D&D 5E Ditching concentration - did you do it?

[Warmaster Horus]

Cool! Can I get an additional attack per level each turn for my Fighter while we're at it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would have to think about it, but if you remove concentration, then I would shorten the duration of short rest for martial characters, or remove the attack action on your turn for features like extra attack. Basically if casters don't have to worry about concentration then martial characters should be more free to whittle down hit points.

It'd be hard to compensate for removing concentration entirely. Removing concentration by removing all spells that require it would be the safest way.

Removing just the CON save when you take damage might be a good call, because it simplifies things. You could either go the old-school way (taking damage ends concentration, no save), or the 4e way (taking damage does nothing). But, I think making it a caster choice might be a good idea: Say, if you are attacked or need to make a save, you can either give up concentration, or fail the save/the attack becomes a crit if it hits. Decision points are more interesting than random checks, and it maintains the idea that concentration is risky, and keeps concentration spells limited.

 

[slaughterj]

100 times this. I have found that many concentration spells simply aren't worth using if you can only concentrate on a single spell.

Blur would be worth it if it didn't drop easily once you got hit. Others probably as well, so only one concentration at a time isn't so much of an issue for me as having to make the damage checks, especially for defense spells where you *need* them to protect you from attacks, or others like Fly (sucks to get hit, fall, and become insta-dead).

Another alternative might be to make getting hit by a critical to either require a check (as opposed to all damage) or simply takes out the spell.

Once you tweak away the concentration check though, you have to consider the impact elsewhere such as the Warcaster feat. without a concentration check, I would drop the advantage on concentration effects bullet, and add in something else such as enabling casting attack spells in melee without disadvantage, which seems "Warcastery".

 

[Psikerlord#]

There are two main elements offhand to Concentration spells though:
1. Concentration spells can be disrupted through a DC from damage, and
2. If you have a Concentration spell running, you can't have another running.

You could probably dispense with #1 without impacting balance much, so long as you still had #2.

I personally dislike #1 with regard to various defense spells, such as Blur and Stoneskin, it really cheapens those spells that can be lost at a moment's notice. I see PCs simply going with Mirror Image instead of Blur for the consistency of not risking dropping it. I have not taken a close look but I don't think removing #1 would mean many if any Concentration spells would suddenly appear unbalanced.

I am more inclined to go the other way. I dont think you need the "only one spell at a time" limitation of concentration, as long as you retain the damage can break it rule. If you're concentrating on two spells and take damage, you have to roll to concentration for each spell.

I personally think that sufficiently protects balance, but allows for a bit more flexibility for a caster, and still permits spells like hold person to be broken early. I would certainly not rule out a feat along these lines for a player who wanted it.

On the other hand, havent played much high level 5e ... perhaps things would get out of hand at higher level. Then again, who plays high level anyway? I think 5e should probably top out about level 11 myself.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Cool! Can I get an additional attack per level each turn for my Fighter while we're at it?

No, but you can wield an unlimited number of weapons simultaneously and wear an unlimited number of armor suits.

 

[slaughterj]

I am more inclined to go the other way. I dont think you need the "only one spell at a time" limitation of concentration, as long as you retain the damage can break it rule. If you're concentrating on two spells and take damage, you have to roll to concentration for each spell.

I personally think that sufficiently protects balance, but allows for a bit more flexibility for a caster, and still permits spells like hold person to be broken early. I would certainly not rule out a feat along these lines for a player who wanted it.

On the other hand, havent played much high level 5e ... perhaps things would get out of hand at higher level. Then again, who plays high level anyway? I think 5e should probably top out about level 11 myself.

Sure, you take on more risk if you try to run multiple spells that way, directly from the concept of having to make a concentration check for damage, but indirectly because you will draw more fire as the source of multiple ongoing spells. But the problem with the checks are with defense spells and Fly, which suck if quickly knocked out, I agree that it is nice to knock out concentration offense spells. But one other reason for the current system's concentration rule of one spell at a time was to minimize bookkeeping, and if you allow multiple to operate, you are keeping track of the starting round for each, and it gets to be a hassle.

 

[Huntsman57]

Concentration seems a bit pointless to me. Save or suck spells have been completely nerfed into the ground since 3.5 so there's no need to further handicap them. I suppose spells like Haste and Improved invisibility are strong enough that there's an arguement for concentration. Likewise, the only reason at higher level to consider Mirror Image over Blur is the concentration consideration.

I do like the flavor of concentration, but aside from unnecessarily nerfing spells that are of questionable value even without the mechanic, it also bogs the game down with unnecessary rolls. The idea I'm playing with atm is that only 1 concentration check need be made per round based on the single highest source of damage. Perhaps the DC will increase by 1 for each additional hit.

 

[Celtavian]

It'd be hard to compensate for removing concentration entirely. Removing concentration by removing all spells that require it would be the safest way.

Removing just the CON save when you take damage might be a good call, because it simplifies things. You could either go the old-school way (taking damage ends concentration, no save), or the 4e way (taking damage does nothing). But, I think making it a caster choice might be a good idea: Say, if you are attacked or need to make a save, you can either give up concentration, or fail the save/the attack becomes a crit if it hits. Decision points are more interesting than random checks, and it maintains the idea that concentration is risky, and keeps concentration spells limited.

A concentration roll per attack is tedious. I think I'm going to write a house rule that is a concentration roll per enemy per turn. If they make the concentration check on the first hit, they make it for the turn. A round is six seconds, so all these hits are supposedly happening at some point in the six second round. One could imagine that stabbing someone two or three times successfully in a span of a second or two wouldn't be any more difficult to concentrate than being stabbed a single time.

 

[Li Shenron]

We haven't house ruled concentration (yet), but we did have problems with remembering to check when being hit. I don't like it, it's not fun for my tastes, so I am interested in hearing what others have experienced after house ruling it.

There were explicitly two design issues, one was the "must avoid casters to multi-buff themselves before a fight", and with that idea I am totally fine!

But the other issue, about the chance of disrupting a spell by attacking the caster, I don't think this adds anything interesting to the game. It's a complication, because some spells can be disrupted while others cannot. This probably didn't complicate nor simplify the design, but at the gaming table is one more thing to keep in mind. In addition, there is no reason why "spells that must not be simultanously active" should always be also "spells that can be disrupted", but this is a byproduct of having concentration cover both.

I would largely prefer a common rule for disrupting spells. It could be "you cannot disrupt any spell just by hitting the caster", or "you can disrupt any spell by hitting the caster while the spell is active", or "you can disrupt any spell by hitting the caster while the spell is being cast".

And by the way, if it's really true that players are avoiding concentration spells because they think they are not worth the risk of losing them or don't want to bother to keep track of them, then it means the concentration rule is a failure.

#1 that you mention is less part of the game to keep PC spell usage in check, and more part of the game so that stripping obnoxious buff spells from monster/npc spellcasters or ending their "Dave doesn't get to play until this spell ends" effect is a possibility no matter what class you are playing or spells you have prepared.

I would prefer those cases to rely on target's saving throw each round, so that the chance of ending the effect earlier doesn't depend on what your allies do (i.e. attack the caster), and how many they are.

 

[CM]

This is me totally. I need a bell to go off when a caster who is concentrating takes damage, etc. or I may forget it. I'm much more vigilant at policing casters who cast multiple concentration spells.

<veering off-topic>

We put a ring of sparkly pipe cleaner around the miniatures of actors known to be concentrating on spells, so there's an extra reminder to check Con.