D&D 5E Abandoning attunement and scaling back concentration

[jamesstreissand]

Are you saying that 3rd level spells aren't balanced against is other is less important than they share a subsystem? I'm sure that sounded more clever in your head, but no, a spell underperforming against it's peers is not the fault of a subsystem. That subsystem may help define who it's peers are, but not that it's poorly designed in the first place.

Should a 1st level concentration spells and a 5th level concentration spell be balanced against each other. There is only one sane answer, and it's the one that shows that concentration is NOT the most important factor.

I'll give you that spell level and concentration are both important for determining what spells to compare. But while you are cherry picking one pair of spells with a high performer and a low performer, I can show dozens of equal level concentration spells that do get picked against each other.

At that point, it should be clear that it's not concentration since there are plenty of pairs of spells that are both likely candidates to pick, it's an under-performing spell.

I'm saying Concentration is part of the spell design, and ignoring it is silly.
Which it is.

If there are pairs of spells that are both likely candididates, they were balanced against each other with the concentration system in mind, not in spite of it. There are plenty of spells of higher level which smart spellcasters won't employ (vs something like Haste, since it's the topical example) because it keeps them from casting a superior, lower level spell. Concentration in that instance IS more important than the spell level.

Know what that tells us? It's time to change concentration (as if we didn't need the fact it simply made for a better game to do so).

 

[jamesstreissand]

Your "lack of choice" is like saying a rogue should be able to stab with her dagger and shoot with her bow in the same round. You can choice to case any spell- you have that choice. It's that there are repercussions to your choice. For exampole, you might not want to cast a second concentration spell because it will end your first. (I've done it.) Just like you might not want to charge the giant with 4 HPS left because he could pound you into cheese flavored dog food.

You keep handing it to me, fam. I'm saying the rogue using her dagger one round shouldn't incur colossal opportunity costs to switch to a bow the next round (like concentration does).

The fact you "can" doesn't mean the game doesn't highly discourage you, and often punishes you, for doing so. Given spellcasting is where most people looking for a tactical/control focused combat experience go, this is most apparent to the people it harms most.

 

[Blue]

I'm saying Concentration is part of the spell design, and ignoring it is silly.
Which it is.

Which is a strawman. I already said it's part of determining what spels are peers. What I also said was that it wasn;t the MOST important fact, followed by if it was that high and low level spells would be equally as powerful if they were both concentration. Which they are not.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. If you are doing it intentionally just stop it. If you are doing it for lack of reading comprehention, take your time and read slower. It is very clear I didn't say to ignore it.

If there are pairs of spells that are both likely candididates, they were balanced against each other with the concentration system in mind, not in spite of it. There are plenty of spells of higher level which smart spellcasters won't employ (vs something like Haste, since it's the topical example) because it keeps them from casting a superior, lower level spell. Concentration in that instance IS more important than the spell level.

Citation needed. Sure, casters will cast the spells they want. You are positing thaty casters will not cast higher level concentration spells because the lower level ones are to good. I can provide counterexample but that's just ancedotal evidence. I'd like you to provide proof of your assertion. Because I don't think you can.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hold on here, why is that? Why do mages need to concentrate at all? Conceptually, moving your hand doesn't take all of your focus, mental ability, etc.

Conceptually it doesn't create a fireball or sandstorm micro-climate, either. So, really, at that point you're looking back at genre and RL beliefs about magic. And, where magic might be used in combat, at all, it being interrupted & ruined by being hurt, restrained, or even just distracted, seems pretty reasonable. Though, by the same token, it's not any more unusual for the hero to stand there like an idiot while the evil sorcerer finishes some long-winded curse, than it is for the mooks to charge the hero one at a time so he can conveniently kill them all without trouble.

I disagree, we wouldn't have clerics as is in D&D if we were adhering purely to established concepts.

Clerics would be /different/ if D&D has stayed closer to the genre that inspired them - they'd be Van Helsig.

I don't trust designers who abandon the gamist element in their design.

Well, as a gamist element, concentration is certainly functional and very much called for in 5e. It could use a few more equally-restrictive mechanics, on that basis.

 

[jamesstreissand]

Which is a strawman. I already said it's part of determining what spels are peers. What I also said was that it wasn;t the MOST important fact, followed by if it was that high and low level spells would be equally as powerful if they were both concentration. Which they are not.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. If you are doing it intentionally just stop it. If you are doing it for lack of reading comprehention, take your time and read slower. It is very clear I didn't say to ignore it.



Citation needed. Sure, casters will cast the spells they want. You are positing thaty casters will not cast higher level concentration spells because the lower level ones are to good. I can provide counterexample but that's just ancedotal evidence. I'd like you to provide proof of your assertion. Because I don't think you can.

You're the one putting words in my mouth, began quoting me by putting words in my mouth, etc. I won't be responding to you after this; we have different philosophies on the game (does this improve the experience/engagement of the players vs do we need this thing I've arbitrarily decided we don't), and you haven't engaged in good faith.

I said there are higher level spells that would be ignored. Delayed blast fireball doesn't provide much more than a straight up damage spell, for instance, and there are other concentration spells to cast for for both more immediate damage and additional status effects (off the top of my head).

 

[jamesstreissand]

Conceptually it doesn't create a fireball or sandstorm micro-climate, either. So, really, at that point you're looking back at genre and RL beliefs about magic. And, where magic might be used in combat, at all, it being interrupted & ruined by being hurt, restrained, or even just distracted, seems pretty reasonable. Though, by the same token, it's not any more unusual for the hero to stand there like an idiot while the evil sorcerer finishes some long-winded curse, than it is for the mooks to charge the hero one at a time so he can conveniently kill them all without trouble.

Clerics would be /different/ if D&D has stayed closer to the genre that inspired them - they'd be Van Helsig.

Well, as a gamist element, concentration is certainly functional and very much called for in 5e. It could use a few more equally-restrictive mechanics, on that basis.

I don't think functional is a good measurement for people wondering if they can make it better. The panic over casters in earlier editions might convince me something like concentration was appropriate, but not in its current form. More restrictive elements on a gamist basis would be non-functional.

Did you see the tiered concentration I posted earlier? I'm curious as to what you think of it (from either a gamist or conceptual perspective).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think functional is a good measurement for people wondering if they can make it better.

I don't disagree, which is why I chose 'functional.' 5e concentration does function, but it's much less restrictive than the limitations casting faced in the classic game. I hesitate to call it 'good' or 'adequate' or anything that'd imply casters don't have it waaaaay too easy these days.

The panic over casters in earlier editions might convince me something like concentration was appropriate, but not in its current form. More restrictive elements on a gamist basis would be non-functional.

Panic? Experience.

Did you see the tiered concentration I posted earlier? I'm curious as to what you think of it (from either a gamist or conceptual perspective)….

… I'll see if I can find it...

 

[jamesstreissand]

I hesitate to call it 'good' or 'adequate' or anything that'd imply casters don't have it waaaaay too easy these days. Panic? Experience.

At this point you're teasing me though I'm not sure I'd mind some more restrictions/opportunity attacks if we could trade concentration for spell layering. All in good fun though

 

[Tony Vargas]

At this point you're teasing me though I'm not sure I'd mind some more restrictions/opportunity attacks if we could trade concentration for spell layering. All in good fun though

I played MUs back in the day, I mean, to the point I got bored with 'em. There really is just no comparison to how easy 'kids these days' have it when playing a 5e (or 4e or 3e) caster. It really was a whole up-hill-in-the-snow-both-ways situation...

...and, yes, that's probably about as seriously as you should take it.

But, IMHO, you really could make things a /lot/ harder on 5e casters, and only succeed in making them more fun to play.

 

[CapnZapp]

I have both played and DM'd for a high-level wizard in 5E, and I haven't noticed any problems. Can you be more specific about what problems you see here?

Also, Legendary Resistance does a lot to help NPCs.

You say problems, but I said restrictions.

Basically, archmage-level NPCs need to ignore PHB restrictions to be able to fulfil their roles as badass high level casters. Just casting a single spell a round, and not being able to load up on buffs before hand means not even an archmage will last ten seconds against a mid-level party.

To me representing a named NPC using the Archmage stat block comes off as uninspired, lazy. That's just a Wizard that can cast a level 9 spell.

Compare that to Acecerak, once you switch out his spells for some of the deadliest combos 5E has to offer. (I selected Time Stop and then using Reverse Gravity to make the heroes fall through a horizontal Prismatic Wall.) After all he has two level 9 slots, and he casts low level spells as they were cantrips.

Much in the same vein, another Archmage might be able to concentrate on two spells at the same time; or cast two spells using only one Cast action.

Just to mention just a couple of examples of the top of my head.

So, no, there aren't exactly any problems here. Just that sometimes you need a spellcaster to be truly threatening on his own, solo, alone. You can't do that without creatively ignoring the PHB, though. Not unless you add mooks, which defeats the coolness of facing the entire party by your lonesome.