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

[EzekielRaiden]

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!

Yeah, many (though not all) of the spells you'd plausibly want to cast on a whole party can be, with a high enough spell slot. Invisibility's slightly better for it, even, since it's a 2nd-level spell--you get a lot more 5th level slots than 6th when you factor in Arcane Recovery (2-3x as many for most of the levels where you have both!). A five-man party makes "everyone flies" and "everyone is invisible" a little painful, to be sure, but there's gotta be some limits to how much the Wizard can solve the whole group's problems

 

[Stalker0]

I think the stack restriction is just fine, but I do have concerns about the check on damage, especially for clerics an paladins.

At least or certain spells.

Having a disruption check on a summon spell? Makes perfect sense.

Have a check on shield of faith? Less jazzed about that

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the stack restriction is just fine, but I do have concerns about the check on damage, especially for clerics an paladins.

At least or certain spells.

Having a disruption check on a summon spell? Makes perfect sense.

Have a check on shield of faith? Less jazzed about that

Yeah... this has been my concern as well-- the melee casters with a self-buff. Ranger with Hunter's Mark, Bladelock with Hex, Pally or War Cleric with Divine Favor or Shield of Faith, stuff like that. Those PCs will suffer many more Concentration checks due to damage than other ranged casters... so I do wonder if it is too punishing for them.

I have a Hunter Ranger two-weapon user that has Hunter's Mark, so I'm going to be paying close attention to the number of checks he ends up getting forced to make. If necessary, I might think about amending the rules to say that only buffs a caster puts on other people require Concentration check for taking damage (since you are having to focus on someone else-- someone who you might not even be looking at-- and thus it's more difficult to keep the spell up)... whereas personal buffs stay up for the duration since its on you and your concentration is focused on the fight in front of you. You still only get to have one Concentration spell at a time... but at least this way that Shield of Faith won't have a chance to get knocked off of you 1 round of combat in.

 

[Sunseeker]

Mmm, internet died on me. Anyway, short story: none of the casters at my table have had much trouble with concentration. A smart caster shouldn't be taking much direct damage, and thus shouldn't have to deal with concentration much. I don't have a problem with a player being forced to make a concentration check very often if they're a caster-type who concentration-spells-up themselves so they can wade into battle. I think that's precisely the point of concentration.

However, I prefer the way "sustaining" a spell worked in 4th, it simply ate up one of your actions. Made the most sense to me.

 

[Remathilis]

Cavaet: I've not played much 5e (yet).

That said, I think Concentration is doing EXACTLY what it should. My Pathfinder game is a complex wave of stacking (and semi-stacking) buffs coming from the bard, cleric, and summoner that makes keeping up the math impossible. So I have 0 sympathy for PCs wanting more than one buff. Personally, I LIKE that mages are using fireballs again rather than relying on summons and buffs.

As to the check difficulty, I cant' say (not played enough). Does that make Warcaster a no-brainer for the melee caster? I can see wizards and sorcerers not needing it, but it seems clerics, EKs, pallys and melee rangers would want it.

And similarly, if I never see a flying, stoneskinned, imp. invisible mage raining death from above again, I'll be a hapy man.

 

[Staffan]

I haven't played/run enough to run into problems with concentration, and my group is fairly non-casty (depending on who shows up that night, we have a war cleric, battlemaster fighter, berserker barbarian, fiend warlock, assassin thief, and hunter ranger) and only just hitting level 4.

That said, there's no way I'd change the rule about a single concentration spell at a time. That's essential to game balance, and to not have the casters steal all the thunder. If I do find concentration to be overly harsh, I'd do something about the rule about breaking concentration on damage. The easiest fix would be to make it a caster stat check, using the same bonus as spell attacks (stat+proficiency). That would ensure that it's something the caster is good at.

 

[Coredump]

Yeah, my Paladin is a bit cranky about all of the Con checks for his spells, as is my Ranger. Neither one of them gets all that many slots anyway, and to have *any* damage have a 40% chance of breaking the spell..... I don't think there should be a DC10 minimum, either go by straight damage, or DC 5 min.

Perhaps there should be some modifier depending on level. Taking 12 points of damage should be different depending on if you have 24HP or 100HP.

So maybe.....
DC is Damage taken - class level: minimum of DC5. (or damage - 1/2 class level)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Anything with a Concentration check is balanced roughly on the idea that it will only be around for a round or two.

If you're getting more mileage than that out of your Concentration spells, you are using them super effectively.

If you're failing to keep them going for more than a round or two, it's working as intended (even if you're a melee war-machine).

 

[DaveDash]

Level 15 now with four casters (Paladin, Wizard, Bard, Cleric). Concentration is fine.

I use the "source of damage" rule to mean per creature and not per hit, which means less rolls but higher DCs. This favours the players. Generally though it's more about not being hit at all than making your con roll.

Now I've seen buff stacking. Had the Paladin take on a CR18 Dragon by himself with chugging a ton of potions, and having the rest of the party buff him. If you want that to be the NORM in your game - having your players individually be able to take on much higher CRs - then by all means remove concentration.

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm playing a cleric and not currently DMing, and I think it works fine. I like that many buffs are limited and I like that effect-over-time spells can be disrupted. As a player, there are risks to casting these spells, but the game (and just good play) provides ways for me to mitigate the risk. And conversely, when the party is up against Concentration effects, I enjoy the tactical options it introduces. Overall, I think it's a very good mechanic.

If every encounter involved getting pummeled by multiple scrubs and I was having to make multiple checks all the time, that might get unwieldy. That hasn't been a problem, though.