D&D 5E Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns

[KarinsDad]

My issue with Concentration isn't about buff stacking at all, but that this edition seems to punish you if you play anything but a blaster style wizard, where I much prefer the role of battlefield tactician. I want an Evards Black Tentacles on the group to the left, a Hold Person on the healer, and at least a single buff spell on an ally.

Our main DM has said he is going to play around with getting rid of concentration should we make the switch. Most likely getting rid of it but adding old school "magic is dangerous" balancing measures.

This is the issue.

And how is it that 1E, and 2E, and 3E were not 100% broken?


This entire fallacy is called "appeal to authority". Because this is written in the DMG and the game designer states this, then it must be true.

Err, no.

Game designers state all kinds of things. "PCs should not be able to craft magic items.". Every release of the game system allowed for the creation of magic items (although 2E was in the "don't allow PCs to make items" camp).

 

[KarinsDad]

You can still come up with combinations, they're just different. Posters like KarinsDad don't get it, still trying the stuff that worked in older edition and complaining that those things no longer work, but failing to realise there are new combination now.

Seriously? An ad hominem?

For example when you get higher level you can Hold Person a bunch of enemies (with DC18 vs -1 to +2 wisdom save on average they're as good as dead), then walk up to one doing up to 36d6 damage.

Yes you can.

You can still stack buffs by scouting with your familiar, then charging in with blink, mirror image, and greater invisibility. You're going to be VERY hard to hit.

What if a given player does not want a familiar? The point is that not everyone wants to play the game THE EXACT SAME WAY, focusing on those few spells and spell combos that work the best in 5E, but allowing other options.

It's not that some people do not understand the other options (it is so lame that you keep telling people that they do not understand things), it's that we like doing our own thing and since many spells are severely limited (or just flat out bad), we are looking at other options.

That's why threads like these exist.

Just because you might like the game exactly as written does not mean that everyone does. So, get off your high horse dude.

And you can still drop VERY powerful crowd control spells like force cage.
There are also some great spells that do direct damage and stack debuffs, like sunbeam, which are probably being overlooked.

The combinations are still there, they're just different. The main difference is now direct damage is back, and one of the main ingredients in your combinations at higher levels especially.

The combos are just forced.

No version of D&D stated "if you cast this spell, you cannot cast these other spells". Sorry, but regardless of balance, this is the anti-fun solution and hence, moronic. I want solutions that are fun because I play the game to have fun.

Feel free to play the game exactly as written and stop attacking people for wanting to do something else.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe 5E suffers some of the same traits as 4E in regards to implementing certain rules that are a harsh contrast from it's predecessors. I would not mind it as much, if they allowed an avenue to expand the rule to add more detail, or include more things that may be effected like drinking potions. That is what I was hoping the concept of modules would address. But that goes against the main focus of 5E and simplicity. You don't take any effort to determine how complexity may be added but keep the game off tilt.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Taken out of context yet again.

He is talking about OGL and that third party vendors should not do that. He immediately follows that up with people can do whatever they want at their own home games.

Nice spin though.

Ok.
1. The fact the subject comes up as part of an OGL discussion does not make it 'out of context'. It merely shows that, in terms of the game as designed (and all the 1000s of hours of thought, play testing and so on that that involved), the designer felt it necessary to state that in his (rather considered) opinion, removing the Concentration restriction would be A Bad Thing, and therefore any officially licensed products would need to adhere to the Concentration ruling, because it is such a serious part of the game balance mechanics for 5e. Which demonstrates his opinion.
2. He does indeed acknowledge that people will probably do what they like at their own tables. I suggest you do so, as this rule clearly bothers you. You may prefer to try and convince those of differing opinions that they are misguided and follow your lead on this matter, but you won't manage to do so (a) with everyone or (b) by belittling them.
3. It's not "spin". A person I don't know on the internet asked where a quote from Mearls about concentration could be found. I thought I'd be interested in reading it, too. So, I took a couple of minutes to find one, and as the person had asked so nicely, I put the link here. My comment that it was a "pretty firm view" is descriptive of the statement Mearls made - he clearly has a firm view on the subject.
4. As it goes, I do like the game as written, thanks, yes. One or two tiny niggles, but I like it. I'm more than happy with whatever value judgements this may prompt others to make about me.
5. Regards your earlier comment regarding Concentration not being affected by states such as Paralysed etc - I think it's common sense to include them as 'other environmental factors' which call for a check to be made. Maybe even an auto-fail for some, if not all, of them.

 

[neobolts]

Ok.
1. The fact the subject comes up as part of an OGL discussion does not make it 'out of context'. It merely shows that, in terms of the game as designed (and all the 1000s of hours of thought, play testing and so on that that involved), the designer felt it necessary to state that in his (rather considered) opinion, removing the Concentration restriction would be A Bad Thing, and therefore any officially licensed products would need to adhere to the Concentration ruling, because it is such a serious part of the game balance mechanics for 5e. Which demonstrates his opinion.

The Mearls quote wasn't as dead on as i'd hoped, but was still appreciated as a addtion to the discussion.