D&D 5E (2014) Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns

[Psikerlord#]

One playtest version had no check for damage, there was simply a limit of one concentration spell at a time. In my games half the time I forget about the damage rule, and dont ask for checks, but everyone remembers about the "one concentration spell at a time" rule. We DO remember it when a PC is the subject of a hold person spell or similar however, so I understand the reasoning behind it.

I dont like buff stacking on one person, but I like the idea of a caster putting say 3 fly spells on 3 different people. That is a unnecessary loss of utility that gets caught up in the 5e concentration rule. I have thought about changing the concentration rule to only maintaining one concentration spell per target. But then again, how often do you need to cast the same spell on your whole party? In a way it is more interesting to have to find a work around for concentration.

 

[Gadget]

Personally, the only thing I would consider is perhaps a house rule or (even better) a magic item that either mitigates or does away with the Con save to maintain concentration. And I'm not sure even that is entirely warranted.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One playtest version had no check for damage, there was simply a limit of one concentration spell at a time. In my games half the time I forget about the damage rule, and dont ask for checks, but everyone remembers about the "one concentration spell at a time" rule. We DO remember it when a PC is the subject of a hold person spell or similar however, so I understand the reasoning behind it.

I dont like buff stacking on one person, but I like the idea of a caster putting say 3 fly spells on 3 different people. That is a unnecessary loss of utility that gets caught up in the 5e concentration rule. I have thought about changing the concentration rule to only maintaining one concentration spell per target. But then again, how often do you need to cast the same spell on your whole party? In a way it is more interesting to have to find a work around for concentration.

Fly already lets you cast the single spell on multiple people if you spend higher-level slots, so there really isn't any loss of utility. It's costly to get a whole party flying (a 6th level slot to get 4 people flying means it can only be done twice a day) but it's still perfectly doable.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Fly already lets you cast the single spell on multiple people if you spend higher-level slots, so there really isn't any loss of utility. It's costly to get a whole party flying (a 6th level slot to get 4 people flying means it can only be done twice a day) but it's still perfectly doable.

Oh! Awesome. I shall have to go back and read my spells properly! Can you do this with invisibility too I wonder.

edit: just read invisibility - YES YOU CAN'

OK then ignore my concern!

 

[iserith]

Concentration - one of the oddest mechanics in 5e, and one that some of my players are not happy with.

Buff stacking in previous editions was a real issue, but has the pendulum swung too far the other way? There's a perception that concentration spells often aren't worth taking.
a) They have low reliability since they can be knocked out by an attack at any moment. Taking a more reliable spell often seems like the logical choice.
b) They can't be stacked. Can't fly while stoneskinned, etc.

a.) Position yourself in such a way to minimize the chance of being attacked, take the War Caster feat, have a passable Constitution, rely on competent teammates to protect you while your cool Concentration spells are in effect.
b.) That's the pendulum swinging away from buff stacking which was clearly a problem in certain previous editions.

What do people think...
1) Is your group avoiding 5e concentration spells?
2) Do you houserule concentration in your game?
3) What sort of concentration tweaking magic items would you design/allow?

1. No. See "a" above.

2. No.

3. I haven't thought about it. What would a spellcaster be willing to trade off to have two or more Concentration spells going at once? Expend additional spell slots perhaps?

 

[jgsugden]

It works just fine as is... although you tend to see spell-casters only have one or two concentration spells at their beck and call at a given time. Many buff spells get outclassed and forgotten by their casters as they advance in level. This prevents them from being 'assumed' spells and continues to encourage a variety of spells for spell casters which keeps things interesting.

We'll see spells requiring concentration in 5E used less often than they were in other editions, but that is not a problem. The mechanic was added because these spells were becoming automatic inclusions that everyone constantly used. If everyone was casting them, they were being assumed into the game and there was no point in having them.

 

[neobolts]

We don't have any problems with concentration, than again most of my players are either new players or returning old (1st and 2nd edition) players.

Our group is most recently coming from 4e and Pathfinder and some of them are very keen on optimization.

I think they're definitely still worth taking. They've ceased to be no-brainer spells, which seems like a pretty much straight-up improvement to me. As for "low reliability," I don't think that's strictly fair. You roll concentration when you take damage--so don't take damage if you want to use them. The mechanic encourages exactly the kind of behavior one would expect from a bathrobe-wearing hand-waggler: stay the bloody hell away from nasty things with large [teeth/pointy things/blunt objects].

The concerns were more about enemy ranged (archers, etc) knocking out stuff. One of the frustrated players is also considering a Paladin next, so they'd be frontline.

And removing the stacking thing...as you already said...was precisely the point. Less buff tracking. Less bonus stacking. Less "half of my strength comes from the buff spells we stack pre-fight."

Oh yeah, it totally needed to be fixed; we used a "buffs received" cap houserule in 3.x. But 5e concentration seems a bit too harsh at times.

3) If the player casts the spell in a higher-than-normal slot, they get one "freebie" Concentration check for every level higher than the base spell. These "free" checks are spent only when the player rolls a Concentration check and fails--a successful check does not affect the number of "free" checks remaining. If the benefit of this item is applied to a spell cast in a higher slot, the player must forgo any extra benefits that would apply from spending higher slots. (This one might make sense as a universal item, or a school-specific one, rather than specific to an individual spell--it might feel a little limited if it was just the one spell.)

The item could do something this too, maybe they auto pass their first concentration check on damage each encounter. Or maybe when they fail, they don't lose it immediately...maybe it persists for addtional rounds equal to their caster mod. That way they have some measure of reliability.

5e does provide a mechanism for stacking concentration spells: potions. You could hand out a formula or two as treasure and let them spend the money and time making them if they really want them.

Potions are a great suggestion! I'll have to look at this in more detail.

 

[neobolts]

3. I haven't thought about it. What would a spellcaster be willing to trade off to have two or more Concentration spells going at once? Expend additional spell slots perhaps?

That seems a little harsh. Other than the occasional cursed items, I'm not a big fan of items with drawbacks. The fact that this would go against the player's treasure and magical gear accumulation seems like enough of a trade-off to me.

 

[iserith]

That seems a little harsh. Other than the occasional cursed items, I'm not a big fan of items with drawbacks. The fact that this would go against the player's treasure and magical gear accumulation seems like enough of a trade-off to me.

I was thinking of something more in line with a house rule or a feat rather than an item.

 

[Mouseferatu]

since saves are not autofail on '1'

*blink*

*blink, blink*

Wait, what?!?!

*flips madly through PHB*

Well, son of a...

PEA (Prior Edition Assumptions) strike again.