D&D 5E Is Concentration Bugging You?

[Celtavian]

I seriously suggest talking to your DM. Mention the house rule in the first post of this thread. Heck, I changed that house rule to just plain vanilla "no limit on number of concentration spells cast with no additional penalties". Nobody at my table (with 5 casters out of 6 PCs in two sessions) has even attempted it yet. Explain to your DM that with the limited number of higher level spells, and the 1 minute per level duration of concentration spells, and the fact that most spells save every round anyway which quickly drop offensive concentration spells, and the fact that concentration spells can be broken easily by taking damage, you might be able to get him to allow casters to cast multiple concentration spells. That appears to be the thorn that bothers you the most as it bothered me. Heck, most melee specialists can do their special abilities over and over again whenever they want until they run out of "charges", I don't see why spell casters lose options just because they cast a spell (I don't quite see why this is the case for Channel Divinity either).

DMs should at least listen to the concern. Your DM might not change the rule, or he could change it to 2 concentration spells at a time, or 3. But this concept that the game gets suddenly broken if a PC can cast more than one concentration spell at a time is horse hockey. That's not the case at all, no matter how many people claim it is.

Game on!

I don't know if I want to go that far. I don't want casters becoming uber beings at high level again. That made life hell as a DM.

I might use the house rule I proposed of limiting offensive spells with concentration by bonus action with one active defensive/utility spell. I think even Domination requires an action or bonus action to give commands. I think that would create a sufficient limitation on concentration to ensure buff stacking was still very limited, while allowing a wizard more offensive options. I don't like the idea of a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the spell list eliminated after you cast a single concentration spell. I don't want to see an insane amount of stacking either given the creatures are built with limited stacking in mind.

No limits on concentration would allow multiple casters to stack a ton of buffs making encounters trivial. I don't want that. I also don't want such a tight limitation on concentration that your forced to choose between buffing the party or using fun spells to attack the creature.

 

[KarinsDad]

No limits on concentration would allow multiple casters to stack a ton of buffs making encounters trivial. I don't want that. I also don't want such a tight limitation on concentration that your forced to choose between buffing the party or using fun spells to attack the creature.

Maybe it will, maybe it will not. You of all people should know (based on your dragon discussions from others where they just don't get how deadly legendary creatures are) that the proof is in the pudding (i.e. actual experience in the game), not in the arm chair quarterbacking.

If your DM limited it to 2 spells, do you really thing it would result in making encounters trivial? Are the spell casters the ones that are truly that powerful that 2 spells up instead of 1 break an encounter? Doubtful.

 

[KarinsDad]

Spell interruption was part of the game up 'till 4e, and that's when we got very curtailed spell duration. This isn't a coincidence.

Apples and oranges. The vast majority of spell interruption in earlier editions was at the time of casting (a very limited window of time), not every single point in time after the spell is cast (a very wide window of time).

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Apples and oranges. The vast majority of spell interruption in earlier editions was at the time of casting (a very limited window of time), not every single point in time after the spell is cast (a very wide window of time).

Funny. I kind of remember once upon a time when getting hit at any point in the round made any spellcasting that came later in said round just flat out fail. When a handful of kobolds could shut down a high level mage. When magic resistance applied to EVERY spell you cast at an enemy, rather than just the spells with saves. When high level monsters had something like a 60% or greater chance of saving against every spell you cast at them (that allowed saves)...

 

[KarinsDad]

Funny. I kind of remember once upon a time when getting hit at any point in the round made any spellcasting that came later in said round just flat out fail.

Edition and page quote for this? I only remember spells getting disrupted while being cast.

When a handful of kobolds could shut down a high level mage. When magic resistance applied to EVERY spell you cast at an enemy, rather than just the spells with saves. When high level monsters had something like a 60% or greater chance of saving against every spell you cast at them (that allowed saves)...

Magic Resistance and Spell Saves are irrelevant to the disruption conversation. The chances of hitting in the first place do vary from edition to edition. But we are discussion disrupting the spell after the fact, not having it not work in the first place.

But, the ability to dispel spells that are up and running without casting dispel magic is unique to 5E (unless there is some really minor corner case in an earlier edition).

 

[Eirikrautha]

Edition and page quote for this? I only remember spells getting disrupted while being cast.

...

Magic Resistance and Spell Saves are irrelevant to the disruption conversation. The chances of hitting in the first place do vary from edition to edition. But we are discussion disrupting the spell after the fact, not having it not work in the first place.

But, the ability to dispel spells that are up and running without casting dispel magic is unique to 5E (unless there is some really minor corner case in an earlier edition).

That's pretty close to goal-post shifting, if not directly goal-post shifting. The complaint that has been made multiple times on this thread relates to the ineffectiveness of magic based on the ease at which opponents can escape its effects (concentration being the stated way in the title) and the limits that concentration places on caster options. While not addressing the second, spell resistance and spell saves directly address the first. Concentration may be a different approach to limiting spell persistence than spell saves or spell resistance, but it serves the same purpose.

If you want to argue that concentration is too onerous based on the fact that it both limits spells' effectiveness and also limits what can be cast, feel free. Many folks have expressed satisfaction with that effect as well (with some even thinking of it as a selling point). But arguing that concentration is an effect and persistence limitation while stating that spell saves or resistance wasn't is patently false. The fact that it happens after the fact is an argument that it is more lenient than earlier mechanics. Design-wise, resistance and saves are even greater limitations than concentration, as neither required an action (while damaging the caster does require the sufferer to spend attack actions). So you can't just dismiss those out of hand.

 

[chriton227]

Maybe it will, maybe it will not. You of all people should know (based on your dragon discussions from others where they just don't get how deadly legendary creatures are) that the proof is in the pudding (i.e. actual experience in the game), not in the arm chair quarterbacking.

If your DM limited it to 2 spells, do you really thing it would result in making encounters trivial? Are the spell casters the ones that are truly that powerful that 2 spells up instead of 1 break an encounter? Doubtful.

I don't know that the particular dragon encounter that we have been discussing is a useful baseline for the effectiveness of wizards and the impact of the concentration rules, unless you are trying to set the power level of wizards to "game breaking". If I recall correctly from the other thread, it was a CR13 legendary dragon in its lair with 2 troll allies and two magical traps that can't be set off by the dragon, against a 10th level party. The dragon by itself is considered Deadly by the encounter guidelines in the DMG, or above deadly once you factor in allies, traps, and the fact that the lair itself is hostile terrain to the party but not the enemies. In a Deadly encounter, it is assumed that one or more PCs will die, beyond deadly should likely be a TPK. The dragon by itself without the hazardous terrain and without any allowances for being in it's lair would have been slightly above a hard encounter for a party of four L11 characters. The difference from L10 to L11 can be significant, cantrips go up in damage, casters get 6th level spells, fighters get a third attack (being able to action surge for 6 attacks is huge), paladins get always on divine smite, etc.

In my opinion, this is a badly designed encounter in RoT, and not one the party should win by killing the dragon. This is backed up by the adventure text. As written, the encounter should end with effectively a party victory long before the dragon is defeated, much like the dragon encounter over the keep at the beginning of HotDQ.

 

[chriton227]

Edition and page quote for this? I only remember spells getting disrupted while being cast.

2nd Edition Player's Handbook, p.85

During the round in which the spell is cast, the caster cannot move to dodge attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from Dexterity is gained by spellcasters while casting spells. Furthermore, if the spellcaster is struck by a weapon or fails to make a saving throw before the spell is cast, the caster's concentration is disrupted. The spell is lost in a fizzle of useless energy and is wiped clean from the memory of the caster until it can be rememorized.

Note that in 2nd Ed you had to declare your action before rolling initiative for the round, so the spellcaster doesn't even get to see whether their initiative check was any good before deciding to cast, and they lose their Dex bonus to AC making them even easier to hit. And also note that any failed save causes the spell to fizzle, meaning that it was possible to cause them to lose their spell by casting Know Alignment on them.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

2nd Edition Player's Handbook, p.85

Note that in 2nd Ed you had to declare your action before rolling initiative for the round, so the spellcaster doesn't even get to see whether their initiative check was any good before deciding to cast, and they lose their Dex bonus to AC making them even easier to hit. And also note that any failed save causes the spell to fizzle, meaning that it was possible to cause them to lose their spell by casting Know Alignment on them.

Same thing more or less with 1st ed. This has, furthermore, been immortalized in numerous D&D-based computer RPGs. Like, say, Curse of the Azure Bonds.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Magic Resistance and Spell Saves are irrelevant to the disruption conversation. The chances of hitting in the first place do vary from edition to edition. But we are discussion disrupting the spell after the fact, not having it not work in the first place.

They are relevant to the whining about magic and/or legendary resistance in 5e.