D&D 5E Concentration variations

[Guest 6801328]

5e tries to avoid "fiddly" mechanics, so maybe this isn't really in the spirit of the current edition, but I'd like to see more shades of gray in concentration mechanics. Many people have suggested that some spells simply have the Concentration tag removed, but how about if spells change depending upon whether or not you maintain concentration? Specifically I'm thinking about spells that allow a saving throw each round, and that don't require the caster's action or bonus action to utilize.

Think about how any of these options might apply to, say, hold person, blindness/deafness, or polymorph:

- Advantage on saving throws (after the first one) if no concentration
- Conversely, disadvantage on saving throws (again, once a target has already failed the first save) if there is concentration
- As an alternative to the above, if concentrating, the caster can use a bonus action (or reaction?) to impose disadvantage on saving throw.
- No additional saving throw if concentration, normal saving throws if no concentration

#3 is my favorite, I think. Could also be combined with #1. So there would be three "tiers"
- Advantage on saves if no concentration
- Normal saves if concentrating
- Caster can use reaction to impose disadvantage on saving throw to a creature that is currently under the effect.

 

[NotAYakk]

I am a bit leery. The spells you picked as examples are not generally the ones which are considered "too weak" and "not worth" concentration.

Barkskin. True Strike. Witch Bolt. Flame Arrows. That kind of thing.

 

[Stormonu]

If anything, I think if the caster takes an action to focus on a concentration spell, it should impose disadvantage on the target's saving throw.

There are some spells though, I'd like to see concentration removed from (like Barkskin. I think it's unfair Mage Armor doesn't require concentration and Barkskin does).

Also, I would like to see feats or ability that allow you maintain more than one concentration spell - possibly tied to level (1 such spell at level 1-5, two at 6-12, three at 13-20). Being able to do things like pass concentration off to familiars or special items might also be feasible; so long as the stacking doesn't get out of control like back in 3E.

Finally, I'd like to see it changed from being named "concentration" to "maintain". "Concentration" would become taking an action to focus on a maintained spell, and would make more sense with multiple spells you "maintain".

 

[Guest 6801328]

I am a bit leery. The spells you picked as examples are not generally the ones which are considered "too weak" and "not worth" concentration.

Barkskin. True Strike. Witch Bolt. Flame Arrows. That kind of thing.

Oh, sure. We can talk about which spells. I just grabbed the first ones I could think of that required concentration, allowed a new saving throw each round, but didn't have any kind of ongoing interaction.

And there are some spells, like barkskin, that shouldn't require concentration. Agreed.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Also, I would like to see feats or ability that allow you maintain more than one concentration spell - possibly tied to level (1 such spell at level 1-5, two at 6-12, three at 13-20). Being able to do things like pass concentration off to familiars or special items might also be feasible; so long as the stacking doesn't get out of control like back in 3E.

That would be so good that it would start to feel like a feat tax.

I'd rather see it implemented in subclasses, so that it could be appropriately balanced.

 

[NotAYakk]

Oh, sure. We can talk about which spells. I just grabbed the first ones I could think of that required concentration, allowed a new saving throw each round, but didn't have any kind of ongoing interaction.

And there are some spells, like barkskin, that shouldn't require concentration. Agreed.

My problem is, which spells is about the only thing that matters.

The exact same mechanics on a different spell lead to different levels of overhead and different changes in spellcaster power level.

...

Bonus actions are near-free in some builds. If (in general) you could burn a bonus action to force disadvantage on saves on spells you are concentrating on until the start of your next turn, it would be a significant upgrade to such spells.

...

Barkskin could be tweaked to be worth concentration. For example, what if it gave you a 16 AC and gave you resistance to all non-fire damage. Except, if you took damage, the spell ends at the end of the caster's next turn unless they spend an action reinforcing it.

Barkskin, as a long-duration targetted buff with no concentration, makes entire categories of armor obsolete. Mage armor acts like a class feature -- burn a low level spell slot and have it on your list, you get AC of 13 plus your dex. If Barkskin is a cheap source of long-duration AC, it ends up being a spell-slot tax to burn your own spell slots to give other players a class feature. We don't want barkskin to be so good that it is worth its price in the general case.

Make it self only, or have it work on your self or an animal?

...

I've played with giving bonus concentration slots. Right now I have some rules I'm refining; one, "Yet Another Ranger" where you get a 1st level "Primal Bond" that grants abilities at a few Ranger dead levels.

Bond of the Hunt boosts your Ranger spellcasting level by 1, gives you HM as a free spell ranger spell known, boosts HM and (at T2) lets you cast HM while concentrating on another spell.

Bond of the Pack gives the companion from Tashas, and (in T3) lets that companion both cast and concentrate on a Ranger spell for you.

A T3 cleric ability lets them concentration on a spell that targets either only them or only an item they are holding, plus one spell that neither targets them nor an item they are holding. (some careful wording makes sure that Holy Weapon qualifies, even though Holy Weapon can explode and target more than just the weapon)

The idea is to add narrow concentration-broadening mechanics, and not "you can concentrate on 2 effects" in general. I audited all ranger spells, and didn't find a serious problem with the double-dipping at that point; similarly, I audited cleric self buffs and other buffs, and found more fun than problems. It encourages the high-level cleric to both self-buff and debuff (or buff allies, and self-buff).

 

[OptionalRule]

I don't see the need for this or what it adds to the game myself but that doesn't mean it's bad. What are you trying to accomplish with this? Are you trying to achieve better balance? Are you trying to add more excitement? something else?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I am kinda digging the general purpose house rule: “You can spend you action to Focus on a spell you previously cast that requires concentration. Until the beginning of your next turn you have advantage on concentration checks, and creatures who make a saving throw against the spell on their turn do so with disadvantage.”

or something like that. Maybe the “on their turn” is unnecessary.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, new version: "You may spend your action to Focus on a spell you previously cast that requires concentration. Until the beginning of your next turn you have advantage on Constitution saving throws to concentrate on that spell, and if another creature makes a saving throw against that spell you may use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the roll."

 

[OptionalRule]

Ok, new version: "You may spend your action to Focus on a spell you previously cast that requires concentration. Until the beginning of your next turn you have advantage on Constitution saving throws to concentrate on that spell, and if another creature makes a saving throw against that spell you may use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the roll."

I can see this. It seems balanced as they're sacrificing an action to gain advantage. My hesitancy for things like this is that there are way more opportunity to use it against the players than the other way around. It would be rough for a player to be constantly (or more frequently) locked down by behavior controlling spells like Cause Fear, Compelled Duel, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Faerie Fire, or a bunch of other spells. Likewise it would incentivize arguments about why the caster didn't sacrifice all their actions to maintain the spell for the other party members.

Anyway, the balance seems good but I worry about the impact on play at the table.