D&D 5E Homebrew: Removing Concentration From The Less Popular Spells

[doctorbadwolf]

After a fashion, yes. Of course not every table has a min/maxer but IME there are usually a couple.

Look at it this way, if you were a caster and knew losing your concentration would cost you your spells, wouldn't you do everything in your power to be better at it??

Adventuring, in theory if not in practice, is a dangerous career and because of HP dependency, you will most often see CON as a top three ability score, if not top two. IME rarely is it ever one of the lower scores (it happens, of course, but not often). Besides, for games with feats (most of them) War Caster is one of the top feats primarily for concentration (Resilient for CON taken by casters is a close second, and I have seen casters with both--almost overkill IMO).

We know enough people have griped about CON being the base for concentration and have encouraged making it based on your spellcasting ability score instead. It is a way to reduce MAD, which many players would like to see. Others have said also make it a check all casters are proficient in as well.

In the next game that I am running, I am helping reduce MAD by removing hit point dependency on CON (CON will still be important, but in other ways). But if you take concentration from it as well, it would become a dump stat for many casters... not necessarily a bad thing, but is a good thing??? shrug

Ultimately of course it is a balancing act between newbies who don't think about it or aren't aware of it, newbies who are, veterans who don't care and want to play more for flavor, veterans who will squeeze every point out of every thing they possibly can, and everyone in between!

That is why whenever a new house-rule or homebrew is suggested, one of the first questions is "Does this break anything or make it OP?"

Anyway, to balance out the optimized aspect, one thing you could do is make Concentration checks a special check, sort of like the Death Save. Keep the same DC, but have it based solely on proficiency bonus so a more experienced caster is like to retain concentration. Removing a linked ability score will reduce the necessity on CON and denying a link to the spellcasting ability score will keep the check a bit harder since it won't gain that bonus. I am not sure of the numbers, but to me that sounds like a good place for it. shrugs again

I can see a logical argument for making it a Spellcasting Check (which should be a game term in 5e, IMO, with a handful of uses, like eliminating dispel magic and Counterspell and making them a thing you always gotta roll for, with a risk associated with failure.) instead of a con check, but the numbers just wouldn’t work, unfortunately.

Still, a decent Con wizard with War Caster isn’t breaking the game, so I don’t really care that they’re decent at making their concentration check. Even as a Bladesinger, they’re just good at it. It takes that plus Resilient, IMO, to get into the realm of “OP”, and even then, they’ve spent a lot on that. Let them be really good at keeping their spells.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not just about optimised characters. No one likes to feel they have to choose between the flavourful option and the really obvious option that will increase their mechanical effectiveness.

And taking that into account is fine. IMO, optimizers shouldn’t be part of anything but the final pass for unexpected combos that will actually break the game.

If one thing is a little more numerically powerful, that’s fine. You really can’t avoid that in a complex system with a decent amount of choices.

IME, most people will mostly make the characters they want to make, regardless. Barring really bad balance issues like in 3.5, 5e is about 1000x more balanced than that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I can see a logical argument for making it a Spellcasting Check (which should be a game term in 5e, IMO, with a handful of uses, like eliminating dispel magic and Counterspell and making them a thing you always gotta roll for, with a risk associated with failure.) instead of a con check, but the numbers just wouldn’t work, unfortunately.

Still, a decent Con wizard with War Caster isn’t breaking the game, so I don’t really care that they’re decent at making their concentration check. Even as a Bladesinger, they’re just good at it. It takes that plus Resilient, IMO, to get into the realm of “OP”, and even then, they’ve spent a lot on that. Let them be really good at keeping their spells.

Sure, I won't argue the logic of a CON save, or using the spellcasting ability score as the save. If I joined a table I would be fine using whichever process they had in place with no complaints.

It isn't about breaking the game as much as it becomes about making it a near-useless mechanic. Unless the wizard is hit on a critical hit, over 90% of the time (especially at tier 1 and tier 2) it is always a DC 10 check IME.

Even at low levels, with a +2 for CON 14 (not unusual at all given the desire for HP), an 8 or higher succeeds, so failure is only about 1 in 3. Add War Caster, which is common as I expressed earlier, and it drops to only about 1 in 8 saves will fail. Add in save proficiency due to MC, Eldritch Knights, or Resilient to get, say a +5 bonus, and it drops all the way just 1 in 25!

Now, basing it on a spellcasting check not only makes it a default +3 for most casters for ability, but also proficiency, and then you don't even need feats or anything else to make it a nearly pointless mechanic. Consider around level 5, using the ASI for the spellcasting ability (likely) and proficiency, the bonus is +7, meaning failure is only 10% of the time against a DC 10 (very likely at that level!). So, what is the point of even bothering to roll as it happens so rarely?

Of course, you could argue "Well, why bother with critical hits? They are usually only 5% by default." And to that I would response, "Correct, but that mechanic is already tied into the attack roll, so it doesn't require any additional role to determine the outcome." In that light, I would more likely just rule it that if you have a concentration spell going and get hit by a critical hit, it is disrupted, otherwise you retain concentration."

 

[NotAYakk]

Another way to express it is "how many non-fatal blows expected before concentration breaks".

I'll assume Con save and Warcaster.

At level 5, a d6 spellcaster with 14 con has (4+2)*6+2 = 38 HP. A 36 damage blow is DC 18; 64% chance to save. 7 5 point blows produce a bunch of DC 10 saves; 4% each, so 75% chance of keeping concentration.

At level 10, they have 62 HP. 12 5 point blows at 2.25% each is 76% chance of maintaining concentration, one 60 point blow is a 0% chance. Two 30 point blows (DC 15) is 16% fail chance each, for 70% chance of maintaining concentration. A 40 point blow (DC 20) is 58% chance of maintaining concentration.

At level 20, they have 122 HP. 24 5 point blows at 0.25% each is 94% chance of maintaining concentration. 4 30 point blows (DC 15) at 9% fail chance each is 68% chance of maintaining concentration.

3 40 point blows (DC 20) at 30% fail chance each is 34% chance of maintaining concentration.

If they bumped con a point (!) they'd have 142 HP, and 3 40 point blows (DC 20) have a 25% fail chance each, and a 42% chance of maintaining concentration.

So warcaster + proficiency makes tiny blows trivial at all levels, there just aren't enough of them to break concentration before the target dies. At higher levels you need a big blow to break concentration; 40+ damage.

 

[DND_Reborn]

{snip}

So warcaster + proficiency makes tiny blows trivial at all levels, there just aren't enough of them to break concentration before the target dies. At higher levels you need a big blow to break concentration; 40+ damage.

And those big blows come from critical hits and failed saves. That is why you could just change the rule to you lose concentration on a spell if you are hit by a critical hit or fail a saving throw (for damage at least...). Remove the die roll and dependency on CON (or any ability), War Caster, and Resilient.

You know, we increased the DC for death saves to 15 and it works better (for our table at least LOL), maybe increasing the DC for concentration saves to 15 would allow everything else to remain but make it common enough to warrant having the rule at all.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

IME, most people will mostly make the characters they want to make, regardless. Barring really bad balance issues like in 3.5, 5e is about 1000x more balanced than that.

This is my experience also. Players in my group will want to do the things that interest them and not really go out of their way in order to be optimal.

I suppose I should probably talk about my group and some of my motivations for making this change. Casters aren't very popular in the first place and most have been either blaster mages or healing focused. I'm hoping that making more spells viable will open up opportunities.

Removing concentration from defensive buffs give the support minded players another interesting thing to do. They'll get to be proactive rather than just reactive. This is the category that's gotten the most concern so I'm thinking of downgrading it to consider spells on a case by case basis rather than just blanket removal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, I won't argue the logic of a CON save, or using the spellcasting ability score as the save. If I joined a table I would be fine using whichever process they had in place with no complaints.

It isn't about breaking the game as much as it becomes about making it a near-useless mechanic. Unless the wizard is hit on a critical hit, over 90% of the time (especially at tier 1 and tier 2) it is always a DC 10 check IME.

Even at low levels, with a +2 for CON 14 (not unusual at all given the desire for HP), an 8 or higher succeeds, so failure is only about 1 in 3. Add War Caster, which is common as I expressed earlier, and it drops to only about 1 in 8 saves will fail. Add in save proficiency due to MC, Eldritch Knights, or Resilient to get, say a +5 bonus, and it drops all the way just 1 in 25!

Now, basing it on a spellcasting check not only makes it a default +3 for most casters for ability, but also proficiency, and then you don't even need feats or anything else to make it a nearly pointless mechanic. Consider around level 5, using the ASI for the spellcasting ability (likely) and proficiency, the bonus is +7, meaning failure is only 10% of the time against a DC 10 (very likely at that level!). So, what is the point of even bothering to roll as it happens so rarely?

Of course, you could argue "Well, why bother with critical hits? They are usually only 5% by default." And to that I would response, "Correct, but that mechanic is already tied into the attack roll, so it doesn't require any additional role to determine the outcome." In that light, I would more likely just rule it that if you have a concentration spell going and get hit by a critical hit, it is disrupted, otherwise you retain concentration."

Wait, your experience is that even after tier 1 damage is low enough that the DC is
10?

If that’s the case, maybe I’m just meaner to my casters?

That aside, again, I just don’t mind that they can choose to specialize in maintaining concentration. IME, they don’t always, because there is other stuff they want to specialize in, and when they do specialize in concentration, it doesn’t bother me at all. So they’re good at making the save. Okay.

 

[tetrasodium]

Wait, your experience is that even after tier 1 damage is low enough that the DC is
10?

If that’s the case, maybe I’m just meaner to my casters?

That aside, again, I just don’t mind that they can choose to specialize in maintaining concentration. IME, they don’t always, because there is other stuff they want to specialize in, and when they do specialize in concentration, it doesn’t bother me at all. So they’re good at making the save. Okay.

How often do you hit them with single attacks that deal 22+ damage? Sure fireball or something might get it, but normal attacks from anything a caster might risk getting caught dead in reach of almost certainly not using 5e rules. Back in 3.5 yes becaise the check was different but not 5e

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wait, your experience is that even after tier 1 damage is low enough that the DC is 10?

If that’s the case, maybe I’m just meaner to my casters?

That aside, again, I just don’t mind that they can choose to specialize in maintaining concentration. IME, they don’t always, because there is other stuff they want to specialize in, and when they do specialize in concentration, it doesn’t bother me at all. So they’re good at making the save. Okay.

Well we've just moved into tier 3 recently and against giants are starting to see DC's of 12-15 (unless its a crit). But by then proficiency bonus is higher, CON is a bit higher sometimes, and often both War Caster and Resilient come into play... So, it is pretty rare, maybe once or twice (at most!) a session we see someone fail on a concentration spell.

Most of those failures arise due to a critical hit or a failed save, so the damage is not halved in essence, resulting in DC's into the high tweens and 20's.

There are plenty of ways to work the mechanic so it more suites each tables' needs, so ultimately like everything else in 5E a lot of it is a matter of preference. For the sake of simplicity, I am inclined to make concentration breaks on a critical hit or failed save for damage, but I have to give that more thought...

So, if players aren't focusing on helping their concentration saves, what do you see them spending their resources on?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How often do you hit them with single attacks that deal 22+ damage? Sure fireball or something might get it, but normal attacks from anything a caster might risk getting caught dead in reach of almost certainly not using 5e rules. Back in 3.5 yes becaise the check was different but not 5e
View attachment 118819

Yeah I see damage higher than 20 pretty often. And there is no such thing as “anything a caster might risk getting caught dead in reach of”, in any game I run. Everyone is at risk, enemies know how to fight casters and backfield archers/skulkers, etc.

Also, a lot of concentration is half casters and hexblades and other gish types who are often in the front line.

So, if players aren't focusing on helping their concentration saves, what do you see them spending their resources on?

I wouldn’t recommend treating failing a save as any different from getting hit by an attack, but the crit rule could work.
Could also increase the DC by the spell slots level at which the spell was cast.
As for my casters, I have never seen resilient taken, but we often have war casters. More often I see Skilled, Ritual Caster (on half casters), Spell Sniper, of feats unrelated to casting at all, like Actor and Keen Mind.

IME, people who like taking feats hate taking feats that just do a boring number thing. “If I wanted to boost my numerical supremacy, I’d just take the ASI.”