D&D 5E Losing Concentration

[TwoSix]

Self-buffing on casters still should be a valid playstyle, especially for all the types of casters who can fight with weapons reliably.

While I can't debate the value judgment of "should be a valid playstyle," I think it's telling that there are virtually no offensive buffs in the Basic set, and the few that exist are all concentration.

As another example, the eldritch knight subclass for fighters can only cast wizard abjurations and evocations, so not a lot of buffing outside of reactive buffs like shield.

 

[Boarstorm]

As another example, the eldritch knight subclass for fighters can only cast wizard abjurations and evocations, so not a lot of buffing outside of reactive buffs like shield.

Interesting... A big change in concept, IMO.

 

[Stalker0]

Then you run the risk of the cleric being a better Fighter than the Fighter.

Self buffing was one of 3e's biggest problem areas.

Problem wasn't that the cleric could cast buffs on himself.


The problem was that they could cast A LOT of buffs on themselves.


The concentration mechanic already removes a lot of the clerics self buff potential. But it also make the traditional melee cleric archetype pretty difficult.

 

[Marshall]

The problem here is that concentration isn't concentration. It's sustain, but since the forgotten edition used the term sustain it can't be used where it should be. Since the devs misapplied the term concentration, someone pointed out how it would "feel" if damage broke concentration. So now we have damage breaking buffs that it had no business affecting. Yet another example of this team taking a good idea and sacrificing it on the black altar of nostalgia or feel.

 

[the Jester]

The problem here is that concentration isn't concentration. It's sustain, but since the forgotten edition used the term sustain it can't be used where it should be. Since the devs misapplied the term concentration, someone pointed out how it would "feel" if damage broke concentration. So now we have damage breaking buffs that it had no business affecting. Yet another example of this team taking a good idea and sacrificing it on the black altar of nostalgia or feel.

It's pretty far removed from sustain, actually.

It doesn't require an action; you could sustain multiple powers in 4e, but you can't concentrate on multiple concentration spells in 5e; there are no spells (that we have seen) that have multiple sustain options (as 4e had many "sustain minors" that came with attached "sustain moves" or "sustain standards")... I dunno, I think it might be inspired by the sustain rules from 4e, but it's pretty far away from them.

(I say this as a 4e-lover who is having a blast running my 4e campaign, which is in mid-epic levels and is at the point that the pcs will either triumph over impossible odds or TPK out in the next session or two.)

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think adding proficiency bonuses to concentration would be a terrible idea.

As a balancing mechanic, it feels pretty solid. Messing with it - getting bonuses, getting to concentrate on multiple spells, etc. - throws that balance out the window and dramatically escalates the caster's power. Having a defensive buff and Hold Person up at the same time would creep us back towards caster supremacy. Moreso than now.

I've seen hints that the design team knows this, so I'm hopeful the game won't be broken this way, yet.

Concentration is borderline broken, this is a better fix than MC fighter.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Then you run the risk of the cleric being a better Fighter than the Fighter.

Self buffing was one of 3e's biggest problem areas.

that is handled with concen being exclusive. the damage on tops breaks it. but no doubt there will be a way around it in phb somewhere.

 

[Marshall]

It's pretty far removed from sustain, actually.

It doesn't require an action; you could sustain multiple powers in 4e, but you can't concentrate on multiple concentration spells in 5e; there are no spells (that we have seen) that have multiple sustain options (as 4e had many "sustain minors" that came with attached "sustain moves" or "sustain standards")... I dunno, I think it might be inspired by the sustain rules from 4e, but it's pretty far away from them.

(I say this as a 4e-lover who is having a blast running my 4e campaign, which is in mid-epic levels and is at the point that the pcs will either triumph over impossible odds or TPK out in the next session or two.)

It's exactly the same effect as Sustain, only the mechanics are slightly different. It's free in 5e or, put a different way, it is it's own separate action and you're limited to only one. It's only when you call it concentration that losing it on damage becomes a thing.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm probably going to with:

The DC of the save is the amount of damage taken. If 3 points are taken, the DC is 3.
I'll also utilize the passive check mechanic, with a passive score of 8 + Constitution Modifier. If the amount of damage is less than that, then no concentration check is needed until the caster takes at least that amount of damage in a single round, whether from one attack or multiple. There can still be multiple concentration checks in a round, but it will be less likely.

I'm not terribly concerned about balance, for many reasons, but mostly because they can only be using one spell at a time, and the same rules will apply to their opponents as well.

Ilbranteloth