[Don Durito]

Concentration is effectively a balancing tool. Consequently, the questions that we should probably ask for each spell that requires concentration are: (a) does the spell need to be balanced with other spells to avoid 'stacking' effects; and (b) if so, is concentration the best way to do so.

Stacking of buffs was such a problem in 3E that it seems the design philosophy for 5E is to err so far on the side of caution that the application of concentration to a lot of spells simply means that they are never seen in actual play. IMHO there are many, better ways of balancing spells than simply tacking "concentration" onto them.

[One thing I realised only a couple of weeks ago when prepping an NPC spellcaster was that stoneskin was a concentration spell; a concentration spell that required 100gp of diamond dust to cast that was consumed during casting. The immediate question I had was - if there's an inherent, expensive cost to casting a spell, why isn't that sufficient to ensure it's not spammed all the time. (And since stoneskin protects against non-magical weapon attacks only, it's pretty useless for NPCs once PCs are past 5th level or so). So, arbitrarily and without any concern for breaking the game, I ruled that stoneskin was not a concentration spell.]

Cheers, Al'kelhar

Because spells have to be balanced not only by their components but also by the fact that people are going to ignore the fact that they are balanced by their components and handwave them away in true old school style.

 

[keynup]

Some thoughts to think about.

Increase the the concentration DC for each spell after the 1st. Either +1 or +2 for each, or more extreme 2/4/8/16.
or
When making a concentration check roll for each an every spell separately.
and/or
Make a concentration check every time you add a spell after the 1st.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Some thoughts to think about.

Increase the the concentration DC for each spell after the 1st. Either +1 or +2 for each, or more extreme 2/4/8/16.
or
When making a concentration check roll for each an every spell separately.
and/or
Make a concentration check every time you add a spell after the 1st.

That is an interesting idea. You can cast a second concentration spell, but risk losing both before you ever get attacked or anything. However, given how easy it is to make the check for optimized characters, this won't be much of a risk...

 

[Don Durito]

That is an interesting idea. You can cast a second concentration spell, but risk losing both before you ever get attacked or anything. However, given how easy it is to make the check for optimized characters, this won't be much of a risk...

To make something like this work you need something like 13th Age's Easy/Moderate/Hard Saves. (6+/11+/16+ roll on a D20 respectively).

So add a second spell make an easy save or lose both, a third spell make a moderate save etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn't know Stoneskin was Concentration. That seems to fly in the face of the very thing it was designed to do, protecting you from damage.

Barkskin as well. It’d be fine as a spell if it wasn’t concentration.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is an interesting idea. You can cast a second concentration spell, but risk losing both before you ever get attacked or anything. However, given how easy it is to make the check for optimized characters, this won't be much of a risk...

Should optimized characters really even be a significant design metric, though?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Should optimized characters really even be a significant design metric, though?

After a fashion, yes. Of course not every table has a min/maxer but IME there are usually a couple.

Look at it this way, if you were a caster and knew losing your concentration would cost you your spells, wouldn't you do everything in your power to be better at it??

Adventuring, in theory if not in practice, is a dangerous career and because of HP dependency, you will most often see CON as a top three ability score, if not top two. IME rarely is it ever one of the lower scores (it happens, of course, but not often). Besides, for games with feats (most of them) War Caster is one of the top feats primarily for concentration (Resilient for CON taken by casters is a close second, and I have seen casters with both--almost overkill IMO).

We know enough people have griped about CON being the base for concentration and have encouraged making it based on your spellcasting ability score instead. It is a way to reduce MAD, which many players would like to see. Others have said also make it a check all casters are proficient in as well.

In the next game that I am running, I am helping reduce MAD by removing hit point dependency on CON (CON will still be important, but in other ways). But if you take concentration from it as well, it would become a dump stat for many casters... not necessarily a bad thing, but is a good thing??? shrug

Ultimately of course it is a balancing act between newbies who don't think about it or aren't aware of it, newbies who are, veterans who don't care and want to play more for flavor, veterans who will squeeze every point out of every thing they possibly can, and everyone in between!

That is why whenever a new house-rule or homebrew is suggested, one of the first questions is "Does this break anything or make it OP?"

Anyway, to balance out the optimized aspect, one thing you could do is make Concentration checks a special check, sort of like the Death Save. Keep the same DC, but have it based solely on proficiency bonus so a more experienced caster is like to retain concentration. Removing a linked ability score will reduce the necessity on CON and denying a link to the spellcasting ability score will keep the check a bit harder since it won't gain that bonus. I am not sure of the numbers, but to me that sounds like a good place for it. shrugs again

 

[tetrasodium]

After a fashion, yes. Of course not every table has a min/maxer but IME there are usually a couple.

Look at it this way, if you were a caster and knew losing your concentration would cost you your spells, wouldn't you do everything in your power to be better at it??

Adventuring, in theory if not in practice, is a dangerous career and because of HP dependency, you will most often see CON as a top three ability score, if not top two. IME rarely is it ever one of the lower scores (it happens, of course, but not often). Besides, for games with feats (most of them) War Caster is one of the top feats primarily for concentration (Resilient for CON taken by casters is a close second, and I have seen casters with both--almost overkill IMO).

We know enough people have griped about CON being the base for concentration and have encouraged making it based on your spellcasting ability score instead. It is a way to reduce MAD, which many players would like to see. Others have said also make it a check all casters are proficient in as well.

In the next game that I am running, I am helping reduce MAD by removing hit point dependency on CON (CON will still be important, but in other ways). But if you take concentration from it as well, it would become a dump stat for many casters... not necessarily a bad thing, but is a good thing??? shrug

Ultimately of course it is a balancing act between newbies who don't think about it or aren't aware of it, newbies who are, veterans who don't care and want to play more for flavor, veterans who will squeeze every point out of every thing they possibly can, and everyone in between!

That is why whenever a new house-rule or homebrew is suggested, one of the first questions is "Does this break anything or make it OP?"

Anyway, to balance out the optimized aspect, one thing you could do is make Concentration checks a special check, sort of like the Death Save. Keep the same DC, but have it based solely on proficiency bonus so a more experienced caster is like to retain concentration. Removing a linked ability score will reduce the necessity on CON and denying a link to the spellcasting ability score will keep the check a bit harder since it won't gain that bonus. I am not sure of the numbers, but to me that sounds like a good place for it. shrugs again

int based spellcraft for wizard/ek/at/artificer, wis based belief for cleric/druid, cha based... spirit(?) for sorcerer/warlock/pally?

 

[Don Durito]

Should optimized characters really even be a significant design metric, though?

It's not just about optimised characters. No one likes to feel they have to choose between the flavourful option and the really obvious option that will increase their mechanical effectiveness.

 

[DND_Reborn]

int based spellcraft for wizard/ek/at/artificer, wis based belief for cleric/druid, cha based... spirit(?) for sorcerer/warlock/pally?

I am not certain which part of my post you are going of from?

My last point, which upon reflection while I was writing it, was to decouple the concentration check from any ability score--not CON, nor INT, WIS, or CHA--none of them, and have it be solely proficiency-based.

But it seems more like you are agreeing with the camp of people who want to see it removed from CON and tied into spellcasting ability--whichever is used for each class? That's fine if that's the case, a lot of people have thought that would be a better solution than CON.