D&D 5E Is Concentration Bugging You?

[Jester David]

It doesn't really work that way. Mostly they fight CR5-CR14 (sometimes higher), but the way the game works is there are generally larger groups of lower CRs.

I think that's partly the result of the limited monsters above CR 10 and will not necessarily remain true.

 

[DaveDash]

I think that's partly the result of the limited monsters above CR 10 and will not necessarily remain true.

You are absolutely right about that. But also it's a product of the action economy, you can build encounters that are more resource intensive by using larger numbers of creatures in general.

 

[keterys]

You must be playing a different game than I am.

Not really; I'm just comparing it in relative terms.

For example, a comparable 3e fighter might swing for 60 damage in 3e (or 4e) instead of maybe 12 damage in 5e.

_Everyone_ is nerfed in 5e. All the math is more constrained.

So yeah, a 3e wizard with 16 Con has less hp than a 5e wizard with 16 con. A non-low level 3e monster has a bigger attack bonus than a 5e monster, so the wizard has to have more resources in AC to keep up.

You certainly have less fiddly stuff going on, though, yep. True for everyone. Simpler game. And a 3e caster can absolutely be more powerful. That is literally the clarion call of that edition, that casters are broken in it.

 

[sithramir]

Not really; I'm just comparing it in relative terms.

For example, a comparable 3e fighter might swing for 60 damage in 3e (or 4e) instead of maybe 12 damage in 5e.

_Everyone_ is nerfed in 5e. All the math is more constrained.

So yeah, a 3e wizard with 16 Con has less hp than a 5e wizard with 16 con. A non-low level 3e monster has a bigger attack bonus than a 5e monster, so the wizard has to have more resources in AC to keep up.

You certainly have less fiddly stuff going on, though, yep. True for everyone. Simpler game. And a 3e caster can absolutely be more powerful. That is literally the clarion call of that edition, that casters are broken in it.

I'm confused with your fighter example also. 5E fighter likely has Great Weapon Master so he's doing +10 damage on top of his normal attack? He has action surge and after moving 30' he gets MULTIATTACK which in 3e he didn't on the first round. A 3e fighter doing 60 with one weapon attack is pretty impressive. And a 5E wizard with 16 con had to sacrifice a lot to get there and he still loses on all the other benefits PLUS he just won't have incredible AC. That just sells my point a bit more that the wizard doesn't get that "oh he moved into melee let me escape" action because you can move and do a full attack now. I think it's great for melee but another problem the wizard now faces.

Damage in 5E is still great. At higher levels you don't have +5 weapons, etc but fighters dish out damage still. Doing 12 damage is a very unoptimized fighter.

I dunno, perhaps i'm just very disappointed that wizards took too huge a hit in this edition. Didn't need to rule all but I feel it went TOO far and concentration is a factor in it that I feel could use some tweaks like KarinsDad is asking about.

 

[DaveDash]

I'm confused with your fighter example also. 5E fighter likely has Great Weapon Master so he's doing +10 damage on top of his normal attack? He has action surge and after moving 30' he gets MULTIATTACK which in 3e he didn't on the first round. A 3e fighter doing 60 with one weapon attack is pretty impressive. And a 5E wizard with 16 con had to sacrifice a lot to get there and he still loses on all the other benefits PLUS he just won't have incredible AC. That just sells my point a bit more that the wizard doesn't get that "oh he moved into melee let me escape" action because you can move and do a full attack now. I think it's great for melee but another problem the wizard now faces.

Damage in 5E is still great. At higher levels you don't have +5 weapons, etc but fighters dish out damage still. Doing 12 damage is a very unoptimized fighter.

I dunno, perhaps i'm just very disappointed that wizards took too huge a hit in this edition. Didn't need to rule all but I feel it went TOO far and concentration is a factor in it that I feel could use some tweaks like KarinsDad is asking about.

Wizards IMO are still pretty awesome in this edition, but it depends which Wizard you pick.

The main Wizard player in my game is an Abjurer, and he is better than a 3rd edition counterparts in the following ways:

1. Ritual Casting from his spell book. Always on detect magic, need I say more? Find Familiar in a heartbeat, which makes a great scout.
2. Counter spell is WAY more powerful now. He shuts down enemy casters completely.
3. Big damaging spells are viable again. He can do great damage now with certain spells and can ramp up the damage with spells like Bigby's Hand plus fireball.
4. DC's are harder for enemies to save against. A CR20 monster can still only have a +0 dex save, for example.
5. Hold Person in 5e is the "I Win Button" against Humanoids, see above.
6. He has the most effective HP of the party due to arcane ward, and using shield as a REACTION means he also has great AC.
7. A lot of spells give you more bang for your buck now, for example, Bigby's Hand, and the fact spells can now be used in higher level slots means spells don't go to waste as you level up.
8. It's easier to use the right spell at the right time now, due to preparation and slot mechanics.
9. There are also many nice defensive spells that do not require concentration (Mirror Image, Blink, etc).

All in all I don't think arcane casters have taken a huge hit. They're more powerful in other ways, particular their spell save DC's. Other classes have had a big boost though.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I recently put together a Paladin for 5E and noticed that many of the spells requires Concentration.

I get the whole "prevent massive buffing" reasons for the rule, but I think that WotC went overboard with that.


I might add a house rule that allows multiple concentration spells, but increases the DC by 2 for each spell the caster is concentrating on if hit.

Two concentration spells up? Make two DC 12 (or half damage +2) concentration checks, one for each spell.
Three concentration spells up? Make three DC 14 (or half damage +4) concentration checks, one for each spell.

Yes, this type of house rule shifts the balance of power to casters a bit, but I basically figure that everyone and his brother is a caster in 5E anyway, might as well help most everyone out. Pros and Cons to this as well (i.e. one attack can take out multiple spells, this results in PCs casting more spells and having fewer for later, etc.)

I think the "only one concentration spell" rule is one of the crown jewels of 5E. I like such and elegant design to get the endless Buffing Storms under control.

If I never see another round of Scry - Buff - Teleport again I'll be fine.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the "only one concentration spell" rule is one of the crown jewels of 5E. I like such and elegant design to get the endless Buffing Storms under control.

If I never see another round of Scry - Buff - Teleport again I'll be fine.

Crown jewel? You must hate spell casting classes.

I get your POV, but in 5E, it doesn't take a Dispel Magic to take down concentration spells. In fact with many area spells like Web and Silence and many others being Concentration, Dispel Magic is almost out of a job. 3E was a pain because there was only one way to address the "Scry - Buff - Teleport", not because casters had that option.

I just think that with the concentration rules, WotC pulled another knee jerk reaction and went way too far in the opposite direction (kind of like when most spells in 4E lasted a round, that was really knee jerk). Not just the limited to one spell in use aspect, but the fact that concentration shows up on so many spells, and it makes the spell caster's spells lame (almost all classes, Rangers, Paladins, Druids, everyone).

From my perspective based on how many concentration spells are in the game, one of several "fixes" should be done. Damage should not negate them, or casters should be able to have more than one, or many of the spells (like Web and the especially weak Silence) that are concentration should not be concentration. It's like WotC went into a feeding frenzy on spells. Between concentration and save every round, many spells barely work at all.

Fireball, on the other hand, is somewhat stronger. Lots of love for evokers.

 

[DaveDash]

Crown jewel? You must hate spell casting classes.

I get your POV, but in 5E, it doesn't take a Dispel Magic to take down concentration spells. In fact with many area spells like Web and Silence and many others being Concentration, Dispel Magic is almost out of a job. 3E was a pain because there was only one way to address the "Scry - Buff - Teleport", not because casters had that option.

I just think that with the concentration rules, WotC pulled another knee jerk reaction and went way too far in the opposite direction (kind of like when most spells in 4E lasted a round, that was really knee jerk). Not just the limited to one spell in use aspect, but the fact that concentration shows up on so many spells, and it makes the spell caster's spells lame (almost all classes, Rangers, Paladins, Druids, everyone).

From my perspective based on how many concentration spells are in the game, one of several "fixes" should be done. Damage should not negate them, or casters should be able to have more than one, or many of the spells (like Web and the especially weak Silence) that are concentration should not be concentration. It's like WotC went into a feeding frenzy on spells. Between concentration and save every round, many spells barely work at all.

Fireball, on the other hand, is somewhat stronger. Lots of love for evokers.

Silence is far from weak. I almost TPK'd my 13th level group with a couple of Drider's spamming silence. It covers a huge area and basically shuts down spell casters completely. If they could silence and cast another concentration spell it would be ludicrously overpowered. Or if players could cast silence AND hold person, that would be stupidly powerful as well.

Not all concentration spells are well balanced, but for the most part it works pretty well. Casters can still be very powerful with certain spells, some great ones DON'T require concentration (see invisibility, blink, mirror image, spiritual weapon, foresight, fire shield, force cage (wtf), and the list goes on), and it adds more tactical choice to the game.

Play the game a bit and then see how you feel about fixes, as opposed to just reading the rules and thinking something is bad. As a Paladin concentration won't effect you much since you will be using your spell slots to do insane damage.

 

[mflayermonk]

My group experimented with letting IOUN stones maintain concentration on certain levels of spells (depending on the color). The result was an even MORE Vancian feel to the game. They even crafted a spelljammer to fly into space to the planet where all IOUN stones are mined (Jangk, I believe).

 

[KarinsDad]

Silence is far from weak. I almost TPK'd my 13th level group with a couple of Drider's spamming silence. It covers a huge area and basically shuts down spell casters completely. If they could silence and cast another concentration spell it would be ludicrously overpowered. Or if players could cast silence AND hold person, that would be stupidly powerful as well.

Huge? 20' radius is huge?

Yes, in a moderate or smaller sized room, Silence can work. Mostly against PCs (since most NPCs do not cast spells).

But outdoors or in a large cavern, creatures can just walk out of it.

It happened in our game. The PC Bard cast Silence on the NPC Cleric the one chance she had to face off against a spell caster, and the cleric picked a ransom direction (DM rolled it so that she didn't seem biased) and the cleric merely had to use movement to negate the spell. It was about a 70' x 60' cavern.

Yes, it can be good against a very limited subset of NPCs in smaller areas, but mostly it's an anti-PC spell where the DM decides to nerf them in a small area. The DM decides the environment. Many of the PC classes are casters. And the DM sets it up.

So, the DM can MAKE it a good spell, but the players rarely get that chance (both because most NPCs are not casters and because most combat locations are decided by the DM, not the players). Yes, if the PCs face off against NPC casters in a small area or if the PCs can somehow limit the NPC's movement, it might work.

But sorry, you are not being objective here. You as DM set it up to be great (both with chosen environment and by spamming it). It's not great on it's own.

Not all concentration spells are well balanced, but for the most part it works pretty well. Casters can still be very powerful with certain spells, some great ones DON'T require concentration (see invisibility, blink, mirror image, spiritual weapon, foresight, fire shield, force cage (wtf), and the list goes on), and it adds more tactical choice to the game.

Play the game a bit and then see how you feel about fixes, as opposed to just reading the rules and thinking something is bad.

Please. Don't be insulting. It's beneath you. I have played the game, I have read other people's experiences here on the boards (and on other message boards). It's not just arm chair quarterbacking.

Just because you as DM easily screwed over your players with Silence by setting up a scenario does not make it a great spell. At least not for the PCs.