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

[Uchawi]

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.

 

[Mephista]

I ditched the "make CON save everytime you're hit" part. It didn't make sense to me - HP is supposed to be more than just meat, but getting physically hurt is the reason why you have to make Constitution saves to maintain a spell. Completely incongruant. This punishes gish-style characters, while controllers that rely on Concentration tend to stay out of melee range anyways. Plus, it unnecessarily slowed down the game and encourages focus on Con-save boosting feats for just that one reason, which discourages being creative with builds.

 

[jodyjohnson]

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.

And Rangers, Paladins, and Eldritch Knights get a double buff.

 

[slaughterj]

It's a core part of how D&D 5E balances itself! I'd be more than interested in how you will limit full casters in its absence.

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.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The Concentration rules during the playtest were unchanged for over a year right up to launch - 1 Spell at a time, Concentration lost by Stunned (now Incapacitated which is less than Stunned), Unconscious, Death, or a 'Severe distraction'.

Then the published rules added the 'any damage' clause with no chance for feedback. So we still play the rules we used to test the game for 2 years. It's not like they made the Concentration spells better to account for 'Lose on Damage'. Many of them were reduced in power as well.

No big deal. The default mindset is still 'change it if you don't like it'.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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

#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.

It just happens to affect PCs as well because the decision was made not to have an inconsistently applied rule where one didn't actually rate as necessary since a PC typically has far better chances to avoid taking damage in the first place given the dynamics of how the game is usually played.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Then the published rules added the 'any damage' clause with no chance for feedback.

No chance of further feedback from open playtesters, who could have been requesting a damage clause be added at every turn for those 2 years and you wouldn't know it, but still likely getting feedback from the closed playtesters is a very different thing from "no chance for feedback."

Things being different in the final version than they were in the playtest versions is evidence that feedback was acted upon, not that entirely untested ideas got crammed into the books or that feedback was deliberately ignored.

 

[jodyjohnson]

There was no "pre-publish" feedback on the change from the general open playtest.

Did you vote for it? I expect there were a lot of votes for it (check on damage). Maybe thousands out of 175,000. But then 12 months of no changes sounds like there were many who liked it the way it was and thought the issue settled.

But at this stage I don't need feedback to make a change. The edition is published and I'm not interested in calling for a 5.5 via Errata or work to start on 6e. It's not a difficult house rule to revert to. What I do at my table doesn't effect what others do (although potentially it may shape a far off 6e).

 

[Mephista]

#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.

It just happens to affect PCs as well because the decision was made not to have an inconsistently applied rule where one didn't actually rate as necessary since a PC typically has far better chances to avoid taking damage in the first place given the dynamics of how the game is usually played.

Now, I'm not going to say that's true or not, because I honestly don't care. Its still a massive change to how PC casters deal with the issue of Concentration. Worse, its clear that the change often has unintentional side effects when it comes to PC classes. Remember when the Spellless Ranger first came out? The article clearly talked about how Hunter's Mark was a deliberate part of the Ranger's damage progression? I don't think its a mistake that the level 11 milestone for Hunter is so lackluster when that's about the level we're getting Hunter Marks that last for the entire adventuring day.

 

[Diamabel]

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.

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