D&D 5E Is Concentration Bugging You?

[DaveDash]

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.



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.

I'm running an officially published module which happens to be set inside a dungeon. Like a lot of spells, it's a fantastic spell used in the right circumstances.

I generally find a lot of people that find spells to be "useless" just either A) don't have enough game experience or B) aren't very tactical players in the first place.

Now your originally post was this:

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

Plus:

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.

Doesn't sound you're very experienced to me.

Personally, I've been running a spell caster heavy game that has reached 14th level, and been playing in another game, and have also ran a ton of encounters against most of the monsters in the book all the way up to level 20. I think concentration is fairly well balanced.

You can take that or leave it, but I still think you personally need more experience with the game before you start tinkering with it. But hey, it's your table, knock yourself out.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm running an officially published module which happens to be set inside this thing called a dungeon. Once you decide to venture into those places and you find yourself fighting in a lot of rooms, you may realise that some spells are not as useless as you think they are.

Until the NPC walks out the door at the back of the small room and the Silence spell is wasted.

Or the NPC bowmen shoots the PC caster and the Silence spell fizzles before the NPC caster's turn even comes up.

Like a lot of spells, it's a fantastic spell used in the right circumstances.

Yes, it can be (especially when used by a DM spamming it in a small area against PCs who cast spells). But, a PC who is limited to the number of spells per day might need to know that he will be facing spell casters that day. Otherwise, he wastes a prepped spell day after day after day just hoping that those "right circumstances" come along and when they do, the bowman shoots him and the spell fizzles.

I generally find a lot of people that find spells to be "useless" just either A) don't have enough game experience or B) aren't very tactical players in the first place.

Spoken like a DM. Maybe you should play as a player with a caster taking Silence every single adventuring day for a couple of months before you make this arrogant claim.

Based on her experience, the player of the Bard in our group thinks the spell totally sucks. I don't agree with her that it sucks, but I do think that it is extremely situational against NPCs and not necessarily a spell that should be prepped that often. Course, Bards don't prep spells, so she is stuck with it unless she swaps it out at a higher level.

Doesn't sound you're very experienced to me.

Well, we all know your opinion on the Silence spell, so it sounds like you are 0 for 2.

 

[EroGaki]

I've been playing a wizard character in our 5e game since September. In that time, we've gone from 1st level all the way up to our current level of 7th. Just recently, I have decided to retire the character because I just don't like the concentration rules and the way it interacts with spells.

My character has an 11 constitution, and our DM doesn't use feats. Over the course of our adventures, my character has wasted so many spells due to failing concentration roles; with a +0 modifier to his Con saves, even the "low" DC 10 checks are difficult to make. Whether it be by archers who target me because I'm tossing fireballs, or wolves, stirges, and kobolds ambushing us, my wizard gets attacked, and gets hit. And then, because I'm flying, or maintaining a Web spell, or something else, I get to make that delightful Con check. And I've failed many more than I have passed.

Honestly, over the last month, I've stopped casting spells that require concentration all together; I have so few spell slots, and then to have those wasted because I get hit...
So now I've been reduced to casting a small percentage of the spells in my spellbook because of it, and it's infuriating and boring. So I quit my character. 5E is the first time I have ever said to myself, "Gee, maybe I should play a fighter. At least then I could actually play a character that is good at doing what it's designed to do."

So, I am not a fan of the Concentration mechanic; it has screwed over my game experience for too long. WotC went waaaay too far with it.

 

[Eejit]

Until the NPC walks out the door at the back of the small room and the Silence spell is wasted.

Or the NPC bowmen shoots the PC caster and the Silence spell fizzles before the NPC caster's turn even comes up.

You're just providing evidence for DaveDash's assertion that you don't think very tactically. Your fighter grapples the NPC spellcaster on his turn, then you cast silence. Boom, BBEG made almost harmless.

 

[Ebony Dragon]

I've been playing a wizard character in our 5e game since September. In that time, we've gone from 1st level all the way up to our current level of 7th. Just recently, I have decided to retire the character because I just don't like the concentration rules and the way it interacts with spells.

My character has an 11 constitution, and our DM doesn't use feats. Over the course of our adventures, my character has wasted so many spells due to failing concentration roles; with a +0 modifier to his Con saves, even the "low" DC 10 checks are difficult to make. Whether it be by archers who target me because I'm tossing fireballs, or wolves, stirges, and kobolds ambushing us, my wizard gets attacked, and gets hit. And then, because I'm flying, or maintaining a Web spell, or something else, I get to make that delightful Con check. And I've failed many more than I have passed.

Honestly, over the last month, I've stopped casting spells that require concentration all together; I have so few spell slots, and then to have those wasted because I get hit...
So now I've been reduced to casting a small percentage of the spells in my spellbook because of it, and it's infuriating and boring. So I quit my character. 5E is the first time I have ever said to myself, "Gee, maybe I should play a fighter. At least then I could actually play a character that is good at doing what it's designed to do."

So, I am not a fan of the Concentration mechanic; it has screwed over my game experience for too long. WotC went waaaay too far with it.

This is what I was afraid of after reading the concentration rules

I do really like the "only 1 spell at a time" part of it. Putting a lid on the massive buff spamming that was high level 3.x games is a welcome change. But the rolling to keep a spell up every time the caster takes damage is going too far.

 

[Mouseferatu]

This is what I was afraid of after reading the concentration rules

I do really like the "only 1 spell at a time" part of it. Putting a lid on the massive buff spamming that was high level 3.x games is a welcome change. But the rolling to keep a spell up every time the caster takes damage is going too far.

I don't think it's going too far to require a roll; but it might be that the game asks for the wrong roll.

A simple house rule saying that Concentration is based on your primary casting stat, rather than Con--or maybe on the better of the two--would massively cut down on losing spells to damage, while still leaving it as a risk, and still allowing all the other virtues of the system.

 

[Prism]

While I believe some spells probably should require concentration that do and also the DC is a bit hard at low levels, or without feats or a better AC or CON (all of wizards especially struggle with), in general it works well for me

I have been playing a cleric up to 7th level and the concentration spells are often very powerful. So much that even if I fail a CON check after the first round they have often done their job. Bless for a round can win a fight. Last week I cast spirit guardians and then lost it almost immediately to a DC 10 failed save. By this point I had swung the fight. Had I passed that save, the fight would have been over. I would rather have powerful spells like that that involve risk. I can also see why being able to cast bless and spiritual weapon and guardian spirits at the same time would be way too strong.

Although I haven't played a straight wizard it does look like they might struggle more but again some of those concentration spells only need to work for a round or maybe two to be effective. Hold person = dead person typically. Dismissal is great even for a round. The wizard doesn't have to win the fight with just a single spell. They only typically need to make that single round easier on the party to enable success. Anything else is a bonus.

 

[sithramir]

Getting back to paladins the concentration seems to basically teach my paladin that you can have only one bonus: +2 AC (shield of faith or haste later on), +1d4 bless, or +1d6 damage from hunters mark.

Smite spells become generally useless because you just use normal smite class ability for max damage because the small smite spell benefits aren't worth losing the other option

So it seems kind of like you choose if you need AC or attack or damage more.

Just hope you have a cleric with bless and then your options open up I guess. Its not too bad for paladins IMO.

 

[KarinsDad]

You're just providing evidence for DaveDash's assertion that you don't think very tactically. Your fighter grapples the NPC spellcaster on his turn, then you cast silence. Boom, BBEG made almost harmless.

Because the BBEG never has minions between himself and the party. He never has allies with ranged attacks to take out the PC spell caster. He is always within 30 feet of the grappling Fighter at the start of the encounter (whose init beats the BBEG's). He never throws spells right away that hinder the PCs or have allies do so. The PC actually prepped Silence this particular adventuring day, or didn't swap it out because he never got to use it as a class that doesn't prep spells and finally gave up on it. Life is always ice cream and flowers and puppy dogs for the PCs. Woo hoo!

Sorry, but your scenario sounds contrived and optimistically simplistic.

This is what happens when people here talk about other people instead of talking about the game (like he did and you just did). If you had read the thread, you would have read that I stated that Silence could be very effective in the right circumstances (like the Fighter getting a chance to grapple). But there are a lot of hurdles to overcome for PCs, just to get to a scenario where it can be effective. Of course, if the DM sets it up for the NPCs like that poster did, he sets up the room, the NPC casters, and all of the other conditions that make it work wonderfully. At that point, it becomes a great spell for the NPCs. PCs rarely get that opportunity.

Unless of course you are a DM that says "In today's adventure, you will be fighting a BBEG spell caster. Be prepared.".

And, of course, there is never a DM who thinks tactically himself and creates an intelligent BBEG that is difficult to get near. That never happens.

Thinking tactically? In order to get Silence to work, it's more like thinking strategically. The PCs have to be able to control the situation and in the chaos of combat, that is not always the case. So the PCs need to bring multiple lock down options to the table like Entangle and/or Web and/or grappling. In order to get a high probability of success, they need more than one way to lock down the BBEG because one method might not work (i.e. the fighter cannot get close enough, or the caster of Web gets hit and it fizzles). And if the BBEG is not locked down, he merely moves out of the area of Silence or an ally of his hits the spell caster with a damaging attack, and the "tactic" can fail.

Silence has great potential. It just needs a few fiddly bits working perfectly in order for it to work and it is easy to "dispel" or walk out of. And there is a difference between potential and reality at the gaming table. When it works, it can work great. The problem is in getting it to work. There are sometimes too many factors that are often uncontrollable. Unless, of course, you are the DM and you have your NPCs spamming the spell in a small area against the PCs.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hold person = dead person typically.

This depends on a several factors.

Best case scenario, the PC caster's init comes immediately after his target's init, he casts the spell, is successful, and every PC's turn comes up and if they have the chance, the other PCs can whale on the held target. If the NPC fails the save. If he saves, the caster basically used up his action and his spell slot for a spell that did nothing when saved against.

Worst case scenario, the target's init comes immediately after the PC caster's init. If the caster casts right away, then the caster gave up his action in order to possibly have the target fail his first save and if he does, possibly fail his second save. The odds of failing both saves (for a target powerful enough to cast Hold Person on like a lieutenant) are not typically that high. So, for the most part, the caster gives up his action (100% of the time) to possibly have the target give up his action (say 60% of the time, one save failed) and give up his action and be toast for a round (say 36% of the time, two saves failed). But the odds of nothing happening (40%) are basically as good or better than the odds of something good happening (36%).

Now in a worse case or bad scenario (the caster's init comes up shortly after the target's init), the caster can ready an action to cast after the target's turn (or sometimes even during the target's turn, but then we are back to worse case scenario). But, that sort of defeats the purpose of casting the spell at all. The target gets to use his normal turn. The caster "delayed" his attack to improve the results, but allowed the target to use his normal action in order to do so. This is handing action economy to the NPCs. The target could kill or incapacitate one or more PCs during his turn.


Hold Person is one of those iffy spells because of these types of things. When the timing is good and the target fails one or more saves and it works, it can be great. But there are scenarios (like worse case above) where casting it usually means that not much happens. Either the target saves, or he loses an action. And the PC caster gave up an action and a spell slot for that to happen.

Granted, there are foes with low Wisdom modifiers where the odds increase dramatically for something good to happen. But, the players do not always get to decide who they are fighting against, that's mostly the purview of the DM.