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

[EzekielRaiden]

Ah, 5e's love of "natural language." Making everything so much simpler for everyone! </sarcasm>

More seriously: I agree that it's ambiguously worded, and as with most of the ambiguous wording of 5e, I have no idea what the intended meaning is.

 

[Greg Benage]

"Whenever" means "at any or every time." Pretty clear. Sometimes we overthink ourselves into ambiguity.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

This is what the rule says,
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.

As Paraxis says, the language is clear - the use of "an arrow" is key. "Per arrow" is the obvious inference, and consequently, "per attack". They have chosen their words carefully.
Consider if the writers had chosen to use, for instance, a dagger as the weapon in the example: "a dagger" would have been interpreted as "per weapon", thus making the assumption that multiple attacks with the same weapon produce only the one concentration check - which I do not believe to be the rule they were writing. Their choice to illustrate the rule by using "an arrow" leading to "per arrow" leading to "per successful hit", is quite logical IMO.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"Whenever" means "at any or every time." Pretty clear. Sometimes we overthink ourselves into ambiguity.

Should we count a Fighter's three/four attacks as separate "times," or as one "time"?

This will have an enormous impact on the viability of concentration spells. Even if you only have a 25% chance of failing them (very low failure chance for the levels where Fighters have three attacks), you have a 58% of failing at least one of those three (1 - (1-0.25)^3 = 0.578125). How about Paladin Smites? Does Divine Smite count separately, or together, since it's a separate expenditure of resources which rides atop a successful hit? Or Improved Divine Smite (and the Cleric equivalent, Divine Strike), do those count as separate "times you took damage" since it's a separate source of damage in addition to a weapon's damage, or part of a single "time" since it only happens as part of dealing weapon damage? Same goes for stuff like Eldritch Blast, once it has multiple bolts.

I know I'm speaking as though this is players fighting players, but that's not my intent. I'm just using PC mechanics as examples; I'm dead-certain the players will want to know whether their abilities are heavily disruptive to enemy Concentration!

 

[Greg Benage]

Should we count a Fighter's three/four attacks as separate "times," or as one "time"?

Separate times, like it says. My best advice would be not to get hit three times by a fighter, else your concentration might be the least of your worries.

Your smite examples are all just one smite. Again, overthinking into ambiguity with the "separate expenditures of resources" and all that.

ETA: Not that it should require one, but here's a simple rule of thumb: If you could apply damage to a different target instead were the original target to drop, that's a separate time. Your smites and divine strikes ain't.

 

[Coredump]

But as jgsugden pointed out, that's exactly the point. You're really not supposed to be wading into the front and concentrating on spells. The whole point of concentration existing is to help diversify characters into front-line, blasters, and support. There's nothing inherently flawed about the game and needing to be "fixed" with the feat. The feat allows you to un-fix it, because the way concentration works IS the fix from the broken-ness of older editions.

So my paladin is supposed to cast Hunter's Mark and then do what...??

Or Bless... or Sheild of Faith... Or Protection spells....or.....

 

[Celtavian]

Why mention at all then that "If you take damage from multiple sources you must make a saving throw" then? Just finish it at the first statement.

I wish there were a means to bet money on these arguments of interpretation. I would bet the house against your interpretation.

"Whenever" does mean each hit in the context used. The sources of damage is to emphasize that it doesn't matter where the damage comes from, even if you took damage stubbing your toe. I imagine you'll need The Sage to spell it out for you in language you accept, since you don't accept the clear language it was stated in.

 

[Celtavian]

But as jgsugden pointed out, that's exactly the point. You're really not supposed to be wading into the front and concentrating on spells. The whole point of concentration existing is to help diversify characters into front-line, blasters, and support. There's nothing inherently flawed about the game and needing to be "fixed" with the feat. The feat allows you to un-fix it, because the way concentration works IS the fix from the broken-ness of older editions.

That's not very smart design if what you say is true. Some of what you say may be fine for arcane casters (save the war bard) and divine casters focused on range or healing. Not so much for Eldritch Knight warriors, paladins, martial clerics and druids, or Pact Weapon Warlocks. Wading into battle with concentration spells is certainly part of those classes. You wouldn't be a very good war cleric or paladin if you couldn't wade into battle with some concentration spells on. I think that is why they put the Warcaster feat in. It would have been nice if they had included something to help war clerics and paladins if the DM doesn't allow feats.

Do you really think those classes shouldn't be able to wade into battle with concentration spells active as part of their abilities? Why even create spells that help martials in combat that have concentration then if no one is supposed to be wading into battle with them active.

 

[Greg Benage]

Do you really think those classes shouldn't be able to wade into battle with concentration spells active as part of their abilities? Why even create spells that help martials in combat that have concentration then if no one is supposed to be wading into battle with them active.

I agree, and let's be clear: sometimes your character has setbacks. Precise attacks or ripostes miss and you waste a maneuver, you get dropped out of melee in the second round of your rage, the opponent makes its save and your spell slot is lost. Sometimes your concentration spell is interrupted sooner than you'd like, so you cast it again or do without. It's hardly a unique situation in the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

So my paladin is supposed to cast Hunter's Mark and then do what...??

Shoot from ranged? The same thing everyone else with hunters mark does?

Or Bless... or Sheild of Faith... Or Protection spells....or.....

You're supposed to balance risk with reward. You don't get to simply throw out every buff spell in the book and get it for free, this isn't 3rd edition anymore.

That's not very smart design if what you say is true. Some of what you say may be fine for arcane casters (save the war bard) and divine casters focused on range or healing. Not so much for Eldritch Knight warriors, paladins, martial clerics and druids, or Pact Weapon Warlocks. Wading into battle with concentration spells is certainly part of those classes. You wouldn't be a very good war cleric or paladin if you couldn't wade into battle with some concentration spells on. I think that is why they put the Warcaster feat in. It would have been nice if they had included something to help war clerics and paladins if the DM doesn't allow feats.

It's called Constitution, it's not a dump stat if you're wading into battle regardless of your class. The DC for a concentration save is "10 or half the damage your take, whichever is higher". So arguably classes on the front lines will likely want high Con, proficiency in Con saves and possibly some feats.

Yes, if there are no feats that can be a problem, HOWEVER that means increased stat bumps, which arguably should go towards Constitution in this case. It's not an OP solution, but it's a fair solution.

Do you really think those classes shouldn't be able to wade into battle with concentration spells active as part of their abilities? Why even create spells that help martials in combat that have concentration then if no one is supposed to be wading into battle with them active.

Risk v. reward. I think the system works fine. It's not broken and it doesn't allow casters to become super-powerful either. That's the point.