D&D 5E 5 Years in: Concentration

[doctorbadwolf]

Lately, I've been growing frustrated with the Concentration mechanics in spells. I think it might be applied a little too much across the spells (I just realized, today, that Protection from Energy is concentration, but Protection from Poison isn't). I tend to not really bother with concentration checks in my game, and I feel that the number of concentration spells can really hurt options (a warlock trying to limit the number of concentration spells they know, or paladin and rangers having to use concentration spells while in the thick of melee).

I was curious of the community's thoughts on the concentration mechanic.

Other than some spells that I don’t think should require it, I am fine with concentration.

I like that casters can be deprived of their spells, on both sides.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The one change to the mechanic itself I might make would be that damage under a certain amount (say, under 5 points) does not trigger a concentration save.

Other than that, and a few individual spells that I don't think need it, concentration works as it is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That aspect perhaps. (Although if that means missing out on extra attacks you're giving up a lot). But you miss the whole aspect of getting off a fireball being a team effort. If the wizard can be interrupted than he needs the Fighter to make sure he isn't interrupted.

I’m considering making a general system Bonus action that allows an attack of opportunity if someone casts a spell within your Melee reach.

 

[Todd Roybark]

since the items/abilities don't require Concentration.

Except most magic items do require Concentration for their spell emulating effects that have the Concentration attribute.

One house rule I am considering is allowing multiple spells to be Concentrated on up to 1/2 Character Proficiency level for Full Casters, and for each spell Concentrated on past the standard one spell, requiring an Attunement slot.

Sacrificing using all Attunement items to Concentrate on 3 spells at 20th level on the surface does not on first glance strike me as too unbalanced. I am sure broken combos can be created, but the same can be said for Magic Item and Spell and Class interactions now.

 

[Krachek]

Concentration break on damage can go out.
It is annoying,
war caster feat is so popular on DnD beyond for some reasons: people don’t like wasting spell.

 

[jayoungr]

Five years in, I love the concentration mechanic as a DM. Multi-buffs are just annoying and frankly make combats less fun. (I have players who cheesed the heck out of 3.5's multi-buffs back in the day, and I'd rather not sit around while they cast eight buffs on themselves before every boss fight.)

As a player, I admit that I do take war caster pretty much any time I can. But I'm okay with that. It still doesn't guarantee not losing a spell, and it makes me more likely to add concentration spells to my spellbook.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We play by the book but there are some things I find lacking/annoying.

Concentration checks are too easy. Using DC 10 or half damage, whichever is higher, is too low. Once you get past lower levels, especially.

Adding in War Caster, as others have said, makes it even worse.

I would estimate, maybe 1 in 4 or 5 spells are ended because of failed Concentration checks. At higher levels, once Resilient (if needed) and War Caster are taken, it is closer to 1 in 20 or so.

I have thought about some changes:

• The check to DC 10 or full damage, whichever is higher. (Or chance the minimum DC to 15...)
• The check uses your spellcasting modifier (instead of a save), so you are automatically proficient.
• You can concentrate on a number of spells equal to your spellcasting ability score modifier.
• If you fail a concentrate check, you lose all concentration spells you have active.

But, I am still thinking about it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have thought about some changes:

• The check to DC 10 or full damage, whichever is higher.
• The check uses your spellcasting modifier (instead of a save), so you are automatically proficient.
• You can concentrate on a number of spells equal to your spellcasting ability score modifier.
• If you fail a concentrate check, you lose all concentration spells you have active.

The issue with full damage is that it is pitifully easy to have players take 20 or 30 damage. In 5e, it would be impossible for a caster to make a DC 35 check, but by mid levels, 35 damage is not unreasonable. I've seen 70 damage hit the table towards higher levels.

Additionally, I would be highly nervous about allowing even two concentration spells to stack. That opens up many, many powerful combos and I do not think it is worth it.

 

[jayoungr]

I would estimate, maybe 1 in 4 or 5 spells are ended because of failed Concentration checks. At higher levels, once Resilient (if needed) and War Caster are taken, it is closer to 1 in 20 or so.

And yet, most people at multiple tables I have played at are hesitant to ever cast a concentration spell (and in some cases, even to learn it) because there's a chance they might lose it. They want to stick to 100% sure things.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The issue with full damage is that it is pitifully easy to have players take 20 or 30 damage. In 5e, it would be impossible for a caster to make a DC 35 check, but by mid levels, 35 damage is not unreasonable. I've seen 70 damage hit the table towards higher levels.

Additionally, I would be highly nervous about allowing even two concentration spells to stack. That opens up many, many powerful combos and I do not think it is worth it.

I know. In our current game we take 25 points per hit commonly, and sometimes as high as 40 or so. But it makes checks harder, which is my intent as I think they are too easy as written. I might keep the half damage, but raise the base DC to 15 from 10. That would be easier now that I think about it.

The risk with multiple concentration spells is if you do get hit and fail one, you fail them all. That makes combining those spells potentially powerful, but also risky. I know it is also a balance issue, which is why I am still thinking about it. If we try it out and it is too strong, we'll remove it.

And yet, most people at multiple tables I have played at are hesitant to ever cast a concentration spell (and in some cases, even to learn it) because there's a chance they might lose it. They want to stick to 100% sure things.

As I play casters most of the time, I understand their concern, but IME I am more hesitant to start a concentration spell because it is likely before it runs out I am going to need to cast another one and lose the first. When I select my spells, I shoot for a strong blend of instant, set duration, and concentration.