D&D 5E Concentration: combining two effects

[Gabriel Pendragon]

No, I think that RAW in 5e is in an amazing place and is well balanced. Changing parts of the rules can mess with that balance and give more weight to certain options while making others less useful. As is everything has some purpose and has solid reasons for being picked. Even if that reason is nothing other than for thematic fluff. 5e puts a heavy emphasis on roleplaying and less about munchkin esk play. People wanting to munchkin should look into 4e or 3.5 as they are full of munchkin.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just a preface - I was under the misunderstanding that cloud of daggers did reduced damage on subsequent rounds. As written, I think it's an ok spell for it's level if you manage to keep a target in it (even with the concentration limit).

*) 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!"

I'm not seeing a place where that is neither
a) Still bad
b) Overly good

Do you have a compelling example where the 'top tier' concentration spell is actually competing with lesser spells of the same level? So far the spells you're listing (and the spells I've looked at) all fit my model above: either good spells you'll use regardless of concentration (and treantmonk's odd analysis) or bad spells you wouldn't cast in the first place.

The only place that removing concentration limits helps is in allowing the use of low level slots to stack spells that are overly effective for their spell level on enemies and allies.

 

[CapnZapp]

With several additional years of play experience...:

There are definitely several spells that go by the wayside simply because you'd rather use your Concentration slot for something better. There are lots of spells that would become interesting if you removed Concentration.

I am sure there are some spells that lie in the middle. A tad too powerful if Concentration simply got lost, but not so irredeemably useless you wouldn't want to cast them even if you could get two spells for one concentration slot.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I tend to agree. Some spelss are very rarely useful. Usually they would be in a better place if they targeted more people or had a slightly more substantial effect.

I wouldn't put hold person in the subobptimal category though. Casting it at higher level makes it more than useful even later in your career. Phantasmal force is an autokill vs some creatures if you think about how it is written... that aside, I would tend to add either additional effects or better effects for casting at higher levels to some spells and maybe and only maybe I would allow concentrating on several similar effects if they are not of the highest level you can cast.

 

[Gadget]

I would rather just 'fix' the poorly designed spells (as much as I love 5e, there are some of those). For instance, make witchbolt something that a reasonably min/max oriented player would choose to cast in more than any but the most niche situations. Another way would be to perhaps remove the concentration requirement if cast at a high enough level--Improved Invisibility cast in an 8th level slot does not require concentration, though would admittedly do very little for poor spells at the level they reside in.

 

[TheSword]

Really happy with the concentration method. It forces me to make choices. That said I don’t feel the need to take treantmonks most powerful option every level I’m quite happy with purples and greens as well as the blues. It’s a great guide that can particularly help new players to 5e make informed choices, but it isn’t the Bible. It is also an optimization not a playing guide - by which I mean it doesn’t tell you how to play a wizard, it’s tells you how to optimize a wizard. Not all characters need to be optimal. For instance this means I’ve always ignore Treantmonks advice on blaster wizards and save or suck spells haing played a couple of very enjoyable and effective enchanters and evokers over the years.

 

[CapnZapp]

Really happy with the concentration method. It forces me to make choices.

Sure, and nothing about this proposal would change that ☺

That said I don’t feel the need to take treantmonks most powerful option every level I’m quite happy with purples and greens as well as the blues.

Then I trust you're happy to hear this is about the reds and browns, not the choices you're already happy with ☺

It’s a great guide that can particularly help new players to 5e make informed choices, but it isn’t the Bible. It is also an optimization not a playing guide - by which I mean it doesn’t tell you how to play a wizard, it’s tells you how to optimize a wizard. Not all characters need to be optimal. For instance this means I’ve always ignore Treantmonks advice on blaster wizards and save or suck spells haing played a couple of very enjoyable and effective enchanters and evokers over the years.

And I was quite clear this wasn't about his guide specifically - I only used it as an example, and I even said you could ignore his particular ratings if you don't like them ☺

 

[TheSword]

Well the proposal is changing it, because it’s allowing you to concentrate on two things at once. Concentration is THE main limiting factor for wizards. It sounds like a general power boost, albeit it one controllable.

If you want to make wizards better then that’s cool in prinicpal, no different to giving a fighter a magic sword. However to be clear I don’t think there is a need for it, the red and brown spells are fine, just not for all wizards.

 

[Gadget]

If you want to make wizards better then that’s cool in prinicpal, no different to giving a fighter a magic sword. However to be clear I don’t think there is a need for it, the red and brown spells are fine, just not for all wizards.

That's like saying a car without breaks is fine, just not for all drivers. Sure, I think there is an argument to be made for what actually is a red or brown spell, or what is more useful for what type of campaign or play style, and not all opinions and guides are gospel. But given the pretense that a spell is generally accepted as Red or Brown, that is a sign of problem with the spell design that can and probably should be fixed.

 

[TheSword]

That's like saying a car without breaks is fine, just not for all drivers. Sure, I think there is an argument to be made for what actually is a red or brown spell, or what is more useful for what type of campaign or play style, and not all opinions and guides are gospel. But given the pretense that a spell is generally accepted as Red or Brown, that is a sign of problem with the spell design that can and probably should be fixed.

I respectfully disagree. To use your analogy it’s like saying that just because not many people drive a Skoda doesn’t mean it isnt a viable car. It may not be an obvious choice or very well marketed but it does its job.

Guides in general are there to optimize wizards for adventuring and when there are hundreds of spells to choose from some are going to be more useful than others. The red and brown listings mean Treantmonk wouldn’t select them for one of his god wizards (or for any wizard in a smaller number of cases) but the reality is that some of these spells have their uses.

Let’s take for instance the Arcane Lock spell. It’s 1 action to cast, has 25gp material component and is a 2nd level abjuration. It is inspired I would imagine by the LOTR chapter in Moria where Gandalf seals one of the doors to the orcs so they can’t pass through. It buys them a little time and then the Balrog brushes aside the abjuration slowing the orcs through.

Now is that a good concept for a spell? I would say so yes. Is 25gp a fair cost? Yes probably as its permanent until dispelled which is very useful in some circumstances, for instance defending your base. Now because it is not obviously useful to a typical adventuring wizard it doesn’t get a good rating in the guide, but does that mean there is no value to it in the game? It is also worth considering that a lot of spells are driven by taste or theme which means people would happily accept a little less mechanical effect as long as the spell is cool. Lastly some spells can be driven by story aims, or be predominantly used by NPCs (for instance a lot of the spells in Princes of the Apocalypse are designed for the elemental cults)

Ironically in our last session with my Way of the Wicked group, the party witch (transmuter wizard) used arcane lock to seal the doors of the chapel to the guards of a fortress they were infiltrating as they were discovered. That saved them from being attacked by a dozen or so guards that would certainly have overwhelmed them and it gave them chance to find the other way out. Essentially it saved the party.

These are not cars without breaks. They’re cars that people don’t like.