D&D 5E Is Concentration Bugging You?

[Saeviomagy]

I think concentration shouldn't be a save. It should be an ability check that all casters are proficient in, that uses constitution as it's primary stat. That puts all the casting classes on an even playing field - if you want to be good at concentration, take warcaster or pump your con.

As is, fighters are the only casting class that get any better at concentrating on their spells as they level (without pumping con) and are the only class that don't have to either spend a feat or pump 2 stats to be able to withstand a 1 point poke at level 20.

I'd also like to see a removal or reduction of the dc 10 minimum. Taking 1 point of damage (a weak punch) should be different to taking 20 points (falling 4 stories).

 

[PnPgamer]

I preferred concentration rules in beta. There were no concentration checks at all to lose the spell, but still was only one concetration spell that could be maintained.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't actually have enough experience on seeing concentration in play, so my worries may not materialize ever...

I am not at all worried about balance, or spellcasters being weak because of concentration rules.

Instead, while I welcome the idea of concentration making the game simpler by preventing the presence of too many ongoing spells simultaneously, I am worried about making the game more complicated on the other hand, if you have to remember or check every time which spells require concentration and which not.

Thus I wonder if it would have been better, instead of individual spells requiring concentration, to have a general rule that all spells require concentration for their whole duration. Instantaneous spells immediately end, so it would be a non-issue for them. All spells with duration longer than instantaneous would end if casting any other spell (including instantaneous ones). Since this would always be the case, it would actually be much easier to track, compared to the current case, because it would simply mean "max one spell per caster active at any time".

I am not suggesting that such change be a house rule now, because it's too late as now it would weaken all casters so more changes would be needed to restore balance, but it could have been considered.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Concentration is one of the critical balance innovations of 5e. It very simply should not be messed with. Aside from game considerations regarding simplicity and speed of play it is very difficult if not impossible to otherwise balance the possible stacking of the very diverse spell list; as the 3.x line and Pathfinder after it have amply demonstrated. Lone casters without minions should not present any more of a threat than any other similarly disadvantaged class. Caster minions perform just fine in play with even the most cursory grasp of tactics (e.g. cover from allies, maintaining distance from the PCs, dropping prone to induce disadvantage on enemy ranged attacks, hiding around corners or other obstacles for full cover).

 

[sithramir]

I agree that NPC casters are just a joke now. We met the BBEG a drow wizard but he died after the first attack. Wasn't as challenging as some goblins have been except he was supposed to be the BBEG!

Lower AC and HPs in this edition means dead quick. Its very noticeable the casters aren't the BBEG unless they are a monster with added defense (a dragon for example).

I'd suggest one defensive and one attack concentration spell allowed. At least you aren't as limited when trying to buff someone else and stay not dead yourself

 

[KarinsDad]

I think concentration shouldn't be a save. It should be an ability check that all casters are proficient in, that uses constitution as it's primary stat. That puts all the casting classes on an even playing field - if you want to be good at concentration, take warcaster or pump your con.

As is, fighters are the only casting class that get any better at concentrating on their spells as they level (without pumping con) and are the only class that don't have to either spend a feat or pump 2 stats to be able to withstand a 1 point poke at level 20.

I'd also like to see a removal or reduction of the dc 10 minimum. Taking 1 point of damage (a weak punch) should be different to taking 20 points (falling 4 stories).

You make some good points.

Actually, the Sorcerer gets the proficiency to Con saves as well, but a Sorcerer will have fewer Concentration spells.

But I do like the 1 point DC 10 rule. It does two things: 1) it means that even a small amount of damage can ruin concentration, and 2) it means that someone cannot easily pump Con and almost never fail concentration saves because their bonus is so high. It's not impossible to get a +9 bonus, at least for two classes, but it takes some effort. One of the things about some of the earlier games was that a player could stack a bunch of bonuses and then the threats were no longer threats.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.)

Thanks for the suggestions. When I started to read #3, my first thought was "why not just level?" and you explained why not nicely.

 

[keterys]

I agree that NPC casters are just a joke now. We met the BBEG a drow wizard but he died after the first attack. Wasn't as challenging as some goblins have been except he was supposed to be the BBEG!

Which edition was this not possible in? Casters have always been glass cannons. If you can hit them, they go down fast One of the other reasons to focus fire on them.

Lower AC and HPs in this edition means dead quick.

HP aren't lower in this edition. They're actually higher compared to multiple editions. Particularly for the wizard types, with the bump to d6.

ACs are a more complicated question, but relative to attack bonuses ACs actually tend to be effectively higher in this edition, especially if you factor in a Shield spell.

 

[Uller]

...one of the reason I want to change the concentration rules is because of NPC casters that can't defend themselves adequately with spells. They need minions or helpers or what not. I want them to be capable of relying more on themselves. I like the idea of solos, but solo casters in 5E are probably just toast due to action economy.

I generally like the concentration rules as they are. But I strongly agree with the above. I think your proposed solution is good except I would just make it one check...either you maintain concentration on all your spells or you do not. Having three spells ruined in one go would really suck so there is a risk to balance the benefits.

 

[jodyjohnson]

For NPCs I'd use potions. Potions and magic items. Potions, magic items, and lair effects. Potions, magic items, lair effects, and lackeys. Potions, magic items, lair effects, lackeys, and that’s all my NPCs need. And the ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair...

If I'm going to house rule anyway, especially something complicated, I'd start with just removing the Concentration descriptor from the spells in question. Maybe add a HELD descriptor for the spells that are held and tie up the Concentration slot instead - including Readied spells.