D&D 5E Abandoning attunement and scaling back concentration

[werecorpse]

I agree that there are some spells that should remain concentration for a variety of reasons

Fwiw I’m proposing the ability for a caster to remove the concentration requirement from about 65 PHB spells via upcasting them using a spell slot 1-2 levels above their base level and I think 3 spells Im straight out removing the requirement without upcasting (Flesh to Stone, Mordenkainens Sword and Weird). I am relying on the fact that even high level 5e casters get very few spell slots above level 5 as a brake on this being abused.

But I am interested in dangerous corner cases to keep an eye on, some of which have been pointed out up thread. Could you specify which spells in your view are dangerous to allow the removal of concentration via upcasting?

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree that there are some spells that should remain concentration for a variety of reasons

No, I mean that the vast majority (more than 98%) absolutely must retain their Concentration requirements, or the whole mechanic quickly loses its power to restrict spellcasters.

As I said, remove Conc from as few as half a dozen spells and you have multiplied spellcaster power.

Since there are 362 spells in the PHB, removing Concentration from six of them leaves 98.3% Hence my comment "more than 98% of spells absolutely must retain Concentration" should be taken quite literally.

 

[Maxperson]

You are correct the main issue I have experienced an issue with is the limit on the number of concentration spells. I’ve done a spell by spell review on the upcasting mechanic but will look at how a multiple stacking option would work.

Another idea would be to just have one concentration spell able to be lost per round, so that you don't lose a ton of spells with one hit against you. I would suggested checking the highest level and work downward until one is lost or none are lost.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would not remove the attunement rule. You are the DM, so by default you can create new magic items, and decide that most of them don't require attunement. But having attunement rules still means to keep the DM in charge, instead of letting the players loose.

Concentration could have been designed in terms of the target rather than in terms of the caster. Each of the two approaches has pros and cons, but in general the idea is avoiding stacking too many effects or conditions. It's not so much about preventing abuse, that also, but the primary reason is probably to avoid slowing the game down to a grind if you have too many persistent effect/conditions to track. If you put a limit on the target, a single caster in the party could still cast a persistent spell on each PC (beneficial spells) and each foe as well (negative effects), while a limit on the caster keeps the number lower, even if you have a party of all casters! I think this is the reason why they went with this approach.

 

[Blue]

Re attunement, I figure whether the attunement mechanic exists or not the GM will still be making a decision to place items into the campaign (less so if the GM allows magic marketplace style game but that too is a decision) so that “GM decision” chokepoint of magic items exists in all games. The attunement slot chokepoint also exists in standard 5e so my thought was that removing that would empower the players more as to how they used an allocated the magic items.

Just as a point, the fact a chokepoint exists both with and without an attunement limit does not mean that it is equal in both cases. A DM with an attunement limit may be less worried about giving out multiple items, including ones that may work together very well, if they know there is a mechanism in place that no one character will end up with too many of them.

I've played with DMs that tailor treasure to the party, and that sounds like you are doing and is the best case for removing attunement. But if discussing these rules in a larger context (which many on here are doing), there are also more permissive or just different styles. You mention the magic item marketplace, but I've also played with DMs running hardcover adventures with set treasure, or who roll for random treasure instead of customizing it. In cases like that, the attunement rule can be of service.

In other words, for your table that you're concerned about it sounds fine because you keep a tight reign on items, but in a context that includes DMs of wide variety of treasure granting styles that house rule may not be for them.

 

[Blue]

No, I mean that the vast majority (more than 98%) absolutely must retain their Concentration requirements, or the whole mechanic quickly loses its power to restrict spellcasters.

As I said, remove Conc from as few as half a dozen spells and you have multiplied spellcaster power.

Since there are 362 spells in the PHB, removing Concentration from six of them leaves 98.3% Hence my comment "more than 98% of spells absolutely must retain Concentration" should be taken quite literally.

This is interesting. To go to the extreme, if there's only one Concentration spell on your spell list, it will rarely impact you because it doesn't restrict any other spells. (For some of the classes with limited spells known like the sorcerer or bard it would still have some trivial effect.)

So every spell freed of concentration has a ripple effect because it enables casting other spells. This would include lower level Concentration spells that aren't a good return to use up your concentration slot with at higher levels, but can be cast with plentiful low-ish level slots.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Agree to disagree about D&D without this mechanic, my experience with it was enjoyable.

Back in 3.5 myself and my players managed to break the game due to few limits on spellcasting and magic items. I ran 3rd edition continuously (3.0 & 3.5) from 2000 to 2005. One of the primary reasons for stopping was how ludicrously overpowered the spell casters were compared to anyone else. I did not enjoy it and, in fact, neither did my players. 3rd edition as a whole was borked because of this.

Near the end of my run there was a 15th level Psion with flying and greater invisibility. In the Psion's pocket was a 15th level wildshaped Druid (mouse form) who was still able to cast spells. His animal companion was a giant crocodile which had been buff stacked to a ridiculous degree. Between them they were as Gods. It was fun for one session.

 

[aco175]

Concentration; I could see doing away with it but with a cost. Something like only being able to have 'one buff on each PC at a time.' Harmful spells should be a 'save ends' affect. I'm not sure how much this would change my game, but I can see games where you have the 5-minute work day going on having problems if there was no limits.

Attunement: Never really cared for it. I could see where something should limit the passing off of items all the time. Say someone has a ring of water walking or boots of flying and the obstacle becomes easy for one PC, but by allowing you to throw the boots or ring back to the others it becomes trivial. Maybe that is poor game design on my part or giving out items that are not 'party' treasure.

I might still force attunement, but not limit the number it items.

 

[lingual]

Older versions of DnD had other restrictions on casters. For example, you had to declare your intent to cast a spell before rolling initiative. If you took any damage before your turn, you wasted your spell slot. Higher level spells requires longer casting times which meant you had to win initiative by a pretty decent margin to get a spell off before rhe enemy's turn. Prepping spells with lower casting times was a real factor. A fighter using a dagger could totally nullify a high level mage by getting his attack in before the mage could even act. This made magic items more important too because they did not have this limiting mechanic.

This was a major limitation that no longer applies. So just because older versions did not have concentration does not mean they did not have other limitations. Of course, this did not affect out of combat buffs.

 

[werecorpse]

No, I mean that the vast majority (more than 98%) absolutely must retain their Concentration requirements, or the whole mechanic quickly loses its power to restrict spellcasters.

As I said, remove Conc from as few as half a dozen spells and you have multiplied spellcaster power.

Since there are 362 spells in the PHB, removing Concentration from six of them leaves 98.3% Hence my comment "more than 98% of spells absolutely must retain Concentration" should be taken quite literally.

As I said, interested in specific examples of where it’s likely to be a problem that I may have missed