D&D 5E 5 Years in: Concentration

[dave2008]

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 agree, I just don't personally need the tricks to be in the books. I guess, ideally, they could publish a monster "UA" with variant rules and guidelines for tweaking monsters for different play styles, levels of magic, and optimization.

 

[dave2008]

I think using feats to tweak a system is a bad idea. They are optional rules.

Tweaking the concentration mechanic would be an optional rule, so it makes sense to me. At this point there is no option except an optional / variant rule.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

We had a feat for a while:

Focused Caster
When you are concentrating on a spell, you can cast and concentrate on a second spell. If you take damage, while concentrating on two spells, you make your Concentration check with disadvantage. If you fail the check, you lose concentration on both spells.

 

[dave2008]

We had a feat for a while:

Focused Caster
When you are concentrating on a spell, you can cast and concentrate on a second spell. If you take damage, while concentrating on two spells, you make your Concentration check with disadvantage. If you fail the check, you lose concentration on both spells.

The disadvantage + loosing both spells seems harsh. Why did you only use this feat "for a while?"

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The disadvantage + loosing both spells seems harsh.

If I were writing a feat to grant double concentration, that's pretty much exactly how I'd have done it.

 

[Blue]

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.

The Sorcerer can not have up two Concentration spells. Ever.

IF the Sorcerer picks a particular metamagic, they can have up two instances of the same spell, from a very limited selection of spells (single target only), cast with the same slot.

That last bit is a limitation too - session before last we had our sorcerer with Invisibility on himself and our rogue as they were split from the rest of the party. They got split up by circumstances and the sorcerer had becoem visible. He couldn't re-invisible himself without dropping it on the rogue, since the rogue was out of line of sight and couldn't be a target for a recasting.

So the sorcerer right now has a small taste of what it's like. But they can't have two different spells up, and which spell it can be is quite limited which is a big deal with the limited spells known of the Sorc. What they do now is really far from "Sorcerers can manage to Concentrate on two spells".

 

[dave2008]

If I were writing a feat to grant double concentration, that's pretty much exactly how I'd have done it.

I think it makes some sense as a baseline, but to harsh for a feat. It is pretty risky choice as a feat. With disadvantage that is going to bite you quite a bit I would think, and now you've wasted a feat on it.

I it makes some sense if you try to concentrate on 2 things there are draw backs, I get that. But then your not really a "focused caster." I think that might be an interesting baseline rule for anyone to attempt extra concentration instead of a feat.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The disadvantage + loosing both spells seems harsh. Why did you only use this feat "for a while?"

No one took it LOL. I guess we were so used to the system as is, we have learned to deal with the present concentration restrictions.

It is like Reactive ( a feat allowing two reactions per round), good in theory and strong, but no one took it.

It isn't harsh also because once you take War Caster, you remove the disadvantage.

 

[Blue]

I am on the fence regarding concentration. It keeps the balance of power in check, but it is also too limiting in many respects, and for the enemy, too damn easy to break concentration. Even a wizard hit by a single magic missile, 2 points from a dagger, and 1 point from a waffled firebolt, would be forced to roll three DC 10 Con saves to maintain his spell.

I found your example to be a bit contrived in showing low damage to try to emotionally support your point. It's focus fire from three sources - not a small effort fromt he opposition. The exact same thing could have been:

The wizard fails a save vs. Call Lightning for 18, gets critted by an Ogre for 20, and makes a save vs. Fireball and also takes 20.

It's the same three DC 10 saves. But it sounds a lot different.

EDIT: I misread Firebolt as Fireball. Thanks @Galandris for pointing out my mistake.

 

[Nebulous]

I think it makes some sense as a baseline, but to harsh for a feat. It is pretty risky choice as a feat. With disadvantage that is going to bite you quite a bit I would think, and now you've wasted a feat on it.

I it makes some sense if you try to concentrate on 2 things there are draw backs, I get that. But then your not really a "focused caster." I think that might be an interesting baseline rule for anyone to attempt extra concentration instead of a feat.

I think it sounds like a decent idea, I might try something like that, but it would be hard to get players to do it too I think.