D&D 5E 5 Years in: Concentration

[Ashrym]

Most PC put a 14 in their constitution score. This means that they have a 55% chance of success. Add in warcaster and you get about 80% to succeed any normal non massive damage concentration checks. Monsters/NPCs do not have this luxury. When a caster take resilient and chose constitution, then you even add proficiency to it. At level 9 it is an other +3 (15% maybe even 20% if it raises the constitution of the PC to 16) pushing up the chance at the 95% success rate on a non massive damage concentration roll. Failure is almost non existant in this case (which happens quite a lot at my table).

Taking resilient CON and warcaster and capping caster stat is 16th level. Chances are very slim that character would fail a DC 10 concentration check but a dragon breath weapon attack still breaks it.

At higher levels there are higher DC checks.

The frequency of losing concentration does go down but the stacking of concentration effects still creates restrictions.

This thread shows one of the sorcerer benefits -- starting with CON save proficiency.

 

[Blue]

I feel that Concentration is one of the (many) shining lights of 5e.

My only complaints within 5e is that there is a limited selection of spells that I think should have been done in non-Concentration ways because I don't think it fits both thematically and balance wise. The Paladin smites are the most obvious one.

For a 6e type of idea that messes with balance too much to bring into 5e (or a 5.5e), I wouldn't mind the ability to have a second Concentration in specific circumstances. Perhaps a Wizard (Illusionist) in Tier 3 can maintain Concentration on an illusion/phantasm as well as another spell. Or an archmage can concentrate on an extra spell of levels 1-2. Or maybe that could be something to make the sorcerer more unique, with their natural talent allowing more than one Concentration. (Though careful with Twin Spell to make sure they don't double up on it twice for four single target Concentration effects from a single caster.)

But right now, I am loving how Concentration makes me be tactical as a caster, and as someone at a table how much it avoid the layered buffs/debuffs of earlier editions.

 

[aco175]

My group mostly remembers to check. As the DM, I may not remember checking for the bad guys. We tend to place markers on the affected creatures though. Some defense spells that buff the bad guys could be skipped checking concentration and not affect them being defeated.

Does a mechanic make sense that allows casters to cast the spell with no concentration but limits the duration? A limit of 1/round per attribute modifier, or even limit things to certain types of casters or builds.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I feel that Concentration is one of the (many) shining lights of 5e.

My only complaints within 5e is that there is a limited selection of spells that I think should have been done in non-Concentration ways because I don't think it fits both thematically and balance wise. The Paladin smites are the most obvious one.

For a 6e type of idea that messes with balance too much to bring into 5e (or a 5.5e), I wouldn't mind the ability to have a second Concentration in specific circumstances. Perhaps a Wizard (Illusionist) in Tier 3 can maintain Concentration on an illusion/phantasm as well as another spell. Or an archmage can concentrate on an extra spell of levels 1-2. Or maybe that could be something to make the sorcerer more unique, with their natural talent allowing more than one Concentration. (Though careful with Twin Spell to make sure they don't double up on it twice for four single target Concentration effects from a single caster.)

But right now, I am loving how Concentration makes me be tactical as a caster, and as someone at a table how much it avoid the layered buffs/debuffs of earlier editions.

I've toyed around with the idea of allowing a concentration spell to be cast without concentration, but to do so requires a spell slot 2 levels higher than normal (and that requirement would be cumulative on top of any regular upcast as well). Which is basically applying the Bestow Curse model to the general mechanic.

 

[NotAYakk]

I feel that Concentration is one of the (many) shining lights of 5e.

My only complaints within 5e is that there is a limited selection of spells that I think should have been done in non-Concentration ways because I don't think it fits both thematically and balance wise. The Paladin smites are the most obvious one.

Well, yes the "Smite" spells being concentration looks like a flaw. They wanted them to be non-overlapping with each other, but permit missing, and they didn't want to add a new spellcasting action type.

Had they been casting time "Hit Triggered" (which would apply to standard smites, and you can cast one "Hit Triggered" spell per hit) or even "Reaction" (to hitting) I think they'd be better.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For a 6e type of idea that messes with balance too much to bring into 5e (or a 5.5e), I wouldn't mind the ability to have a second Concentration in specific circumstances. Perhaps a Wizard (Illusionist) in Tier 3 can maintain Concentration on an illusion/phantasm as well as another spell. Or an archmage can concentrate on an extra spell of levels 1-2. Or maybe that could be something to make the sorcerer more unique, with their natural talent allowing more than one Concentration. (Though careful with Twin Spell to make sure they don't double up on it twice for four single target Concentration effects from a single caster.)

I think you just demonstrated that the sorcerer is already uniquely capable of concentrating on two spell effects at once through Twin Spell. And on the wizard side, enchanters get Split Enchantment.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure they do. There are spells requiring both attack rolls and saves.

Some of them are set up to where the attack roll does one thing, and the target then gets a save to avoid another thing. Several of the Paladin's various Smite spells are examples of this. The end result is that the spell can do nothing (attack misses), something (attack hits but target makes save), or everything (attack hits and target fails save). And these Smite spells even require Concentration to boot!

See also Ray of Sickness, Ensnaring Strike, etc.

Ice Knife is another example of this split effect, requiring both an attack roll and a save. Attack roll for initial damage, with a subsequent DEX save for further damage. The difference with this spell is that even if the initial attack roll misses, the target still has to make the DEX save, so it adds a fourth outcome. So it can do nothing (attack misses and target makes save), something (attack hits but target makes save), another something (attack misses but target fails save), or everything (attack hits and target fails save).

And while they're rare, there are a others that require both an attack and a save for an "all or nothing" effect, like Plane Shift. It requires both a successful attack roll and a failed CHA save by the target. If the attack misses or the target makes its save, the spell fails.

I meant the attack and save are both required to avoid the initial effect, which I can't think of any. There are certainly spells where the save is needed for a rider effect. That was my point. Sorry if it was unclear.

 

[dave2008]

I think the concept could actually be expanded to more uses than just spells. That being said, I think the mechanic / spells that require concentration could be tweaked. For instance, a feat allowing you to concentrate on an additional spell would seem safe.

@FrogReaver , you applied the to my post above. Just curious what you thought was sad?

1. The idea concentration could be applied to more than spells, or...
2. The idea that the concentration mechanic could be tweaked, or...
3. A feat to allow you to stack 2 concentration tasks, or...
4. All of the above.

 

[Nebulous]

I think allowing a feat to concentrate on two spells at once is a viable option for the game, and hopefully one WotC will explore as the game ages. What I really always insist on though is that what's fair for the player is fair for the monster. They need some of the same tricks to keep up, otherwise it quickly becomes unbalanced.

 

[DwarfHammer]

I think allowing a feat to concentrate on two spells at once is a viable option for the game, and hopefully one WotC will explore as the game ages. What I really always insist on though is that what's fair for the player is fair for the monster. They need some of the same tricks to keep up, otherwise it quickly becomes unbalanced.

I think using feats to tweak a system is a bad idea. They are optional rules. It will also become a must have feat. I don’t like having to use feats to correct a problem.