D&D 5E Abandoning attunement and scaling back concentration

[Tony Vargas]

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

Loving to make unrestrained use of unrestrained buffing is certainly one example of not having a problem with it. ;P

Seriously, though, 5e's BA mandate took such things off the table, entirely. Not so much fixing a problem with 3e as preemptively fixing what would have been untenable in 5e, because BA just couldn't provide the design space for it.

Concentration may seem like kinda a mordenkrad solution to a flyswatter problem, but it certainly works. The other alternative would have been to just not have spells, stack, period. Put two friendly spells on someone, the first one goes away. That kinda thing.

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.

Older versions also had concentration (1e conjure elemental sticks out in my mind, for instance. A number of other spells had durations of 'concentration,' sometimes with a bit of duration following that). And, there was no check or save to avoid having concentration broken.

 

[werecorpse]

Yes older versions had some small concentration limits, and I’m not removing it entirely with this homebrew rule, yes spellcasting has other restrictions (provoked attack of opportunity in 3e etc).

I actually like the concentration mechanic as it stands I just think it is overly prescriptive and a mechanic to enable casters to use a resource to remove it will work.

I agree that making it possible to upcast to remove concentration may mean certain spells become more attractive as the “concentration” slot isn’t used up. That’s part of my hope.

 

[CapnZapp]

@werecorpse you will find that you will have to choose:

• either wizards can stack effects, and they pretty much become unstoppable (unless spells are remade into pale shadows of what they do now), resulting in LFQW
• or wizards can't stack effects, and they actually need fighters to do more than carry their loot

As for Concentration, the thing to realize is that the balance it brings is much more fragile than at first sight.

Remove Concentration from just a few spells and you could just have removed it entirely, since now there is at least one spell loadout that is significantly powered up: removing it entirely basically only enables variety in such load-outs.

The brilliance of 5E was that the devs really and truly actually did restrict spellcasters. 3.5 and Pathfinder talked about the LFQW problem, but they didn't even managed to implement 10% of it. They would never have withstood the ragestorm of angry Wizard players, so they didn't really even try.

Which, given the fact you probably need to get to 90% if not 98% for the wizard to be meaningfully held back in practical play, meant absolutely zilch, nada, nothing. It was just empty talk.

Does this mean 5E did everything perfectly? Of course not. They almost certainly took Concentration too far.

But my point is that just removing Concentration from spells is not the solution, since it is too easy to end up functionally breaking the mechanic's power to rein in casters (which is the only reason to have it in the first place).

Personally I found that I might quibble about specific details in the experience of playing a low- and mid- level caster, but that on the whole it's not worth tweaking that experience. Do little stuff and not enough changes to justify the houserule. Do large stuff and you risk breaking it.

It's at high levels the restrictions really start making less and less sense. Archmages, that is. (And not coincidentally, this will help evil Wizard NPCs more than it helps player characters). These guys should totally be given ways to bend and eventually break some of the restrictions.

Had WotC done this, they would at the same time send the message "look - we're providing tools to mess with the restrictions, but we're also telling you it's inappropriate to do it at low- or mid level".

Oh well, it's still not too late. Maybe someday WotC will overcome their fear of changing their core system even a little and give us an Archmage prestige class (or something) that functionally overwrites the PHB's complete disinterest in giving high-level mages some sorely needed leeway.

 

[werecorpse]

Aye aye Cap’n.

I am trying to be careful about how I go about allowing casters to remove the concentration requirement of a spell. But apart from maybe 3 or 4 spells which I have spelled out in an earlier post I haven’t “just removed concentration from spells”.Under my houserule concentration is removable from some spells (about 65) by casting those spells using a higher level spell slot. Ie casting Web using a 3rd level spell slot. It does have a cost. As I have said I think the concentration mechanic is a good one just overly restrictive (and I do get that each persons table is different, my too hot may be someone else’s too cold).

For example one spell that I have allowed the caster to cast as a non concentration spell is greater invisibility IFF they cast it using a 6th or higher level spell slot. I think this is a powerful boost to the spell because now they can cast other concentration spells while remaining invisible- but it’s their one 6th level spell slot a day. They get 10 rounds to likely dominate a battle where they are fighting things that can’t see invisible. That likely won’t be the big bad but will be some henchmen. That’s ok by me.

And while you are concerned it might result in casters dominating etc. the reason that I started going down this route is because a caster complained that he couldn’t use any of his concentration spells because he had to keep a stoneskin up on the ranger. In this case it will allow the ranger to keep being a front line fighter but also allow the wizard to play with some of his concentration spells.

But as I keep saying if you have some examples of spells that in your view removing concentration via upcasting would make too good I am all ears.

 

[Gadget]

+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.

I agree that it can be a little arbitrary on what requires attunement vs what doesn't, but I really like how 5e doesn't take into account magic items and treats them as an unaccounted for bonus. +3 plate is particularly egregious as does push on bounded accuracy. However, in previous editions, particularly 3x, it seemed that sometimes the game was sometimes all about getting that belt of Giant Strength, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Hammer of Thunderbolts, etc. Not to mention bumping up your six bonus slots as much as you can. In 5e I feel like most magic Items can be more flavor or story related, rather than necessary components to level treadmill and the "Christmas Tree Effect." Maybe attunement only has a little to do with this, and I'm sure removing it will have little enough effect on some games, but I think I'll keep it for now. Though I might modify it for story based reasons.

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.

Maybe the fighter should handle the Giant without being buffed to the gills by the wizard? Or perhaps the wizard should be content to use his magic through the fighter, combined with tossing out a judicious lightening bolt once in a while (combined with cantrips). 5e did a lot to reign in the crazyness of casters from previous editions. I for one would not like to return to such. Remember the good old scry and fry? Needing a spreadsheet and a slide rule to keep track of how many effects were going on which creatures, not to mention when they end? Heaven help you if a Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic got tossed into the fray.

That said, I could certainly agree that the concentration gets tossed onto a few too many spells. Flame Arrows comes to mind. And it does make some spell options much less desirable. It would also be interesting if more spells had better scaling like Bestow Curse does. Perhaps Improved Invisibility cast at 8th level should not need concentration.

 

[CapnZapp]

the reason that I started going down this route is because a caster complained that he couldn’t use any of his concentration spells because he had to keep a stoneskin up on the ranger.

I think a much better solution is:

Tell your caster he doesn't.

He really does not have to keep up Stoneskin on some other character.

The point here is that each player should do stuff because he finds them fun, cool, awesome to do.

Not because he feels he has to.

The Ranger simply has to face the fact he, just like everyone else, is a perfectly viable combatant in his own right. He's not entitled to a caster's concentration slot.

I'm not saying it is unreasonable to want to loosen the restrictions on Concentration.

But I am saying this is definitely not the right reason to do it for.

Good luck with your gaming!

 

[Harzel]

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.

So I know this is just an example, but it seems legitimate to question the general line of thought here, which seems to be that the only interesting/useful spells are concentration spells (plus, apparently, lightning bolt). That seems like a pretty narrow line of thought. Even if you only have up to 3rd level spells, there are potentially interesting choices to be made among the straight damage spells (lightning bolt, fireball, shatter, scorching ray, chromatic orb, magic missile). And then there is blindness/deafness, and some others that are useful situationally such as charm person, grease, and thunderwave. At higher levels and/or if you allow non-PH spells, there are additional damage spell choices and additional non-concentration control spells.

Also, what's the matter with casting cantrips? Unless you are allowing/encouraging 5MWD, the wizard can't be casting that many leveled spells per encounter anyway.

Finally, as a more general comment, restrictions are what force choices, which are a necessary element of any game. If the wizard player is chafing under the RAW restrictions, I'm a bit skeptical that your partial amelioration of concentration restrictions is going to move the game across some magical threshold on the other side of which the player will then be content. In other words, your modification still imposes limits, and if one concentration spell is not enough, I'm skeptical that two or three (or whatever the situational limit turns out to be) is going to be really more satisfactory over time.

 

[Harzel]

I think a much better solution is:

Tell your caster he doesn't.

He really does not have to keep up Stoneskin on some other character.

The point here is that each player should do stuff because he finds them fun, cool, awesome to do.

Not because he feels he has to.

The Ranger simply has to face the fact he, just like everyone else, is a perfectly viable combatant in his own right. He's not entitled to a caster's concentration slot.

So even though I'm not particularly a fan of the OP's proposals, there's some stuff here that seems, at minimum, not generally applicable. Many if not most groups approach D&D as a team game; so the implication here that each player should be acting purely on their own seems a bit off. Of course either extreme (wizard must buff fighter every encounter <-> wizard casts fly on themselves because they think it is cool even though it contributes nothing to the group's success) is unhappy, but keeping stoneskin up on a fighter in one particular encounter because that's part of the best tactical approach seems to me a very reasonable obligation.

I'm not saying it is unreasonable to want to loosen the restrictions on Concentration.

But I am saying this is definitely not the right reason to do it for.

The OP's reason seems to be a fairly generic one: dislike of the restrictions in general. I'm having a hard time imagining what the right reason would be if not that. Do you see the OP's reason as more specific? And in any case, what would be the right reason?

EDIT: Oh, I guess you are focused on the particular situation the OP gave. Ok that makes sense. But still, what would constitute a good reason?

 

[Bolares]

Is this house rule just for players or for enemies too?

If enemies can use it I'd be extra carefull with any spell that has only one save and the effect lasts for the duration if concentration is not broken.

Dunking on NPCs with such a spell is fun. having to sit out of an entire battle because you failed one ST is not.

 

[CapnZapp]

EDIT: Oh, I guess you are focused on the particular situation the OP gave. Ok that makes sense.

Thank you for seeing the difference between buffing a fighter on occasion (because you feel that's the best, most fun, way to spend your Concentration in that particular encounter) but choosing to use your Concentration on other stuff instead as soon as and as often as you find that to be more fun (character-defining, optimal, whatever) on one hand...

...and reserving your Concentration for said Fighter, maybe because she feels Stoneskin is the difference between being a viable frontliner or not, on the other. (Hint: she's a viable frontliner even without it)