D&D 5E Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns

[The Grassy Gnoll]

KarinsDad - Hmm, you may have a point. But by the same token, breaking it down like that to the "picture yourself doing it" level does mitigate against multiple concentration spells being cast together. Unless you are Kvothe from The Name of the Wind, how can you CONCENTRATE on two spells at once?
I guess if you liken the mental effort involved in casting a concentration spell to pushing with all your might against a door that a monster is trying to push open from the other side, a quick shift in position or a gesture with one hand CAN be done whilst still maintaining your push on the door, so long as you immediately afterwards resume your focus - but if you want to start pushing against ANOTHER door with all your might, you're SOOL. One of those doors is going to open.

 

[jgsugden]

The assumption that spellcasters should not lose their concentration on spells underlies a lot of arguments here - and is faulty.

If you find the concentration mechanic troubling, it is likely because you're not yet comfortable with the feel of 5E. They put the mechanic into the game with the expectation that PCs will lose concentration. It is one of the balances for these spells. PCs are intended to have the benefit of these spells for only a brief time before they lose it unless they find ways to protect their concentration.

Buff spells, in general, are intended to be much weaker in 5E than in prior editions. MUCH weaker. They use concentration as an intentionally heavy anchor on these well known and historically significant spells to keep PCs from becoming a wall of spell effects that go through the same series of spells for every combat. They want you to only have one at a time in place and to lose them so that you need to cycle to other concentration spells or decide that the situation is not right to use another concentration spell. The use of concentration spells should not be assumed to be something that is done in every combat.

They're trying to avoid the feel that these are spells that should be used in every single combat. When that feel is present, they stop being spells and start becoming features of the class. If that is what they're going to be, then they need to be built like features of the class, not like spells. For those players that like the traditional idea of a wizard walking around with mage armor, protection from fire, resist cold, stoneskin, globe of invulnerability, contingency, and a few other spells when they enter a battle - this is not the edition built to serve that image. This is an edition where the wizard is more Gandalf than Elminster.

 

[DaveDash]

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.

Except that MOST spells are *much* more powerful and monsters don't get scaling saving throws any more.

Seriously my group Hold Personed their way through entire sections of the underdark. Even with a massive boost to wisdom saving throws (+8) most humanoids still have a 50/50 chance of "save or die" at best, more likely they are doomed.
Many other spells scale VERY well like this once your DC gets high.

Being able to fly and do things like this makes casters ridiculously overpowered. I would break your game in seconds if you let me cast two conc spells as a caster. A single Sorcerer could haste the entire party, or casters could turn melee characters into killing machines that will rip through whatever pitiful monsters you decide to throw at them.

It's only a "non issue" for you because you're still dabbling in low level stuff.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

I think you raise excellent points...

At some point in the playtest Mearls mentioned that they were going to have TWO separate things called "concentration" (to avoid stacking buffs) and "focus" (hold spells vs damage or distractions). Merging the two sounded like the proverbial catching of two birds with one stone, but it has its own issues.

I don't have much experience of 5e in play yet, but you say that your group forgets about checking vs damage and that's exactly my concern. In 3e there were few spells needing concentration, and that IIRC meant spending your action in concentrating every round, i.e. you could not do anything but a single move: this was harsh (but few spells only) but you couldn't easily forget you were concentrating on a spell! Now the rule is more forgiving, but you have to keep in mind all the time that whatever damage you take (and maybe also non-damaging spells or other distractions) should force a concentration check if you have a concentration spell ongoing... it may not always be so automatic to remember, particularly because it's not generally going to be the last spell you have cast.

Also as you say, stacking buffs was explicitly wanted gone from the game, but that was a concern related to having a single (N)PC with multiple stacking effects. Casting the same spell on multiple PCs was never a big deal, especially when it required multiple copies prepared beforehand. However I can accept this loss of utility, I am more concerned with forgetting the checks. People keep praising the new concentration rules, and I am a bit surprised that they seem to remember with ease...

Note that technically the "stacking buffs" problem isn't even eliminated entirely... there might still be enough non-concentration buffs in the game, and multiple PCs can stack-buffs on one ally as long as they only cast one concentration spell each.

 

[Remathilis]

INote that technically the "stacking buffs" problem isn't even eliminated entirely... there might still be enough non-concentration buffs in the game, and multiple PCs can stack-buffs on one ally as long as they only cast one concentration spell each.

The "stacking buffs" tend to fairly minor (such as mage armor), and even if you have a "core 5" (Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) at best you're getting three buffs, and must deal with three possible characters losing concentration. (If the Bard Goes down, so does haste). This a far better scenario than even before, where in two rounds, those PCs could have six buffs on them that last the whole fight (barring dispel magic).

 

[KarinsDad]

Except that MOST spells are *much* more powerful and monsters don't get scaling saving throws any more.

Seriously my group Hold Personed their way through entire sections of the underdark. Even with a massive boost to wisdom saving throws (+8) most humanoids still have a 50/50 chance of "save or die" at best, more likely they are doomed.
Many other spells scale VERY well like this once your DC gets high.

Being able to fly and do things like this makes casters ridiculously overpowered. I would break your game in seconds if you let me cast two conc spells as a caster. A single Sorcerer could haste the entire party, or casters could turn melee characters into killing machines that will rip through whatever pitiful monsters you decide to throw at them.

It's only a "non issue" for you because you're still dabbling in low level stuff.

Yeah, yeah. Until the lightning bolt hits your flying wizard and he falls to the ground for an additional 5D6 damage.


The first problem with your theory is that 3E would have been a nightmare and it wasn't. Yes, some players took advantage of multi-spell buffing, but those buffs lasted for hours. But, 3E was not "broken" per se. High level casters were a bit uber, especially ones in certain prestige classes. But, high level play was still viable. Alternatively in 5E, the vast majority of concentration spells last 10 minutes or less.

The second problem with your theory is that it does not take into account multiple encounters. Sure, earlier encounters might be easier, but if the spell casters use up a lot of their resources early on, they do not have as much in the gas tank for later encounters.

Another problem with your theory is that casters who put up multiple concentration spells turn themselves into bigger targets. In 3E, a buffer was not that big of a target because the spell was already cast and self sustaining. In 5E, damaging or knocking unconscious a caster who has multiple concentration spells up can drop multiple spells. So yes, the caster is more effective, but that just means that he's now more of a target. Pros and Cons.


You could try to "break my game in seconds", but no you really couldn't.

Haste: "When the spell ends, the target can't move or take actions until after its next turn".

Do you seriously think that as DM, that this is never going to happen if a PC spams Haste in my game? That your hypothetical Sorcerer is not going to get his hat handed to him and half or more of the party just stand there for an entire round of NPC attacks?

Seriously?

Yes, this makes PCs a bit more potent. But just think what it does for Dragons (especially dragons in my game that get 2x Cha in spells).

Drow in my game would not easily fall to multiple Hold Person spells because the Drow too would be casting multiple concentration spells. Good for the goose.


PS. I really get the impression that your DM is unable to challenge his players with all of your "high level PCs are unstoppable as is" posts. How many times did your DM drop the entire party into a large pool of water and have them fight that way? How many times has your DM split the party up with a single sliding wall? Most of your posts seem to be ones where the PCs seem to know about their enemies and are easily able to surprise them, and the PCs seem to always be able to help one another. Sorry. That doesn't happen at everyone's table.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad - Hmm, you may have a point. But by the same token, breaking it down like that to the "picture yourself doing it" level does mitigate against multiple concentration spells being cast together. Unless you are Kvothe from The Name of the Wind, how can you CONCENTRATE on two spells at once?

You are focusing on the word concentration too much here.

They could have used the word "maintaining" instead and the mechanic would be the same.

If one thinks about it, why introduce a concentration game element at all? Why should a caster have to concentrate on a spell? This was extremely rare in earlier editions and doesn't feel like D&D at all. Spells had durations and in most cases, the caster could die and the spell would still exist for its duration.

 

[DaveDash]

Yeah, yeah. Until the lightning bolt hits your flying wizard and he falls to the ground for an additional 5D6 damage.


The first problem with your theory is that 3E would have been a nightmare and it wasn't. Yes, some players took advantage of multi-spell buffing, but those buffs lasted for hours. But, 3E was not "broken" per se. High level casters were a bit uber, especially ones in certain prestige classes. But, high level play was still viable. Alternatively in 5E, the vast majority of concentration spells last 10 minutes or less.

The second problem with your theory is that it does not take into account multiple encounters. Sure, earlier encounters might be easier, but if the spell casters use up a lot of their resources early on, they do not have as much in the gas tank for later encounters.

Another problem with your theory is that casters who put up multiple concentration spells turn themselves into bigger targets. In 3E, a buffer was not that big of a target because the spell was already cast and self sustaining. In 5E, damaging or knocking unconscious a caster who has multiple concentration spells up can drop multiple spells. So yes, the caster is more effective, but that just means that he's now more of a target. Pros and Cons.


You could try to "break my game in seconds", but no you really couldn't.

Haste: "When the spell ends, the target can't move or take actions until after its next turn".

Do you seriously think that as DM, that this is never going to happen if a PC spams Haste in my game? That your hypothetical Sorcerer is not going to get his hat handed to him and half or more of the party just stand there for an entire round of NPC attacks?

Seriously?

Yes, this makes PCs a bit more potent. But just think what it does for Dragons (especially dragons in my game that get 2x Cha in spells).

Drow in my game would not easily fall to multiple Hold Person spells because the Drow too would be casting multiple concentration spells. Good for the goose.


PS. I really get the impression that your DM is unable to challenge his players with all of your "high level PCs are unstoppable as is" posts. How many times did your DM drop the entire party into a large pool of water and have them fight that way? How many times has your DM split the party up with a single sliding wall? Most of your posts seem to be ones where the PCs seem to know about their enemies and are easily able to surprise them. Sorry. That doesn't happen at everyone's table.

There's nothing really theory about it KarinsDad, I'm playing high level, you're not.

The problem with YOUR theory is that first level spells are still very powerful at higher levels, and you have tons to burn. DC's still scale for those low level spells. Casting bless and bane every encounter is going to have a HUGE impact on the difficulty.

The problem with YOUR theory is the more casters you have in the party, the more quadratic the power level. There are a lot more total spell slots to go around now in a party due to many other classes being upgraded in their spellcasting status.

The problem with YOUR theory is the monsters simply aren't designed like they were in 3rd edition, they're not designed to face quadratic casters, many of them are not spell casters themselves any more, and do not have all the special qualities (spell resistance, true sight, etc) that they used to. They certainly also don't have scaling saving throws like they used to.

The problem with YOUR theory is that players tend to hoard resources anyway then "Go Nova" for the boss fights (which also tend to last longer), so allowing them to quadractically buff stack means up to 4 times the amount of buffs/debuffs in those hard encounters.
I've seen a Level 14 Paladin Solo a CR18 Dragon with buff stacking via potions.

You have zero experience at the higher levels, the potential for abuse is massive even allowing two combinations of concentration spells. I see huge potential for abuse with Greater Invisibility + other combinations. Etherealness + Invisibility abuse, and many other combinations.

Streamlined monster statblocks in 5e and the action economy simply isn't designed to handle buff/debuff stacking. Saving throws are not designed to handle buff/debuff stacking. Bounded accuracy is not designed to handle buff/debuff stacking. Breaking casters concentration when you're not a spell caster yourself simply isn't designed to handle buff/debuff stacking.

But you know what, If you feel it's working? Good luck to you. For me, even as a player, I enjoy the challenge and tactical choice that the mechanic brings with it.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

You are focusing on the word concentration too much here.

Um...not to be difficult or anything, but the rule is called Concentration because the caster has to concentrate on the spell to keep it going...

I think you are mentally rewording it to suit your own purposes. But even so, "maintaining" a spell would be achieved by, what exactly? Concentrating on it. "Focusing" on a spell would require your, erm, concentration. "Playing keepy-uppy" with your spell requires you to concentrate on what you're doing. Hence, concentration.

As to your personal preferences, to each their own. You can do away with the rule entirely if you choose at your own table. For myself, I quite like the mechanic. I've not played high level yet so my opinion may change, but for me it feels right.

 

[KarinsDad]

There's nothing really theory about it KarinsDad, I'm playing high level, you're not.

The problem with YOUR theory is that first level spells are still very powerful at higher levels, and you have tons to burn. DC's still scale for those low level spells. Casting bless and bane every encounter is going to have a HUGE impact on the difficulty.

Tons? A 14th level Cleric gets 17 spells. That sounds like a lot, but not if there are 10 encounters in a given day. With only 4 first level spells, your Cleric will be dipping into 2nd level spells by the third encounter if he casts Bless and Bane every encounter. Is he really going to be putting Bless and Bane into higher level slots?

And, your Cleric is using up turns casting Bane and Bless instead of attacking (or healing after the fight). So yeah, he's giving +2 to hit (or -2 to hit) for three allies in order to not attack himself. Action economy-wise, not a huge gain (+30% more total chance for allies to hit -60% chance for cleric to hit). And of course, he has to be within 30 feet for this tactic to work.

I'm not seeing this as the mega-boost that you are. Sure, he could cast Bless ahead of time before combat starts, he could even cast it twice. But, that does not mean that every single day, those spells will not be wasted or quickly negated.

The problem with YOUR theory is the more casters you have in the party, the more quadratic the power level.

Not quite. You have yet to illustrate a double increase in power level at all with low level buff spells, let alone a quadratic increase. This is straight up hybebole.

The problem with YOUR theory is the monsters simply aren't designed like they were in 3rd edition, they're not designed to face quadratic casters, many of them are not spell casters themselves any more, and do not have all the special qualities (spell resistance, true sight, etc) that they used to. They certainly also don't have scaling saving throws like they used to.

No, but it's a piece of cake to double the number of monsters, or throw a ton of low level mooks into an encounter, or have a bunch of monsters show up from another room, or have more encounters per day, or have more traps, or a bunch of different ways to challenge the party, regardless of the rules.

The problem with YOUR theory is that players tend to hoard resources anyway then "Go Nova" for the boss fights (which also tend to last longer), so allowing them to quadractically buff stack means up to 4 times the amount of buffs/debuffs in those hard encounters.
I've seen a Level 14 Paladin Solo a CR18 Dragon with buff stacking via potions.

And who gave the party those potions? Did they make them themselves?

I do agree with you that a party that saves resources has a better nova option, but I don't care. PCs wipe out encounters all of the time. There are always more monsters per encounter / more encounters per day that I can throw at a party.

Your entire point is based on the predicate that the game is already balanced and that's your fallacy. The game is not balanced. Giving the PCs a single magic item can unbalance the game. I've played with players who are almost tactical geniuses who can shred an encounter and I've also played with people who could not think their way out of a wet paper bag. It doesn't matter. As DM, I can easily adapt the game to the players, and their PCs, and their tactics, and whatever rules we are playing. Can you?

You have zero experience at the higher levels, the potential for abuse is massive even allowing two combinations of concentration spells. I see huge potential for abuse with Greater Invisibility + other combinations.

That's what the ready action is for. Monsters can target ranged attacks at such a foe when he casts a spell. Greater Invisibility is powerful. It's just as powerful when the NPCs have it. If a player with a 14th level PC wants to use up a slot for Greater Invisibility to help win an encounter, great. HAVE FUN DOING SO.

Streamlined monster statblocks in 5e and the action economy simply isn't designed to handle buff/debuff stacking. Saving throws are not designed to handle buff/debuff stacking. Bounded accuracy is not designed to handle buff/debuff stacking. Breaking casters concentration when you're not a spell caster yourself simply isn't designed to handle buff/debuff stacking.

Nonsense. The game already has buff stacking because more than half of the sublclasses can cast spells.

But you know what, If you feel it's working? Good luck to you. For me, even as a player, I enjoy the challenge and tactical choice that the mechanic brings with it.

That's great for you.

I prefer that the players have fun over the classes have some type of artificial balance. The fighter at level 14 is still throwing out 3 attacks per round. PCs are already uber at that level.

I have an entire DMG and Monster Manual of stuff that I can do to challenge my players. I don't need the rules doing it for me. Maybe you do.