D&D 5E Is Concentration Bugging You?

[KarinsDad]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike.4 (just above the "next page" link)

"I'll use the magic as an example - we want the audience to be informed and know that if anyone does anything that lets you have two concentration spells at once they've broken the game. You can't have cloudkill and hold person at the same time. Now, in your home game, you can do whatever you want. We just want everyone to know how the game works and want everyone to know what's out there in the system and what we learned from playtests before we turn everything loose."

And ultra-buffing was certainly one of the things that made 3e casters broken, and a pain in the bleep to run. Classic examples would be fly and invisibility, or invisibility + summon monster (summoning monsters wasn't an attack in 3e, so you could just hide and pump them out). Or for that matter 3.0 haste + anything.

That entire question and answer:

Bolding: What's the kernel of an idea on what an OGL or licensing may look like?

Mearls: I don't want to go into too much detail because a lot of things are up in the air, but I will say that when 3rd Edition launched in 2000 there was this land rush mentality, and I think it makes sense from a business perspective. If you're a third party publisher you want to make sure you're the first to the market. Well, in their rush, you end up with people designing their adventure without the DMG. I was one of those guys. We want all the resources available, we want all the materials available, we want people to have been playing the game. We also want the audience to be informed.

I'll use the magic as an example - we want the audience to be informed and know that if anyone does anything that lets you have two concentration spells at once they've broken the game. You can't have cloudkill and hold person at the same time. Now, in your home game, you can do whatever you want. We just want everyone to know how the game works and want everyone to know what's out there in the system and what we learned from playtests before we turn everything loose.

It just seems to me that he is not talking about making sure that the third party vendors know how the game works before putting out an OGL, not that that two concentration spells up at the same time is unbalanced. I think he is using the term broken to mean that the third party vendor is breaking the core rules of the game by doing this, not that for someone in a home game to do so would be unbalanced.

It seems like you took this out of context because if he is actually talking about the game being broken with multiple concentration spells (as you suggest), then that would just be rambling on his part. Concentration has nothing to do with OGLs or to the question that he is answering. But vendors changing the rules of concentration and ignoring the OGL in that respect, does have something to do with the question he is answering.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree with the statement that everyone and his brother is a caster in 5e. Barbarians, fighters, rogues and monks are some of the most popular classes in our groups.

But not every fighter, rogue, or monk cannot cast spells.

Without multiclassing, 1E had 6 classes/subclasses that could not cast spells; 4 classes/subclasses that could (note: bards required multiclassing). 60% could not cast spells, 40% could.

Without multiclassing/prestige, 3E had 4 classes that could not cast spells; 3 classes that could cast lesser spells; and 4 classes that cast.

Without multiclassing, 5E has 1 class that cannot ever cast spells; 4 classes that can cast lesser spells; and 6 classes that cast.

If we take 5E to the subclass level to balance out the traditional non-spell casting classes, it's something like: 5E has 7 subclasses that cannot cast spells; 9 subclasses that can cast lesser spells; and 24 subclasses that can (note: I do not have the PHB in front of me, so this can be off by a hair). 17.5% of subclasses cannot, 22.5% of subclasses can cast lesser spells, and 60% of subclasses cast spells. 1 in 6 subclasses cannot cast spells. 5 in 6 can.

Many PCs can cast spells by a significant majority, even some fighters, rogues, and monks. This might not be true at every table, but it is probably true at a majority of tables. The ratio of the percentage of classes/subclasses that could cast versus those who can not has changed dramatically.

 

[trentonjoe]

I really like the concentration rules. It's make the melee casters (cleric, paladin, bladelocks) add the situation into the equation of when do I cast a spell. Of course, I don't have a problem when stuff doesn't work, and the way I play, stuff almost never works

If you do have a problem with the rule you could do you could:

Allow multiple spells at once, maybe spell levels per ability score bonus? The straight spell caster with the 18 Ability score guy could have 4 spells up while the dualclassed or 1/2 caster would likely only be able to have 2 or 3 spell levels up.

Remove the 10 part of the CON check? Just make it 1/2 damage.

MAke the the check once per turn as opposed to per hit.

Just scrap it all together and let the chips fall where they may, let the conservation of spell slots be the balancing factor. If you're worried about the 5 minute day, DON'T CAST ALL YOUR SPELLS!

 

[Jester David]

I recently put together a Paladin for 5E and noticed that many of the spells requires Concentration.
...
Can anyone think of an alternative house rule that might work too?

My only problem with concentration is how high the DCs get in mid-levels. Any character that's taking any sort of damage (i.e. a paladin or ranger) won't be able to make concentration checks worth a damn after level 5.

I'm okay with only having one buff going. That's fine and prevents everyone throwing down all their spells prior to a single fight when they have only a single encounter in a day. Especially at higher levels when spellcasters might have lots of 1st and 2nd level spell slots that otherwise won't see use.

If I were going to allow spell stacking, I'd also have it burn extra spell slots. Casting a 3rd level spell using a 5th level slot lets it be used without concentration or something. So you can do it, but there's a high cost beyond just making a check.

 

[KarinsDad]

My only problem with concentration is how high the DCs get in mid-levels. Any character that's taking any sort of damage (i.e. a paladin or ranger) won't be able to make concentration checks worth a damn after level 5.

I'm okay with only having one buff going. That's fine and prevents everyone throwing down all their spells prior to a single fight when they have only a single encounter in a day. Especially at higher levels when spellcasters might have lots of 1st and 2nd level spell slots that otherwise won't see use.

If I were going to allow spell stacking, I'd also have it burn extra spell slots. Casting a 3rd level spell using a 5th level slot lets it be used without concentration or something. So you can do it, but there's a high cost beyond just making a check.

Although this latter rule doesn't actually solve the problem that you mentioned about single encounter days too much. Typically, spell casters have slots to burn in a single encounter day, even higher level ones.

 

[Shiroiken]

The only problem I have with the Concentration rule is the Minimum DC: 10. A single point of damage has a fair chance of ending a spell early on a poor roll, and that bugs me. I would have set it to a Minimum DC: 5

 

[DaveDash]

My only problem with concentration is how high the DCs get in mid-levels. Any character that's taking any sort of damage (i.e. a paladin or ranger) won't be able to make concentration checks worth a damn after level 5.

I'm okay with only having one buff going. That's fine and prevents everyone throwing down all their spells prior to a single fight when they have only a single encounter in a day. Especially at higher levels when spellcasters might have lots of 1st and 2nd level spell slots that otherwise won't see use.

If I were going to allow spell stacking, I'd also have it burn extra spell slots. Casting a 3rd level spell using a 5th level slot lets it be used without concentration or something. So you can do it, but there's a high cost beyond just making a check.

You problem doesn't line up with my game experience (current level 14). Note: Paladins get their aura bonus to pass concentration checks because they are saving throws. I've whacked the Paladin around *a lot* in game, and the times he has lost concentration have been like 1:10.

Also if casters - full or otherwise - really want to protect themselves against concentration failing, there are two feats that will help them.

Concentration adversely effects NPC spell casters a lot more than PC's, because they usually only do fight one combat per day. They can either focus on staying alive, doing damage, or doing crowd control, but not all three, which makes them ineffective opponents to fight against a lot of the time.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Not bugging me at all, one of the big reasons I wouldn't run 3e any more, unless e6, is the terrible buffing debuffing math and time sink. It is a good balance, shares the spot light and keeps the game running fast.

 

[keterys]

The only problem I have with the Concentration rule is the Minimum DC: 10. A single point of damage has a fair chance of ending a spell early on a poor roll, and that bugs me. I would have set it to a Minimum DC: 5

I've stopped casting Hex on my warlock because of it. I'm okay losing Concentration to a big hit for 20-40 damage or whatever, but I was losing it to flurries of 3 point damage hits. Even with +3 to my save, which is really quite good, that's a 30% chance per hit.

 

[Daedrova]

I do like the concentration rules and see the benefit of their implementation in 5e, for similar reasons to those others have stated.

However, I also agree that NPC casters aren’t the threat that I want them to be. It is also too limiting to be unable to cast even one control spell just because you have a defensive spell active. And, since there are casters in my game who also wanted to enjoy more casting flexibility, we agreed that loosening the rules would work well, so I came up with this:

Multiple Spell Concentration
With this house rule in effect, a spellcaster can maintain more than one spell that requires concentration, with the following restrictions:

1. A spellcaster may not have more than one concentration spell active on a single target (or overlapping area) at a time. If he casts a concentration spell targeting a creature (or area) on which he is already maintaining a concentration spell, the previous spell ends.

2. To successfully cast a concentration spell while another concentration spell is active, the caster must succeed a concentration check DC 10 + spell level + 1 for each concentration spell. Failure indicates that all previous concentration spells end.
Example: the DC to cast Haste while already concentrating on Fly and Stoneskin would be 17 (10 + 3 + 2).

3. The total level of all spells maintained through concentration may not exceed twice the caster’s highest level spell slot. If casting a new concentration spell would cause the total levels of maintained spells to exceed this limit, all previous concentration spells end.
E.g. An 8th level wizard’s highest spell level is 4, so he can maintain concentration on up to 8 spell levels. He could maintain two 4th level spells, or four 2nd level spells, etc.
If a spell is cast at a higher level, use that higher level when determining total spell levels maintained.
(Note: this restriction is based on max spell level slot, rather than character level, to avoid confusion and or abuse with multi-classing. "Half-casters", like a paladin, also shouldn't be able to maintain spell levels equivalent to, say, a wizard.)

4. The DC to avoid losing concentration when damaged is increased to 10 + Highest Spell Level + 1 for each spell, or equal to the damage of the attack, whichever is higher.
(Note: It is a harsh DC, and we may adjust it based on experience during play - but I initially thought it a fair trade for the increased power.)