Concentration Spells w/ Saves

[Uller]

One of the big advantages I've seen that NPC casters have is that most of the time they have all their spell slots available at the start of a fight and no need to worry about saving them. So most of the time I open with their highest level concentration spell. If it requires a save and the target makes it, I can just cast it again next round.

For PCs it's not so easy. Our party just reached 7th level and the wizard took banishment. Great spell for taking out a foe quickly, possibly for the rest of the battle. The first time he got a chance to use it the target saved. It just seemed so...crappy.

So here is what I am thinking:

If a spell has duration and requires concentration and allows an all or nothing save, the caster can maintain concentration and on his next turn us an action to attempt the spell again on the unaffected targets as long as they are still in the AoE, within range, etc. The caster can continue to do this as long as he maintains concentration and as long as the duration has not expired.

Let's say a caster casts Hold Person with a 4th level slot (3 targets). Two of the targets make their save, one doesn't. Next round the caster can spend his action to reattempt the spell on the two that made the save (not on the one that he already affected...even if it broke out of the spell...

It is still going to cost an action. Just no slot.

 

[cmad1977]

Too powerful I think. Basically turns hold person and such into a sure thing. No target is going to make all it's saves.

 

[Uller]

Too powerful I think. Basically turns hold person and such into a sure thing. No target is going to make all it's saves.

Maybe. What I've noticed is my players are favoring damage dealing spells. Several game sessions ago I a caster cast slow to great effect on the party and every time most of them had broken the spell, I just cast it again because the caster had three 3rd level slots. They were very annoyed. So one of my players took it and the first time he used it, all but one of the targets made their saves. The one target that was affected still managed to get an attack in then made his save...the player hasn't used it since because he feels like it would be more useful to cast a spell that is guaranteed to do at least some damage (in his case, Hunger of Hadar). Same with banishment as I described above.

Will it make Hold Person or Hypnotic Pattern a sure thing? Not completely...concentration still matters. It still takes an action so you can't cast something else. It just makes it not take up another slot to recast the same spell.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This rule would make Dominate Monster an extremely good spell, instead of a mediocre and situational one. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it would also turn Hypnotic Pattern/Confusion/Hold Person into uber spells instead of merely the very good spells that they are. Even Tasha's Hideous Laughter would become rather OP, since its biggest drawback is that the target gets a chance to end the spell every time it is damaged.

Ergo no way, not at my table. Control spells are already extremely good and popular. Your wizard got unlucky, and he also used Banishment in a rather weak use-case: Banishment V is only slightly more expensive than Banishment IV, but it is twice as good. (Wall of Force might be better though.) At level 7 he's probably better off with Polymorph, most likely on fellow PCs.

I get what you're trying to do, but I think the issue is on the players' side and not the rules side: they don't yet know how to properly exploit control spells. It's fine if they never learn, but if they stick to damage spells they will eventually discover that fighters are much better at non-AoE damage than spellcasters are, and they will gradually migrate towards being fighters. At that point, someone will re-discover control spells and they will realize that fighters are much better when a spellcaster is controlling their enemies. And at that moment, they will achieve enlightenment.

(Then they may realize also that spellcasters can generate their own fighters using Animate Dead and Planar Binding.)

 

[CapnZapp]

We have also found that spells that only target a single creature, only work after a failed save, and can be broken each round by making the save are generally not worth wasting your time with. If they also take your concentration, that's it: they're useless.

As a spellcaster you simply need to do more with your high level slots to stay competitive.

Damage-dealing spells, in contrast, are guaranteed to work (in that even if the monster makes a save, you often deal half damage) and directly help your fighters (since your effort stacks with theirs).

Sure there can be exceptions to this rule of thumb. If you're facing a horde of smaller creatures and one incredibly dangerous boss monster, it could be worth your while to shut it down even at the expense of you doing nothing else.

But such encounters are far and few between, since how many monsters are individually more dangerous than your party's main spellcaster?

And if they have legendary resistance, just forget about it. Then you're much better off taking out the trash, while your fighters go to town on the big baddy's ass. Or doing something completely different, such as manipulating the terrain or something (walling off monsters, flying your paladin, etc)

 

[CapnZapp]

At that point, someone will re-discover control spells and they will realize that fighters are much better when a spellcaster is controlling their enemies. And at that moment, they will achieve enlightenment.

Well, if the point of playing a spellcaster is to enable fighters to shine even more than they already do, I understand why they choose fighters.

If I wanted to play a support caster I would choose Bard or Cleric.

As a Wizard, you expect to be the star of the show. Not just the guy keeping the advantage-glow on the monster or the guy keeping the Paladin in the air.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, if the point of playing a spellcaster is to enable fighters to shine even more than they already do, I understand why they choose fighters.

If I wanted to play a support caster I would choose Bard or Cleric.

As a Wizard, you expect to be the star of the show. Not just the guy keeping the advantage-glow on the monster or the guy keeping the Paladin in the air.

*Wince* I wish you wouldn't phrase that like you were speaking for all wizards. Gandalf might take issue with it, for example. So would most of my wizards. "The best way to use a magic weapon is to stick it on a big beefy fighter" is a core part of my philosophy, and using spells to aid the big beefy fighter is a core part of my 5E wizard philosophy.

Maybe that philosophical difference is why some people feel 5E wizards are underpowered. Such people should just play fighters.

 

[the Jester]

Too powerful I think. Basically turns hold person and such into a sure thing. No target is going to make all it's saves.

This. I see a tooooooon of problems with this. You're potentially breaking the balance on all offensive concentration spells, and concentration was a huge step toward balancing casters with non-casters. I wouldn't do it.

That said, play how you like! Just be aware that you're making spellcasters much, much more powerful. You're basically making every hold spell, dominate spells, etc into options that are far better than other spells of their level.

 

[Uller]

This. I see a tooooooon of problems with this. You're potentially breaking the balance on all offensive concentration spells, and concentration was a huge step toward balancing casters with non-casters. I wouldn't do it.

I get that. I like the concentration mechanic for the most part. There are some spells that I am disappointed when I see they are concentration (stoneskin for instance). But that's not really what my suggestion is about. It's more about the spell slot/action economy. To keep the spell up and attempt it again has a cost: 1) it will cost you an action that you could use to cast a different spell and 2) (probably more importantly) it requires you maintain concentration. To the rule, I would add that when a target fails it's save, it knows what the spell would have done to it, who cast it AND they are attempting it again (and smarter monsters would know that bashing the caster in the skull would have a chance of disrupting it.

But, I agree the concerns folks raised could result in some of these spells becoming overpowered. The dominate ones really stand out (8 or 24 hours of trying to impose your will on the target...hmmm).

I think what I'll do is create a party of 3 or 4 characters and include one controller type caster and one fire and lightning type caster and play them against a handful of encounters at various levels and see what happens.

 

[imabaer]

Concentration and saves are fixing two separate problems. Concentration is to ensure that casters can't stack several effects. Saves are to give victims some sort of chance of not being screwed completely.

Mechanically, you're essentially giving conditional disadvantage to some of the most powerful effects in the game. Not a good idea.

If your wizard really hates missing, suggest Divination next time. Otherwise, it's part of the game.

1) it will cost you an action that you could use to cast a different spell and 2) (probably more importantly) it requires you maintain concentration.

The biggest cost of spells isn't action economy, but the spell slot. Concentration is also an issue that is largely mitigatable.