D&D 5E Flawless Concentration Feat

[Reynard]

Honestly for players concentration break on damage is a unfun mechanic.
I wonder why we don’t seen more class feature, or feat, or items, or spells that would allow to maintain concentration despite damage.

Emphasis mine.
It seems to me that usually when this word comes up, what it really means is that there are consequences for PCs that players don't like. Concentration is a mechanic that helps balance out the power and versatility of casters, and eliminating it just makes casters even more better. If losing a spell from taking damage is a problem, perhaps have the martials (the ones likely benefiting from whatever the spell is) protect the caster.

Consequences make the game interesting by forcing players to consider them when making decisions, thereby making decisions meaningful. Meaningless decisions are what is unfun, IMO.

 

[Dausuul]

Okay... how about...

So at level 1 you automatically succeed on any attack that deals 20 damage or less. And by the time you're 20th level with your +6 Proficiency mod, anything under 28 damage you just don't bother rolling. You can also use a second concentration effect, which could be incredibly useful, particularly at high levels. I feel like that sweetens the feat significantly.

Allowing you to concentrate on two effects at once isn't a "sweetener"--it's a tanker truck full of high fructose corn syrup. It completely overwhelms anything else the feat might do.

 

[Krachek]

Emphasis mine.
It seems to me that usually when this word comes up, what it really means is that there are consequences for PCs that players don't like. Concentration is a mechanic that helps balance out the power and versatility of casters, and eliminating it just makes casters even more better. If losing a spell from taking damage is a problem, perhaps have the martials (the ones likely benefiting from whatever the spell is) protect the caster.

Consequences make the game interesting by forcing players to consider them when making decisions, thereby making decisions meaningful. Meaningless decisions are what is unfun, IMO.

Those who wants challenge and meaningful decision usually avoid concentration spell unless the gold ones.
I’m not sure, but maybe we would see more different spells use, if the risk of loosing precious spell was more controlled.

 

[loverdrive]

Okay... how about...

So at level 1 you automatically succeed on any attack that deals 20 damage or less. And by the time you're 20th level with your +6 Proficiency mod, anything under 28 damage you just don't bother rolling. You can also use a second concentration effect, which could be incredibly useful, particularly at high levels. I feel like that sweetens the feat significantly.

For comparison, a CR 20 Pit Fiend throws 21 damage with it's Bite, 17 with a claw, and 24 with a tail strike. But with it's flaming mace, that Pit Fiend will hit you for 36, total, forcing a roll.

It's only against potent spell effects or creatures with only a few attacks that are particularly strong that you'll really risk losing Concentration... and you could also go for Warcaster to double up on the protectiveness.

Two concentrations sounds pretty game-breaking.

 

[the Jester]

Those who wants challenge and meaningful decision usually avoid concentration spell unless the gold ones.

I see characters use concentration spells of all kinds all the time. I guess it depends on your playstyle.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Emphasis mine.
It seems to me that usually when this word comes up, what it really means is that there are consequences for PCs that players don't like. Concentration is a mechanic that helps balance out the power and versatility of casters, and eliminating it just makes casters even more better. If losing a spell from taking damage is a problem, perhaps have the martials (the ones likely benefiting from whatever the spell is) protect the caster.

Consequences make the game interesting by forcing players to consider them when making decisions, thereby making decisions meaningful. Meaningless decisions are what is unfun, IMO.

That's not a logical argument for concentration breaking on damage.

That is a logical argument for only being able to concentrate on one spell at once. Literally everything you're saying supports the "only one spell at once" approach, but not breaking on damage. There's no choice with breaking on damage, there's no "meaningful decision", there's nothing interesting or engaging about it at all - even you "have the martials protect the caster" is just white room nonsense that isn't how D&D works - sooner or later casters take damage, and spells break, and the martials are doing their best to protect people anyway.

All that concentration breaking really does is curtail the power of a few spells that could have had their power curtailed in a different way. Whereas only concentrating on one thing is genuinely a meaningful decision.

I see characters use concentration spells of all kinds all the time. I guess it depends on your playstyle.

I'm sure it does but Krachek isn't entirely off the mark when he says the only concentration spells some people cast are the very best ones. There are two reasons for that, of course - it's got to be something so valuable that you're willing to only get a partial duration out of it if you get interrupted, and it's got to be something so valuable that you won't want to cast any other concentration spells whilst it's up.

People who aren't considering those factors probably aren't making a "meaningful decision" to cast a concentration spell.

 

[Steampunkette]

Allowing you to concentrate on two effects at once isn't a "sweetener"--it's a tanker truck full of high fructose corn syrup. It completely overwhelms anything else the feat might do.

Two concentrations sounds pretty game-breaking.

I've rarely found concentration effects to be so enticing as to wish I could use two spell slots on them at once. Maybe that's just my experience with playing spellcasters being very different than either of yours. Which I totally accept.

I defer to your presumed greater knowledge.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay... how about...

So at level 1 you automatically succeed on any attack that deals 20 damage or less. And by the time you're 20th level with your +6 Proficiency mod, anything under 28 damage you just don't bother rolling. You can also use a second concentration effect, which could be incredibly useful, particularly at high levels. I feel like that sweetens the feat significantly.

For comparison, a CR 20 Pit Fiend throws 21 damage with it's Bite, 17 with a claw, and 24 with a tail strike. But with it's flaming mace, that Pit Fiend will hit you for 36, total, forcing a roll.

It's only against potent spell effects or creatures with only a few attacks that are particularly strong that you'll really risk losing Concentration... and you could also go for Warcaster to double up on the protectiveness.

You make one check for each instance of damage you take, it's not something you add. If the dc is more than 10 it means the caster concentrating took 22 points of damage just to hit dc11. The absolute pointless absurdity of it makes the massive overuse of concentration so much more annoying.

That's not a logical argument for concentration breaking on damage.

That is a logical argument for only being able to concentrate on one spell at once. Literally everything you're saying supports the "only one spell at once" approach, but not breaking on damage. There's no choice with breaking on damage, there's no "meaningful decision", there's nothing interesting or engaging about it at all - even you "have the martials protect the caster" is just white room nonsense that isn't how D&D works - sooner or later casters take damage, and spells break, and the martials are doing their best to protect people anyway.

All that concentration breaking really does is curtail the power of a few spells that could have had their power curtailed in a different way. Whereas only concentrating on one thing is genuinely a meaningful decision.

I'm sure it does but Krachek isn't entirely off the mark when he says the only concentration spells some people cast are the very best ones. There are two reasons for that, of course - it's got to be something so valuable that you're willing to only get a partial duration out of it if you get interrupted, and it's got to be something so valuable that you won't want to cast any other concentration spells whilst it's up.

People who aren't considering those factors probably aren't making a "meaningful decision" to cast a concentration spell.

I agree about his argument being one for concentration braking on damage. Concentrating on one thing could have been a meaningful decision ad it been applied with forethought to spells that were designed to leverage it like hex & moonbeam . Instead the spell lists are practically given concentration like kids leaving the pediatrician are given lolipops.

 

[Reynard]

even you "have the martials protect the caster" is just white room nonsense that isn't how D&D works - sooner or later casters take damage, and spells break, and the martials are doing their best to protect people anyway.

1) Concentration checks aren't usually difficult, it is just that when you have to make a lot of them the threat of failing goes up.
2) I DM a lot of games for a lot of different people and it is very rare for players to actively defend the casters. Most people IME do not actively use good team based tactics in 5E because the consequences of failure are so mild. Most combatsexist to eat up a few resources rather than test the party.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

1) Concentration checks aren't usually difficult, it is just that when you have to make a lot of them the threat of failing goes up.
2) I DM a lot of games for a lot of different people and it is very rare for players to actively defend the casters. Most people IME do not actively use good team based tactics in 5E because the consequences of failure are so mild. Most combatsexist to eat up a few resources rather than test the party.

None of which supports the existence of concentration checks, I note.