D&D 5E Abandoning attunement and scaling back concentration

[werecorpse]

Agree re spirit guardians which is why I’ve kept it concentration as I said in my first post, and it’s generally not the other characters who break the monsters out of a hypnotic pattern but the non stupid monsters via damage or actions. I mean that’s what the characters do if it’s cast on them right?

What benefit does hypnotic pattern get from being upcast under RAW?

Oh and given the text of crown of madness I didn’t change the concentration requirement as the caster has to use their action anyway. But if I had by say +2 levels you’ve got to compare the impact of that spell only being removable via a save, dispel magic or killing the caster vs the cost to the caster of a 4th level spell slot and using their action every round rather than casting other spells. Given most combats are say 4 rounds that’s this one spell up for 4 rounds or 4 other spells being cast. Is having this one spell up likely to be overpowering compared to 4 other spells? IMO no.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

To me, the concentration removal removes tactical options thenplayer need. It's more frequent yo have higher level enemies and if upcast spells cannot be dropped by damage hits and failed saves - that's bad.

 

[werecorpse]

Fair enough. As I said players got by pretty well until 2015 without needing the tactic of breaking higher level enemies concentration to end spells, and in 5e many spells already have the save every round to end a spell anyway.

 

[Shiroiken]

My experiences with Attunment don't affect character balance as much as it does inter-character balance. There are many items that have attunement that would be good to stack on a single character. By having the limit, this forces the items to be spread around more, making everyone better, rather than 1-2 super characters. I will admit that some items that have attunment make no sense, and others that don't have it probably should, but whatever.

Concentration is probably one of the most important new aspects of 5E. While the primary purpose is to limit the number of buffs and ongoing effects you can have at any given time, it also has the very important aspect of limiting their duration (via Con saves for taking damage). Removing concentration is a terrible idea, but you could create a houserule that would allow you to have a certain number of concentration spells active at a time (I've seen feat suggestions, upcasting the spells, Con saves each round with the DC based on the total level of spells).

 

[werecorpse]

My experiences with Attunment don't affect character balance as much as it does inter-character balance. There are many items that have attunement that would be good to stack on a single character. By having the limit, this forces the items to be spread around more, making everyone better, rather than 1-2 super characters. I will admit that some items that have attunment make no sense, and others that don't have it probably should, but whatever.

Concentration is probably one of the most important new aspects of 5E. While the primary purpose is to limit the number of buffs and ongoing effects you can have at any given time, it also has the very important aspect of limiting their duration (via Con saves for taking damage). Removing concentration is a terrible idea, but you could create a houserule that would allow you to have a certain number of concentration spells active at a time (I've seen feat suggestions, upcasting the spells, Con saves each round with the DC based on the total level of spells).

Re attunement I can see this might be an issue with some groups but in the same way that I’m happy to say having the GM have substantial control over what items appear in the campaign and when works for us we also have a pretty good understanding that items being spread around so everyone gets to have a cool item makes a better game than 1-2 players being souped up while others languish. So I don’t need attunement to control that.

Re concentration-terrible idea, really? D&D did fine without the concentration mechanic for 40 years surely it can’t be that crucial can it? I agree it’s important for some spells but for say the third level web it just gets burned through or bypassed. Blindness upcast eventually gets shaken off, if the druid keeps its AC at 16 by casting a 3rd level barkskin spell or the sorcerer stays blurred by burning a 4th level spell & the fighter gets the whole minute being enlarged by the use of a second level spell does that break the game?

I haven’t played it much but so far the option is only rarely used by those below 10th level as characters generally want to use their 4th level spell slots on a sweet 4th level spell. I’m sure some problems will arise but so far none.

 

[dave2008]

That’s a perfectly reasonable halfway house. But as I say I just don’t see a significant benefit of the attunement limitation.

I think lots of 5e stuff is an improvement, especially bounded accuracy, but not this.

Personally as a DM I don't care about attunement as a magic item control option either, I can control that on my own (I rarely give out magic items). However, I do like it from a fantasy and world building perspective. The idea that you have to connect to the item to use it properly. I think it could be expanded actually. Non-attune gives some benefit, attunement gives additional benefit (maybe a deeper attunement gives even more). I think you may be missing the RP options available with this game element

 

[Blue]

Fair enough. As I said players got by pretty well until 2015 without needing the tactic of breaking higher level enemies concentration to end spells, and in 5e many spells already have the save every round to end a spell anyway.

A true statement but one that ignores the larger context. Before this mechanic came about there was that mechanic there was a MASSIVE issue in the game with overbuffing. CoDzilla from 3.5 era is a perfect example. The fact that there was a huge problem and it wasn't fixed until a certain date doesn't mean that the fix would not have been useful much earlier.

 

[Blue]

Re concentration-terrible idea, really? D&D did fine without the concentration mechanic for 40 years surely it can’t be that crucial can it?

I posit D&D did not do "fine" without concentration. Buffing was a huge problem in some earlier editions, especially 3.0 and 3.5. Casters who were ridiculously better than martials at martial things because they were super buffed. Quadradic wizards - it wasn't because of direct damage.

Any arguement about concentration that talks about it not being around before is easily demonstrated to be an argument for concentration. But really, different editions had different mechanics and balance points, what came before is at best a warning and not an argument about the balance of spells in 5e.

 

[Blue]

Okay, flat out - you are giving an ability to casters. This makes them more powerful regardless if there is an open question about how much more powerful. What equal ability are you giving to non-casters and half-casters (whom don't get the higher level spell slots to really take advantage of this) are you granting to keep the classes balanced? Or are you otherwise nerfing casters to balance out this boon?

 

[gyor]

There is already a spell that works that way, Major Image, cast it in a higher 6th level slot and you no longer need concentration to maintain it, plus it becomes permanent.