D&D 5E Concentration: combining two effects

[CapnZapp]

Those items seems ludicrously specific as to who might be able to use them. The chance that someone would find the ring and know one of the relevant spells and be in a situation where that warranted spending multiple spell slots is vanishingly small.

If you're comfortable adding stuff to the game, why not just invent new spells that work exactly like the bad ones but don't require concentration? Inventing new stuff is encouraged in this edition.

I value your feedback, and certainly the "too specific" is a valid criticism.

Just dropping concentration is, however, not a productive path forward, in my opinion. The whole point is increase versatility but not overall power. If you merely drop concentration, not only have you made the spell plain better, you have also made it possible to combine it with the best-in-class concentration spells.

The idea here is to identify a set of "second rate" concentration spells, and make them compete better by being workable in pairs.

Instead of concentrating on one good spell before you start to Fireball away (or something), you would be given the option to concentrate on TWO less good spells.

That's the idea anyway.

 

[CapnZapp]

Only think that I would add is that you can concentrate on any number of spell as long as their combined level is not higher than highest level you can cast.
cantrips count as 1/2 level spells, round up.

I.E. 9th level wizard can concentrate on;
one 5th level spell,
one 4th level spell and one 1st level spells,
two 2nd level spells one 1st level spell,
one 3rd level spell, one 1st level spell and two cantrips,

etc...

Well, no - the value of a spell as a buff isn't well defined by its level.

This idea would only mean I will concentrate on the best 1st level spell AND the best higher-leveled spell.

Which won't add in the red spells into my repertoire, which was the entire point.

The idea is that while you might never concentrate on a mediocre spell, you might do it if you get to concentrate on TWO mediocre spells.

 

[Uchawi]

You could add a method to have more concentration spells but at a cost to the caster. So they would have to reserve extra spells slots (x2) each day for every spell you want to remove concentration.

 

[Horwath]

Well, no - the value of a spell as a buff isn't well defined by its level.

This idea would only mean I will concentrate on the best 1st level spell AND the best higher-leveled spell.

Which won't add in the red spells into my repertoire, which was the entire point.

The idea is that while you might never concentrate on a mediocre spell, you might do it if you get to concentrate on TWO mediocre spells.

I dont see any problem with that.

If that will "save" red spells from oblivion, only to be delayed by 2 character levels, why not?

and you still must wait to 13th level to have fly and improved invisibility both casted.

 

[Athinar]

I think concentration is not broken, but in D&D 5.1 "The Upper Limits of Bounded Accuracy", in 5.1 there will be a Feat to concentrate on +1 spell, and the Feat can be taken multiple times

 

[Saeviomagy]

You respond as if I'm attacking Concentration in general. I'm not.

You also respond as if I didn't ask you to overlook Treeant monks ratings - if you don't like them, treat my rings as illustrative examples only.

I'm not going to argue the merits of individual spells here, at least not until we have hashed out a general mechanical foundation for the idea to stand on. Feel free to contribute!

The point is: if there's even one spell that you and your group never use and that the reason is chiefly because it requires your sole concentration "slot", why not loosen that restriction for that spell?

The only spells that I can think of which fall into that category are short term concentration effects (ie paladin smite spells, true strike and readying a spell), and I think the fix for all of those is to remove concentration from the base spell because it is simply the wrong mechanic for them.

Treantmonk subscribes to a school of thought that if you're not using a spell all the time, it's of low value (hence his rating for hold person). Since you only concentrate on a single spell at a time, that means only the best concentration spell at a level gets a good rating.

My personal view is that outside of my limited case above, spells are either good or bad and whether they need concentration doesn't meaningfully impact that.

Now, sure, you could make an item to concentrate on a spell for a single round for you: but I think that would just add complexity when simply abolishing concentration from those scenarios would be better because it's not appropriate for them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thinking about this further, here's a simplified mechanic that ditches magic items and makes the idea available to all:

Lesser Concentration: certain spells are marked with a *. You may concentrate on a lesser concentration spell even if you already concentrate on a lesser concentration spell. All other game rules still apply; you cast these spells individually and you make or fail concentration checks for each spell individually.

Example spell:

Hold Person* (Lesser Concentration)

So you could cast Hold Person for a second time even if you're already holding a person without breaking concentration, or combine it with any other spell designated as lesser concentration. You would still expend two cast actions and two spell slots. If you take damage, you make one concentration check for each instance. If you cast a regular concentration spell, you lose concentration on both instances.

 

[CapnZapp]

My personal view is that outside of my limited case above, spells are either good or bad and whether they need concentration doesn't meaningfully impact that.

That's astonishing.

To me, what makes a spell "bad" is when it comes with too high a cost.

The concentration requirement is definitely such a cost, together with slot level and (theoretically) casting time and restrictions such as "can save every round" and a bunch of other things.

I can definitely see how lifting the concentration requirement can salvage a spell*. That's kind of the fundamental assumption in this thread, and if you do not share it... well, then I understand if you have nothing to contribute.

Regards,
Zapp

*) like I've explained previously, and now I'm not addressing anyone in particular; my aim is to introduce variety as in "you can use best-in-class spell X, or... you can now use average spells Y+Z together!"

In contrast, taking away the concentration requirement altogether brings about two further changes that might be good, but might also be too good, which is why I'm not doing that:
1) instead of offering you a choice between best-in-class spell X and spells Y+Z, now you can cast Y or Z on top of X, which a) is a straight powerup and b) doesn't increase choice since you will still cast spell X.
2) the spell can no longer be removed by whacking you, which lessens the thematic choice the 5E designers made when they made your spells vulnerable to damage. Yes, our spell Y would become much more interesting for melee casters, but now I'm talking about concentration spells in general and not the select few where concentration might be an actual mistake.

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

I think cloud of daggers has some crazy usability options, one being surrounding a large creature so it can't move away while it sits in the zone, a second being comboing it with hunter's traps, pit traps, hold person spell, a net user, or as a spell to hold a line in a hallway while you rain death on the enemies from behind it. With many spells it is situation, but 5e is all about creating situations and exploiting them in fun creative ways.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think cloud of daggers has some crazy usability options, one being surrounding a large creature so it can't move away while it sits in the zone, a second being comboing it with hunter's traps, pit traps, hold person spell, a net user, or as a spell to hold a line in a hallway while you rain death on the enemies from behind it. With many spells it is situation, but 5e is all about creating situations and exploiting them in fun creative ways.

Thanks.

So you're saying the suggested alternative would enable you to create (more) situations and "exploits of fun" in your game?