Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="procproc" data-source="post: 6543731" data-attributes="member: 6791328"><p>I'm running one game and (soon to be) playing in another. I'm not at all fond of the damage checks on concentration spells.</p><p></p><p>DMing: My players are relatively new and not terribly rules savvy, so they don't pay too much attention. I've house-ruled away the damage save for concentration spells, and I don't think any of my players are aware there's a chance they'd be losing their spells on taking damage.</p><p></p><p>Playing: I'll be playing a Bladelock. I intend to take Hex for use when I'm long-range, and otherwise avoid concentration spells like the plague.</p><p></p><p>I understand the concern about buff stacking, and it was out of control in 3.x. It's definitely closer to balanced now than it was then, but I'm of the opinion it's swung too far in the other direction. Especially for front-line casters, the chance of losing your spells is just too great unless the payoff is huge. Even if you're not a front-line caster, you're more likely to get targeted by ranged attackers to try to break your buffs on the front-liners.</p><p></p><p>Having a one-buff limit is fine, but I don't think "concentration" is the best way to do it. I'd rather have it explicitly be a "one buff limit" on each character, so you can only benefit from one beneficial ongoing effect at a time. As it stands now, a sorcerer (say) is required to choose between buffing a party member and casting a Flaming Sphere. That just feels really strange. You could still have "concentration" as a limit on spells like Hold Person, and still have damage-based interruption for those effects. </p><p></p><p>I mean, taken to its logical extreme, under the current rules you can have a fighter and a dozen casters guarding a castle wall, and the casters all buff the fighter with concentration effects so he's a Flying Hasted Blessed etc. killing machine. PCs pulling that off isn't a practical concern, but it's still possible to do.</p><p></p><p>I don't know. I'm really disappointed in the execution of the concentration mechanic. As much as I like other aspects of 5e, it's almost enough to make me move to a different system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="procproc, post: 6543731, member: 6791328"] I'm running one game and (soon to be) playing in another. I'm not at all fond of the damage checks on concentration spells. DMing: My players are relatively new and not terribly rules savvy, so they don't pay too much attention. I've house-ruled away the damage save for concentration spells, and I don't think any of my players are aware there's a chance they'd be losing their spells on taking damage. Playing: I'll be playing a Bladelock. I intend to take Hex for use when I'm long-range, and otherwise avoid concentration spells like the plague. I understand the concern about buff stacking, and it was out of control in 3.x. It's definitely closer to balanced now than it was then, but I'm of the opinion it's swung too far in the other direction. Especially for front-line casters, the chance of losing your spells is just too great unless the payoff is huge. Even if you're not a front-line caster, you're more likely to get targeted by ranged attackers to try to break your buffs on the front-liners. Having a one-buff limit is fine, but I don't think "concentration" is the best way to do it. I'd rather have it explicitly be a "one buff limit" on each character, so you can only benefit from one beneficial ongoing effect at a time. As it stands now, a sorcerer (say) is required to choose between buffing a party member and casting a Flaming Sphere. That just feels really strange. You could still have "concentration" as a limit on spells like Hold Person, and still have damage-based interruption for those effects. I mean, taken to its logical extreme, under the current rules you can have a fighter and a dozen casters guarding a castle wall, and the casters all buff the fighter with concentration effects so he's a Flying Hasted Blessed etc. killing machine. PCs pulling that off isn't a practical concern, but it's still possible to do. I don't know. I'm really disappointed in the execution of the concentration mechanic. As much as I like other aspects of 5e, it's almost enough to make me move to a different system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Concentration: Addressing Player Concerns
Top