D&D 5E Abandoning attunement and scaling back concentration

[werecorpse]

Putting together @5ekyu and @vincegetorix suggestions, how about this:

You can concentrate on a number of spells equal to your tier. Thus, casters get better as they level (makes sense) and can stack more and more spells, and concentration can still be broken and spells disrupted.

Yep can see that as a path.

 

[Blue]

I know about CoDzilla, I still don’t accept that D&D was not a fine game before the 5e concentration mechanic.

But the question isn't "was D&D a fine game". The question is "were there abuses due to casters having too many ongoing spells up?". If you know about CoDzilla then you know the answer is yes - there were abuses. Changing the question to something different so it's easily demolished is usually considered a strawman.

The facts don’t only support one side of the argument.

The facts absolutely support one side of the argument when you ask the question that I had brought up in the first place.

Were there abuses due to too many spells up? Yes.

3e/3.5/Pathfinder without this mechanic has been successful. I know people who still primarily play it without experiencing a problem with unrestrained buffing. I accept that some people did and for their playstyles the 5e RAW type of concentration mechanic may be a good solution. This suggestion of allowing upcasting of spells to remove the concentration requirement of some spells may not be for them. Others may find it a useful way to consider tinkering with the game.

When you get down to it, any balance rule can be removed with "well my table would never do that". And of course you are welcome to house rule for your table. But don't also try to say that no such problem exists when you are publishing it in a public forum, that's misleading other people whom are not at your table and trying to make an informed decision.

 

[jgsugden]

I built two house rules for these ideas, but found them unnecessary.

I don't suggest removing attunement, but you might consider altering it. I was going to allow players 15 'points' of attunement, and assign each item an attunement score. Most items would be 5 points (and none are more than 5 points), but some are as low as 1 point (many common magic items would be one, which conditional uncommons might be 2 or 3).

For concentration, I actually have the rule in place, but nobody uses it. Spellcasters have concentration points. They are your level as a spellcaster divided by 2 (and rounded up). The spell level a spell is cast at determines how many concentration points a spell takes. Each spell beyond the first requires an additional concentration point. So, at 5th level you have three concentration points and can concentrate on two first level spells cast at first level (1 CP for the first spell and 2 for the second spell cast at first level). An 11th level caster would have 6 CP and be able to concentrate on a 2nd and 3rd, or alternatively a 2nd and two 1st.

 

[Esker]

What about something like introducing a "bonus" concentration slot which exists alongside the regular concentration slot in much the same way that the bonus action exists alongside the regular action. Most spells occupy the standard concentration slot, but some can be offloaded to the bonus slot by upcasting (and perhaps some that are not often used, because their effect is too weak to justify the opportunity cost of concentration, naturally occupy the bonus slot). Upcast levels used for this purpose do not count toward normal scaling. ln addition, if a caster using both slots has to make a concentration check, the DC is increased by an amount equal to the level of the lower level spell (and if they lose concentration they lose both spells).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I’ve played D&D since 1e though skipped 4e and played 3e/pathfinder during that era and have played 5e close to RAW since it came out. Two of the rules which are supposedly in place to keep a lid on characters getting too powerful are the magic item attunement limit and concentration mechanic. I plan to get rid of attunement and rework most of the phb concentration spells to enable upcasting the spell to cast it without concentration and here is my thinking on both.

Bear in mind this is obviously a discussion about homebrew rules so I am not considering adventurers league, nor am I calling the current rules dumb they have to work for a wide range of tables including open play games I’m talking about changing them in my games which are long term games/campaigns that run with for years and across all levels.

Attunement is meant to act to control the amount of magic items a character can have but whether they are attunable or not is largely irrelevant to the impact the magic items will have in the game. +3 plate doesn’t require attunement, boots of levitation do (and using them requires concentration btw). In practice the attunement limit is only relevant if the GM gives out sufficient magic items that it comes into effect (if they don’t it is irrelevant) at which point it’s effect is to stop the players from getting to use some of the magic items they have found unless they aren’t using others they have found. I largely believe the obligation to balance items given out is on the GM- this is how it worked from1e-3e and still should be the case. Also getting to use the treasure and the magic items you find in the game is one of the fun parts of the game. Thus imo the attunement limit in a practical sense works more as a limit on fun than other stuff. My high level character with his belt of dwarvenkind, pearl of power and staff of healing isn’t that interested in the cool wand of web - it’s not overpowered for sure but I’m not going to waste an Attunement slot on it, maybe I can trade it for a third wand of magic missiles they don’t require attunement?

As for concentration; in the game of Bushido They limited spell stacking by saying that certain spells couldn’t be active on the same person at the same time ie no stoneskin and resist elements. This wasn’t a bad way to limit spell stacking. In 5e they’ve gone the other way by saying that your limit is based in the number of casters you have. Like attunement I see this as not a big deal at low level but at higher level begins to suck the fun out of the game. The fighter needs stoneskin because we are fighting giants so the Mage can’t fly or be invisible or cast a wall spell ok I guess I’ll just cantrip or lightning bolt each round. Having played earlier editions I’m aware of the problem where the caster starts each combat with 7+ spells up. This meant that the difference between the characters who had a minute to prepare and when they didn’t was vast making balancing encounters very difficult. Ie In 1e - 3e If the party is ready to fight the 4 chimera and their fire giant beastmaster it’s a tough fight, if not they will get smashed. This is less so in 5e because you can’t overprepare. However in 5e characters have very few high level spell slots, and not an over abundance of low level ones they already have a massive limitation built in. So what I have done is go through the phb and for most concentration spells I’ve allowed a caster to rid themselves of the concentration requirement by upcasting the spell 1-2 levels. So web cast as a 3rd level spell doesn’t need concentration, same with blur cast as a 4th level spell, greater invisibility when cast as a 6th level spell. I’ve kept concentration as unremoveable for some spells (spirit guardians for example it lasts a long time otherwise ).

With both of these I acknowledge they empower players a bit more but I’m not worried about game balance issues - it’s a home campaign and I can handle that side of it.

I hunted around a bit to see how others have dealt with these issues but couldn’t find much so I’m posting this to see what others have done and what they think.

As a long-time 1E/2E player, I completely agree. I greatly dislike the concentration mechanic and think attunement is a complete waste. Whatever a table does to remove or de-limit these aspects of the game is an improvement IMO.

For my take, remove attunement entirely. As DM you certainly control how much magic is in your world. Our table is thinking about going to a super-gritty very low magic game next. We prefer it that way. Personally I don't like "mundane" magic items. I prefer fewer items, but when a character gets something, they are likely to keep in an not "upgrade" as upgrades simply don't happen that often.

For concentration, given how few spell slots casters get compared to 1E, especially at higher levels, I would remove it entirely. Your idea of casting it using a higher level slot is perfectly fine to me as well. IME concentration spells are rarely broken anyway. The biggest thing it does is limit casters to having one at a time. If casters want to blow all their spell slots by casting lots of buffs, go ahead, you'll regret it later.

While others might not like the idea that a spell, once cast, is in effect unless dispelled (damaging the caster really shouldn't stop the magic from running its course IMO), and that is one of the things that made magic so powerful and feared.

CoDzilla is a problem created in later editions. 1E/2E IS FINE and no game I've ever played in using those editions had a problem with the power-difference between casters and non-casters. Even the quadratic-wizard/liner-fighter idea is overblown IME and IMO.

There are other ways that 5E is subject to abuse, but it has reigned in a lot from 3E, etc.

Anyway, if you want to keep concentration in some form there are lots of ways to do it. Higher level slots, a greater limit on how many concentration spells you can have at one time (limited by tier, spellcasting modifier, a new feat, etc.), maybe checks only on critical hits (normal hits are nearly always a DC 10 save anyway...), have concentration saves made with disadvantage for each spell if you have more than one, allow one "free" no check required spell, and the second makes saves required when damaged, etc.

In our session yesterday, a player who will probably be our DM next in rotation, was asking why not have a feat that allows multiple concentration spells, at least two? Well, the problem with that is many caster characters would end up taking it--and no feat should be that vital to so many characters.

Ultimately it comes down to this: whatever you do for the PCs works against them as well. If the players are ok with an enemy wizard not having to concentrate on spells, or not having a completed spell disrupted when hit, etc. then everything is fine.

Personally, as much as I enjoy 5E, there is a whole bunch of 1E that I miss and think a hybrid between the two would be best.

 

[Krachek]

A feat is a good test to evaluate the true value of a feature.
Some caster may find 1 concentration spell enough for their use.
Invest in a feat will prove your dedication to that feature.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A feat is a good test to evaluate the true value of a feature.
Some caster may find 1 concentration spell enough for their use.
Invest in a feat will prove your dedication to that feature.

I don't know if I would allow this to be used when it is already in use, but I suppose theoretically you could.

 

[werecorpse]

But the question isn't "was D&D a fine game". The question is "were there abuses due to casters having too many ongoing spells up?". If you know about CoDzilla then you know the answer is yes - there were abuses. Changing the question to something different so it's easily demolished is usually considered a strawman.



The facts absolutely support one side of the argument when you ask the question that I had brought up in the first place.

Were there abuses due to too many spells up? Yes.



When you get down to it, any balance rule can be removed with "well my table would never do that". And of course you are welcome to house rule for your table. But don't also try to say that no such problem exists when you are publishing it in a public forum, that's misleading other people whom are not at your table and trying to make an informed decision.

Except that the statement I made which you disagreed with was that D&D did fine for 40 years without the concentration mechanic. I did not disagree that there were abuses but posited that it was still a fine game.

To avoid this continuing would it help if I said “In previous editions I am aware there were abuses with casters having too many spells going up”? I think I said as much in my first post.

Unsurprisingly as I’m discussing 5e I am not focussed on the existence of the 3.5 CoDzilla issue. If you can spell out how it will be repeated in 5e by removing the concentration mechanic in the way I have suggested please do so otherwise it’s not really relevant. To be clear I am not interested in arguing that in 3.5 CoDzilla style abuses didn’t exist, I don’t dispute that they did and I don’t care about that issue, I’m interested in tweaking concentration as applied in 5e and in input on that subject. Your initial posts on that subject were helpful but this trying to construct an argument isn’t.

Secondly, in case it’s unclear I am discussing these rule changes in the context of proposed homebrew rules at my table. Partly to see what I may have missed, for use at my table and partly so that others who play a similar style to me and who may be thinking about house rule changes can see how other people are addressing the issue. To the extent that you raise issues that will not be an issue at my table I don’t think I will worry about them. I acknowledge they may be things for other GMs to consider.

I apologise if due to the structure of my first post I gave the impression I was arguing for something else. Apparently I may have “buried the lead”.

 

[werecorpse]

A feat is a good test to evaluate the true value of a feature.
Some caster may find 1 concentration spell enough for their use.
Invest in a feat will prove your dedication to that feature.

Yep I thought of this but I quite like the “upcasting to make the spell better” mechanic. And one way to make it better is through losing concentration, it adds a cost to ridding onseself of the concentration requirement.

(OT: I think I first saw this mechanic used extensively in Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed back in the 3e era)

 

[Blue]

@werecorpse I got a little focused on denial that a concentration mechanic would have been a major improvement for stopping the spell abused of 3.x. Partially because it felt that brushing them off would translate into a similar action when talking about 5e. The CoDzilla was fueled by 3.x spells that don't exist, we won't see anything that bad in 5e even without concentration.

Trying to transition back to productive, I listed a few issues I had off the top of my head and you commented on them. I'd like to continue from there.

I had hypnotic pattern only at +1 level to make it non concentration because in my experience creatures snap out of it through damage pretty quickly but I see the issue given that you can’t save to break it. Maybe I’ll make it +2.

Foes damaging them takes an attack and hurts them. Foes waking without hurting takes their action. Either way it's a win, and casting again without having to release any still caught in the first casting is a big benefit. That first casting need not be the no-concentration upcast version - if there are sufficient foes still incapacitated then cast the second upcast.

But really, it's can be abused a lot more. Ready to cast after they go. Do Hypnotic Pattern on one group. When your initiative comes up, cast Hypnotic Pattern on ones not currently affected. There are a lot less foes free to try and free their friends, and if they are spending actions/attacks to free foes then the party has unanswered rounds of combat.

Haste I have as +2 levels already (and I’ve changed the +2 AC to make it disadvantage on opportunity attacks due to bounded accuracy issues). I agree it’s a good spell and the twinning is a powerful way to nova it but it’s only a 10 round buff so I’ll wait and see. I like that a hit to the hasting sorcerer doesn’t also rebuff the fighter and if it’s saved for a final fight in high tier 2+ adventure a DM expects a bit of spell buffing shenanigans.

I find 10 rounds is more than enough for a combat, so to me that is "the entire encounter" except under special circumstances. You should probably give this level of attention to all of the buff spells. A caster with concentrationless Greater Invisibility on themselves has a lot less worry about getting concentration on any other spell they cast. Or put it on the rogue and don't worry that it may drop if foes target you.

You mention high-tier-2. One of the mitigating facts I hadn't considered is that since this is for your table, you might be planning for a subset of the level ranges. If Only going up to 5th level spells, a +2 upcast needed is a heavy toll for 3rd level spells. That barrier isn't in very different place when you've got 7th level spells. I've been considering the whole 1-20, but if something like 1-10 is more likely that strengthens the cost of the upcasting and makes it more potent.

Darkness, hex and hunters mark I haven’t allowed casters to remove the concentration requirement as part of upcast.

With how the focus on removing concentration, why did you not allow these? As in, I know why I wouldn't (detailed in the other thread), but what made you go against the remove-concentration direction for these (and potentially other) spells?