D&D 5E Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns

[Mouseferatu]

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

Guys, it's really only ambiguous if you ignore this. It says "whenever." It specifically says "whenever." Whatever else is phrased poorly, "whenever" has a very clear meaning in the English language when used in a context like this. "Whenever I'm outside in the rain, I get wet." "Whenever I see Morena Baccarin on TV, I feel funny."

It doesn't mean "sometimes." It doesn't mean "on occasion." It doesn't mean "under these other circumstances." It means any and every time.

Don't like it? By all means, house rule it. I very well might. But I'm sorry; while the game does have some unclear wording, this really isn't one of those instances.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Guys, it's really only ambiguous if you ignore this. It says "whenever." It specifically says "whenever."

The point was not whether or not it says "whenever," but what "sources" of damage means. Does one "Attack action" count as one "source" of damage? Does one attack within an Attack action? Do riders on top of attacks count, or not? If you get hit by all four (max) bolts of Eldritch Blast, is that one source of damage or four? Etc.

Nobody questions that it's "whenever." I'm still not at all certain--despite the claims of simplicity--that the correct interpretation is to separate out attacks, but not things that ride on attacks. "Source" could mean the person(/monster/etc.), or the thing the person/monster/etc. does. I favor the former interpretation (in other words, not separating attacks). You get attacked, you take all the damage that comes from that action and use it to determine one DC for one roll. Otherwise, you essentially guarantee that once everyone gets 2 attacks, no Concentration spell can last more than a round of combat--because if three attacks = three rolls, you're essentially rolling one concentration check with double disadvantage, something that cannot occur anywhere else in the game. I'm all for limits on caster power, but that seems a little extreme.

Now, to be fair, there aren't a lot of monsters that get the "Extra Attack" feature, to the best of my knowledge. However, I'd like to think enemy casters should be able to hold onto a buff, when fighting a PC Fighter, for longer than one round.

 

[DaveDash]

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.

Meh, after re-reading it a few times I can see that it probably does mean after each hit.

The only thing that I *don't* accept that the language was clear.

"Whenever" is a general rule. The "source of damage" is a specific rule which overrides the general. "Whenever you take damage" by itself is pretty clear. There is no room to argue with the DM based on that very simple, clear, general worded ruling.

 

[Celtavian]

The point was not whether or not it says "whenever," but what "sources" of damage means. Does one "Attack action" count as one "source" of damage? Does one attack within an Attack action? Do riders on top of attacks count, or not? If you get hit by all four (max) bolts of Eldritch Blast, is that one source of damage or four? Etc.

Nobody questions that it's "whenever." I'm still not at all certain--despite the claims of simplicity--that the correct interpretation is to separate out attacks, but not things that ride on attacks. "Source" could mean the person(/monster/etc.), or the thing the person/monster/etc. does. I favor the former interpretation (in other words, not separating attacks). You get attacked, you take all the damage that comes from that action and use it to determine one DC for one roll. Otherwise, you essentially guarantee that once everyone gets 2 attacks, no Concentration spell can last more than a round of combat--because if three attacks = three rolls, you're essentially rolling one concentration check with double disadvantage, something that cannot occur anywhere else in the game. I'm all for limits on caster power, but that seems a little extreme.

Now, to be fair, there aren't a lot of monsters that get the "Extra Attack" feature, to the best of my knowledge. However, I'd like to think enemy casters should be able to hold onto a buff, when fighting a PC Fighter, for longer than one round.

There area ton of monsters that get extra attacks at higher level. Then there is the question of source of damage for a lair action or a legendary action. If you're fighting a Legendary Creature, does that mean his Lair Action and Legendary Actions don't require concentration checks because the Legendary Creature is the source and there is only one of them? Is a claw source different than a bite source? What about a Demon like the Marilith? Is each weapon in each arm a different source of damage? Or just the creature? Then let's talk about Beholders? Each eye one source or the creature?

Arguing over sources is a path to long conversations at the table between the players and DM. It's very simple. Whenever they take damage from any source, they roll even if they take damage multiple times from the same source. Nowhere does it say or imply that you only roll once per source of damage. If that was the intent, they would have written that clearly.

 

[neobolts]

I like concentration, especially the limit of only 1 spell at a time. What I sort of dislike is slowing down game play by making a bunch of concentration checks, what if we had a a theshold that needed to be beat in order to force a concentration check in the first place.

For example 10 points of damage. There would be fewer checks, multiple little damage sources wouldn't be an issue, stuff like that.

I like this. A minimum damage threshhold to trigger a check is a great idea.

The other idea of those presented that I am really graviating towards is what I've dubbed "minimum reliability". When the spell gets knocked out by a failed conc check, it "lingers" for rounds equal to caster mod or until a new conc spell is begun. That way you know that you are going to get some use out of it. Losing conc spells round one <> gaming fun IMO.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

Concentration has multiple issues with it such that I just flat out houserule removed the "one concentration spell at a time" rule.

So far, it has not been an issue. I do think that the pendulum has swung back too far in the opposite direction.

As a player, I play the game for fun and as a DM, I play the game to encourage fun with the players. I don't want there to be a bunch of restrictions on spell casters.

My take on it is that spells are already restricted:

1) Many are nerfed over previous editions.
2) Many have save every round (and some have save when it hits, and again at the end of the creature's turn, so two saves can occur before the caster gets to act again), so spells tend to not last long anyway.
3) And concentration is fairly easy to break through.
4) There are fewer higher level spells available at mid and higher levels.

Even with a feat, a spell caster with three concentration spells up getting hit is going to often lose at least one of them.


One suggestion I have is to just merely allow two concentration spells up at a time per caster as a simple houserule. Two should not break the bank and is far from broken.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

The other idea of those presented that I am really graviating towards is what I've dubbed "minimum reliability". When the spell gets knocked out by a failed conc check, it "lingers" for rounds equal to caster mod or until a new conc spell is begun. That way you know that you are going to get some use out of it. Losing conc spells round one <> gaming fun IMO.

This is just a very long-winded way of simply ignoring breaking concentration, for all practical purposes.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

One suggestion I have is to just merely allow two concentration spells up at a time per caster as a simple houserule. Two should not break the bank and is far from broken.

I haven't checked the number that this would apply to, but in my head, a concentration spell with a Verbal component requires the caster to chant/utter an incantation for the duration. Somewhat like a Kabaddi player. Casting two such spells simultaneously would be impossible.

 

[procproc]

Concentration has multiple issues with it such that I just flat out houserule removed the "one concentration spell at a time" rule.

I haven't thought too much about this approach, but this may work as well as or better than getting rid of saving throws on damage. It does seem like it's more bookkeeping to worry about.

I don't have much experience with actual play above level 5 yet, but casters definitely don't seem overpowered at low levels, even without the concentration restriction. I've heard mixed things about casters at high levels, ranging from "they're totally useless against legendary resistance" to "they're crazy overpowered", though I suspect the people who said the latter weren't used to 2e/3e wizards as a basis for comparison. I will say that on paper, wizards look much weaker than melee classes.

One of my problems with the one concentration spell limit is it means there's pretty much always going to be a single best spell to use, and the rest of the concentration spells are (therefore) useless. When you can have multiple spells active, there's a more interesting balance to be struck between how many spells to use at once, what combination is best, etc., that makes for more interesting decisions for the caster.

 

[KarinsDad]

I haven't checked the number that this would apply to, but in my head, a concentration spell with a Verbal component requires the caster to chant/utter an incantation for the duration. Somewhat like a Kabaddi player. Casting two such spells simultaneously would be impossible.

This is patently false.

If it were true, then a caster with a concentration spell up could not cast any other spell with a verbal component.