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

[Mephista]

It makes perfect sense and no HP is not all meat but you should try keeping your attention on something while moving and dodging as well.

The developers flat out said that Constitution saves were used for Concentration specifically because its about how much you can ignore pain. "Moving and Dodging" has nothing to do with it; if that was true, then we'd need a concentration check with every DEX save and attack against AC, met or not. HP = meat is the justification, flat out. There's no way around it when the word from on high confirms it.

I even said, in my post, that I was talking about the being hit part of the justification didn't make sense. Why are you bringing up dodging into the matter in the first place. That had nothign to do with what I said. I feel like you didn't even read what I said.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The developers flat out said that Constitution saves were used for Concentration specifically because its about how much you can ignore pain.

Citation?

"Moving and Dodging" has nothing to do with it; if that was true, then we'd need a concentration check with every DEX save and attack against AC, met or not. HP = meat is the justification, flat out.

Nope, not at all the case - only things which reduce HP run the risk of breaking concentration, and that's completely consistent. Also, even if a concentration check is specifically determining how much you can ignore pain, it is not saying that every single HP lost is a physical wound inflicted - just that if you failed to maintain concentration because of a particular loss of HP that part of that loss was physical pain, potentially from a physical wound, and that pain in whatever unspecified amount was enough at this moment to cause you to lose concentration.

That 30 damage has a higher DC for the concentration check than 20 damage does not mean that more physical pain is caused by the 30 than by the 20, it just means that 30 damage represents a greater chance that enough pain to break your concentration has happened than 20 damage - the actual amount of pain inflicted could be identical, and could represent nothing more than an unexpected tap to your actual physical body.

 

[Simonb1]

You have obviously never met my DM. ;>

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ncentration-did-you-do-it/page5#ixzz3u7gaDb4N

Or reality, for that matter.

Simonb1

 

[faria]

Not gonna read through 8 pages of posts to see if this was already mentioned, but what about losing the CON save option if more than 1 Concentration spell at a time is used? So you can cast 1 Concentration spell and you still get CON saves to maintain it. But after you cast a 2nd Concentration spell on top of the 1st, then any damage taken will immediately interrupt both spells without a save. By casting more than 1 Concentration spell at a time, you're taking a big risk, but you still have the option.

 

[Celtavian]

This is exactly why I have the pet peeve that I do regarding folks bringing up how an old version of the game used to work; they "recollect" rather than actually check, and then they assume not only that their recollection is correct but that my statement that they are wrong about whatever they are talking about is me not remembering the correct thing and being wrong rather than me having checked and being correct.

1E casters couldn't leave melee and cast a spell in the same round because the only ways that characters of any kind could leave melee were to "fall back" which could be done by itself or combined with parrying, and didn't stop your opponent from following right along unless someone else was in melee stopping them from doing so, or to "flee" which let you move farther away but gave your opponent a rear attack against you - at least, that's what page 104 of this 1st edition Player's Handbook indicates to me - I guess I could be wrong because 1st edition was surprisingly full of situations where one source said one thing, and another said something entirely unrelated and different, and I haven't checked every single page of both the PHB and DMG to see if contradictory information is present on the topic.

I played the game. I played a lot of casters. AOOs did not exist. It was easy to avoid combat as a caster in 1E and 2E. Spells were far more powerful than they are in 5E. What part of that is hard to understand? There was no concentration mechanic. It was an on/off function. You were either struck and disrupted or the spell went off. The only thing slowing them down was slow leveling. In 1E invisibility lasted until you attacked and fly lasted 1/turn (10 minutes per level) plus 1d6 turns. Caster power in 1E and 2E was immense. No intelligent caster worth a damn ended up in melee.

Reading that hold PHB brings back memories. It was like a textbook. 1 minute rounds divided into segments. Speed factors. Spells by segment. 1d6 initiative. Crazy powerful spells. It was a fun and lethal game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I played the game. I played a lot of casters. AOOs did not exist. It was easy to avoid combat as a caster in 1E and 2E. Spells were far more powerful than they are in 5E. What part of that is hard to understand? There was no concentration mechanic. It was an on/off function. You were either struck and disrupted or the spell went off. The only thing slowing them down was slow leveling. In 1E invisibility lasted until you attacked and fly lasted 1/turn (10 minutes per level) plus 1d6 turns. Caster power in 1E and 2E was immense. No intelligent caster worth a damn ended up in melee.

Reading that hold PHB brings back memories. It was like a textbook. 1 minute rounds divided into segments. Speed factors. Spells by segment. 1d6 initiative. Crazy powerful spells. It was a fun and lethal game.

You are implying that I didn't play the game, or at least that I did not play casters, and you are wrong on both those counts.

You are also wrong in arguing with the rest of my points because avoiding combat as a caster in 1E and 2E is no more or less difficult than avoiding combat as a caster is in 5th edition, and has nothing at all to do with the point that I made and you are very strongly implying is incorrect - but that seems mostly because you are latched onto certain irrelevant facts and names of game parts rather than actually reading what I said in the context I said it.

No, there wasn't any "attack of opportunity" nor "opportunity attack" - there didn't need to be because you couldn't get away from an enemy that got you in a position where those things would have been relevant, except in the ways I mentioned of "fall back" which you couldn't cast a spell in the same round as doing, or "flee" which you couldn't cast a spell in the same round as doing and also gave your enemy a free rear attack against you (that wasn't actually named anything specific, but is otherwise identical to an opportunity attack).

As for caster power, you might think it was "immense" in 1E and 2E, but it factually wasn't - at least not compared to caster power once all those "crazy powerful spells" you mention had many of their built in limitations (like how haste had a chance of killing the recipient) removed, had the saving throw paradigm redesigned so that you could keep the odds of something passing a save at considerably lower percentages than literally everything and everyone high-level in 1E and 2E would get, and made what appeared to be an overall reduction in the number of spell slots available to cast spells but was actually a significant increase in practical application (especially at low levels), while also taking spell preparation that used to take so much time that a player would be extra cautious about casting any high-level spells because they might not have the time to spend an hour or more on preparing just that spell the next day and making it take 1 hour period no matter how many spells of what level were being prepped.

Of course, that's also not relevant since 5th edition has again altered very important pieces of the spell-power puzzle and come out with a result that is in more of a 1st/2nd/BECMI place than a 3.X place, while still being distinctly different from the power level of the old systems because the least powerful spells have been made noticeably more powerful while the most powerful spells have been made noticeably less powerful - but I've gotten off-track here, so I'll stop rambling with one last statement:

"No intelligent caster worth a damn ended up in melee" applies to 5th edition just as much as it does to any other edition, and is also an absolutely ridiculous thing to say because the intelligence of the caster and their worth has absolutely nothing to do with how likely they are to find themselves in the simple situation of not having a choice in the matter - and no matter the edition, no matter if it had a rule that used the words "opportunity" and "attack" in its name, a caster in melee with an enemy can't just "run back and cast" without consequence (which, as a reminder, is the claim that I said was wrong and then proved to be wrong with cited evidence that wasn't just my potentially faulty recollection).

 

[Celtavian]

You are implying that I didn't play the game, or at least that I did not play casters, and you are wrong on both those counts.

You are also wrong in arguing with the rest of my points because avoiding combat as a caster in 1E and 2E is no more or less difficult than avoiding combat as a caster is in 5th edition, and has nothing at all to do with the point that I made and you are very strongly implying is incorrect - but that seems mostly because you are latched onto certain irrelevant facts and names of game parts rather than actually reading what I said in the context I said it.

No, there wasn't any "attack of opportunity" nor "opportunity attack" - there didn't need to be because you couldn't get away from an enemy that got you in a position where those things would have been relevant, except in the ways I mentioned of "fall back" which you couldn't cast a spell in the same round as doing, or "flee" which you couldn't cast a spell in the same round as doing and also gave your enemy a free rear attack against you (that wasn't actually named anything specific, but is otherwise identical to an opportunity attack).

As for caster power, you might think it was "immense" in 1E and 2E, but it factually wasn't - at least not compared to caster power once all those "crazy powerful spells" you mention had many of their built in limitations (like how haste had a chance of killing the recipient) removed, had the saving throw paradigm redesigned so that you could keep the odds of something passing a save at considerably lower percentages than literally everything and everyone high-level in 1E and 2E would get, and made what appeared to be an overall reduction in the number of spell slots available to cast spells but was actually a significant increase in practical application (especially at low levels), while also taking spell preparation that used to take so much time that a player would be extra cautious about casting any high-level spells because they might not have the time to spend an hour or more on preparing just that spell the next day and making it take 1 hour period no matter how many spells of what level were being prepped.

Of course, that's also not relevant since 5th edition has again altered very important pieces of the spell-power puzzle and come out with a result that is in more of a 1st/2nd/BECMI place than a 3.X place, while still being distinctly different from the power level of the old systems because the least powerful spells have been made noticeably more powerful while the most powerful spells have been made noticeably less powerful - but I've gotten off-track here, so I'll stop rambling with one last statement:

"No intelligent caster worth a damn ended up in melee" applies to 5th edition just as much as it does to any other edition, and is also an absolutely ridiculous thing to say because the intelligence of the caster and their worth has absolutely nothing to do with how likely they are to find themselves in the simple situation of not having a choice in the matter - and no matter the edition, no matter if it had a rule that used the words "opportunity" and "attack" in its name, a caster in melee with an enemy can't just "run back and cast" without consequence (which, as a reminder, is the claim that I said was wrong and then proved to be wrong with cited evidence that wasn't just my potentially faulty recollection).

You must have played your casters very poorly. I found it quite easy to stay out of combat. Once you get invisibility, you generally walked around invisible to ensure the enemy couldn't engage you. Spell durations were much, much longer in 1E and 2E than 5E. And many spells were much more potent. So not even sure why you think it is equally easy to stay out of combat. Not to mention the extremely potent magic items you could get in 1E and 2E which had no attunement.

Caster power was factually immense in 1E and 2E. That is why they leveled slower. You bring up haste like that was what casters used. There were all types of spells in 1E and 2E that were extremely powerful. Stoneskin being one which pretty much made you immune to physical attacks for a long, long time. Fly which lasted a long, long time and once cast couldn't be broken by failing a concentration check. Then there were the save or die or save or suck spells. There was also the power of direct damage spells, which did significant damage given the much lower hit points of 1E and 2E.

How well you play a caster most assuredly does decide how often you end up in battle. Mastery of different spell combinations and creative casting keeps you out of battle. It's been a long, long time since I played 1E and 2E. I do recall quite well that I was a highly effective caster player. Spells were quite potent, especially in 2E when additional books came out. It was only slow leveling that kept casters in check. Once you found a huge gold piece award if you were using gold for advancement, you caught up and were quite potent. More so than 5E, maybe not as much as 3E due to metamagic.

High level 1E and 2E casters were forces to be reckoned with, especially if you knew what you were doing.

1E/2E casters could run back and cast. Just because you have to take a possible hit was meaningless, especially if you had stoneskin or mirror image up. There was no concentration check. Once the guy hit you running off, you cast your spell and were good to go. I did it all the time. Unless the guy was some powerful fighter with immense attacks, it was very easy to do. You are confused as to how concentration applies in this situation. Concentration spells in 5E make it so that getting hit in battle causes you to have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. No such rule existed in 1E/2E. The only way they could disrupt your spell was to hit you while casting the spell. If you ran back out of their range and they use their attack to hit you, you can cast your spell. Once it's up, nothing but another caster can bring it down.

As I said, I played a lot of casters in 1E and 2E. 2E I remember better than 1E. And high level casters in 2E were immensely powerful. More powerful than a caster in 5E could hope to be.

You sure do not recall the 1E and 2E magic system other than this "If you run back, you get hit." So what? It wasn't a free attack. You didn't get extra attacks when you fled or fell back. You get your attack sequence if you still have it during the round. If you used up all your attacks, sorry for you. If the caster were casting a 1 or 3 segment spell and you went slower, once again, sorry for you. Many defensive spells were quick cast low segment spells. So you could erect a defense and get ready to blow off some bigger stuff.

I'm looking over this old 1E game. Ah, the memories. 20d6 fireballs. Unlimited duration invisibility. Long duration fly spells. haste targets equal to your level and it ages you. Save or die spells. I do miss those sometimes. Time Stop was uber powerful too. I think 1E was the edition where direct damage was its most potent compared to what you were fighting.

 

[Huntsman57]

I suppose I just fundamentally disagree with you, even a single round of the paralyzed condition is still absolutely devastating when your rogue could sneak attack, paladin could smite, fighter could action surge, either of those (or possible all of them, depending on party composition) being full critical hits on EVERY attack that lands? That's basically a second level spell slot to give your rogue another use of the assassinate ability in a fight. Most humanoids are going to be affected for 2 turns on average, 2 turns of paralyzed is more than enough to kill off or essentially assure victory against just about any humanoid in the game. Sure, it sucks when they make the save as soon as you cast it, but that happens to just about any crowd control spell. Hold Person/Monster are highly underrated spells, and it seems as though everyone who rates it badly doesn't actually ever try it because they don't like the wording of "save at the end of each of their turns." And as the saying goes, the best defense is a good offense, and the best crowd control is death.

I simply prefer spells with guaranteed results. While I don't disagree that a strong offense is important, I generally turn the page and keep looking on any spell that could outright fizzle with no effect. Clearly I lean towards damage dealing spells, though of course spells like fireball look good at the level you get them, but tend to age poorly. Sleep has no saving throw, so is fantastic at lower levels, but again, ages poorly. Examples of non-damage dealing spells I really like are Forcecage and Maze because there's no initial saving throw.

Overall, I find that as an arcane spellcaster, I generally like to do one of two things. Either I am damage focused, like a fire dragon sorc or an evoker so I can keep my damage output as strong as possible, or I lean on those guaranteed buff spells and go for a gish style character like a Spellsinger.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm going to leave out the portions of the post that are just mud-slinging with no point to it, or are anecdotal at best and not actually in debate at worst, to just address some facts.

Once you get invisibility...

IF, not once. Chance to learn spell, and the DM being the one picking your spells and that not actually being directly tied to level in most cases, rather than the more modern way of choosing 2 spells every time you gain a level.

Caster power was factually immense in 1E and 2E. That is why they leveled slower.

Except for that sometimes they didn't actually level slower because of how XP was earned (by magic items in 1st edition, or via the optional individual character rewards in 2nd edition).

You bring up haste like that was what casters used.

No, I brought up haste as an example of a spell that used to have a prohibitive enough drawback that it wasn't a go-to spell even though its effects were extremely potent, that had the drawback removed (as many other spells with built-in drawbacks did) in the change to 3rd edition.

Then there were the save or die or save or suck spells.

Many of which you could only expect about a 15% chance of success with at high levels given the saving throw system and magic resistance rules.

How well you play a caster most assuredly does decide how often you end up in battle.

It influences it, yes, but not even the most carefully and intelligently played caster can be 100% flawless and lucky enough not to have to face creatures with their own abilities which counter those of the caster - for example, your use of invisibility to avoid combat failing full-stop because the things which would combat you can see invisible things, or otherwise detect you just fine despite not being able to see you.

It's been a long, long time since I played 1E and 2E.

Incidentally, it has been less than a year since I played AD&D.

High level 1E and 2E casters were forces to be reckoned with, especially if you knew what you were doing.

That happens to apply to 5th edition casters as well, and also not actually contradict anything I've said on the matter.

1E/2E casters could run back and cast.

If you mean they could run back on this turn and cast on their next, you are correct. If you mean they could run back and cast both on this turn, that is not in agreement with what the rules in the book state on the matter, even if it was how you and your group played it at the time.

Just because you have to take a possible hit was meaningless

Since our entire conversation was started by you saying there were no opportunity attacks, and me saying that didn't mean there wasn't effectively the same thing, but also actually worse because you ended up in the situation where your declared actions for the round are locked in place, and the initiative roll screws up your plan: you wanted to cast a spell, but an enemy walked up and attacked you and you lost the spell slot, then the next round you declared your intent to flee and got attacked again whether you won initiative or not, and had to have someone or something stopping your enemy from closing the distance again, then in the third round of this example you again declare you are casting a spell and are likely at the mercy of initiative roll or DM "the monster attacks someone else because reasons" mercy.

You are confused as to how concentration applies in this situation.

I'm not actually confused about how concentration, or it's equivalent, applies in any situation for any version of D&D.

More powerful than a caster in 5E could hope to be.

Perhaps in an objective sense of comparing things like how a 2nd edition wizard could cast more than 1 9th level spell in a single day, but I think in a subjective sense comparing the power of a caster to their potential opposition from the monster/monstrous manual, that the 5th edition caster would come out as equally or more potent because of the differences in the parts of the game found outside the class and spells chapters.

You sure do not recall the 1E and 2E magic system other than this "If you run back, you get hit." So what?

Again, this entire discussion started because you said "there weren't opportunity attacks so you could run back and cast", so the only bit of knowledge about 1E and 2E magic system that is relevant is that if you run back, you get hit and/or followed before you actually have a chance to cast any spells unless you had someone block the enemy from moving freely.

That is it. That's all there is to the discussion besides you slinging mud and ranting about other half-remembered irrelevancies and me, rather unwisely I'll admit, providing answer.

You said there weren't opportunity attacks, and you are right about that - I've never said you weren't.
You said that lack of opportunity attacks meant casters could "run back and cast", and I provided evidence of that statement being inaccurate.

And now, I am going to excuse myself from this mud-pit and go wash up.

 

[Celtavian]

Blah.

I looked back at where you jumped into this conversation with your "pet peeve" rubbish. I'll simply admit that there was an AoO-like mechanic in the game.

I've been reading more of the old 1E rules. I'm getting some semblance of how it worked. The equivalent to disengage was Fall Back which you could do with a parry. Then the opponent did not get extra attacks and could follow you if not otherwise engaged. So you couldn't just drop out of melee. Instead casters were heavily reliant on avoiding entering melee. I imagine that should not surprise me since that has carried over to pretty much every edition except 3rd and 5th (I'm not sure about 4th).

Spells were activated by casting time in segments. When you rolled initiative, martial attacks went off on the 1st and the segment you rolled initiative. So if you rolled a 5, the 1st and 6th segments. You could only move 1/10 of your move per segment, often that was a very short distance for heavily armored individuals. That would give you a few segments to get a spell up if you weren't fighting a ranged attacker.

The main reason 1E casters were far more powerful than 5E because of the lack of concentration was twofold:
1. There was no mechanic to limit the number of spells you had active.
2. Once a spell was active, it could not be broken by striking you.

The lack of concentration as well as far more potent spells made 1E casters far more powerful than their 5E counterparts. 5E casters are more active than 1E casters because intelligently played 1E casters sat on their magic waiting for a key time to cast whereas 5E casters get to launch cantrips when not expending spell slots. That might make 5E casters more fun for those players that like to do something every round.

Nice trip down memory lane. It's been ages since I looked at 1E. What a different game it was. So many tables.