D&D 5E Experimental Concentration Spell Stacking Houserule

[Kobold Avenger]

I certainly was thinking of removing the check from concentration, so making "focus" (no check needed, but you can only have 1 of) and "concentration" (check needed, and you can only have 1 of) as different things or "concentration" as a subset of "focus" would be a way to go.

I'd have most spells requiring concentration like Protection From Energy, be "focus" spells. Generally only the most problematic spells be "concentration" like Resilient Sphere (1 failed save and you're locked away for the entire duration).

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

The Tal'dorei sourcebook has a dual concentration feat.

For my part, I would not mess with concentration. If you get a combination like just fly (or even just levitate) and greater invisibility, you've got a PC that can snipe away with almost zero fear of being hit. Cloudkill and some of the "Wall of" spells and the enemy is helpless. However, your game, your choices. If you are going to allow multiple concentration spells, I'd say that you also need to provision some added oomph for martial classes, like giving each a free fighting style choice at the least.

 

[jgsugden]

I tried a variety of ways to slightly expand concentration. I ended up with the following rule as a simple, and effective, expansion of the concentration mechanic that does not go too far:

You may concentrate on two spells so long as at least one of them targets you, and only you. Otherwise, you may concentrate on only one spell.

 

[GlassJaw]

For my part, I would not mess with concentration. If you get a combination like just fly (or even just levitate) and greater invisibility, you've got a PC that can snipe away with almost zero fear of being hit. Cloudkill and some of the "Wall of" spells and the enemy is helpless. However, your game, your choices. If you are going to allow multiple concentration spells, I'd say that you also need to provision some added oomph for martial classes, like giving each a free fighting style choice at the least.

I wouldn't remove concentration from any of those spells. Problem solved.

If done properly, removing concentration from a select group of spells doesn't increase the power of casters. It merely makes spells that are barely used get some consideration.

 

[Vael]

Rather than attempt to rework the entire 5e spell section, I'd be more tempted to give very limited ways for casters to concentrate on multiple spells.

For example:
- Give Sorcerers a Persist Spell Metamagic. When casting a spell that only targets the Sorcerer (so personal or single target), they can expend Sorcery points equal to the spell's level to remove concentration.
- New Feat: Spell Focus When you pick this feat, choose a school of magic (Abjuration, Conjuration, etc.). You may concentrate on two spells only if they are both from that school of magic.
- Possibly a legendary magic item, like a caster's crown that can hold concentration on a spell.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The higher DC is an improvement.

By itself, "fail any concentration check and lose all spells" is insufficiently risky to make it an interesting trade-off. If you're deciding between casting a second concentration spell, and waiting until you lose concentration on the first one to cast the second one...which both costs an action and has probably missed most fo the fight...why wouldn't you go with double concentration? There are edge cases, sure, but in general it's a better strategy to stack.

In my mind it should be the other way around: the times when it's worth the risk to stack concentration should be the edge cases.

I should note that casting the second (and subsequent) concentration spells requires a check for any currently active spells. So, while it makes sense to stack two, when you cast the second you run the risk of losing the first and the second anyway.

This pretty much stops a lot of cheese uses IME. Might be more problematic at higher levels, but so far it has worked well.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Possibly? It all depends on the DM deciding what gets to stay concentration and what doesn't. Removing concentration opens up a ton of options, and even a great DM might not be able to predict every broken combo.

I wouldn't remove concentration from any of those spells. Problem solved.

If done properly, removing concentration from a select group of spells doesn't increase the power of casters. It merely makes spells that are barely used get some consideration.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm in the "just fix the spells" camp. If the concentration requirement on a given spell is so burdensome that no one takes it, the cleanest solution is to either a) remove the requirement or b) power-up the spell.

 

[GlassJaw]

I tried a variety of ways to slightly expand concentration. I ended up with the following rule as a simple, and effective, expansion of the concentration mechanic that does not go too far:

You may concentrate on two spells so long as at least one of them targets you, and only you. Otherwise, you may concentrate on only one spell.

Because of this thread, I started working on my "remove concentration" spell list again. As I went through it, I started thinking this same exact thing.

Most of the spells I was putting on my list were single-target or self buffs, or single-target attack spells that had concentration and also required an attack roll or allowed a save every round.

But if you simply implement your rule above, it essentially covers all the spells that rarely get used because of the concentration requirement. I like it a lot.

Now a druid can have barkskin and flaming sphere up, a paladin can cast bless and still use searing smite, and a wizard can have blur and still cast witch bolt. Seems fine to me.

 

[Laurefindel]

I'm in the "just fix the spells" camp. If the concentration requirement on a given spell is so burdensome that no one takes it, the cleanest solution is to either a) remove the requirement or b) power-up the spell.

While I agree that this is best, it does take a significant investment in the project, and it may take a while to have satisfactory results. In addition, any type of retcon alteration to the system creates potential confusion (did we fixed that spell or not?) and/or large amount of reprint.

A (wannabe) universal add-on fix has the advantage of being applied on top of the existing rules and documentation. It’s not perfect, but in some situations it can be preferable to a system-wide revision or status-quo.

That being said, I long for a thoroughly revised Part 3 of the PHB where you basically toss the existing one for the revised spell section.