D&D 5E Multiple Concentration

[CapnZapp]

Don't change the concentration mechanic. Change the spells that require concentration.

Actually, I would say the issue isn't with Concentration per se, but with levels.

While you still don't know level 9 spells (and maybe level 8), Concentration works fine as written with no changes necessary.

But as you begin to master magic, the 5E limitations start to chafe. They make it impossible to have truly impressive high level mages.

So what I would like to see is an official (optional, but first party) codification of the various relaxations of the magic limitations that we already can witness in the form of top level NPC casters! [emoji846]

 

[Fluerdemal]

That's a rather large buff for casters. I'm not saying it's not something you should not do, but if you are giving that much to casters do you have other house rules that give things to martial characters?

Honestly, and perhaps it's an artifact of my DMing style, it doesn't really become that much of a buff - or perhaps it's that the fact that spellcasters are such high value targets that this compensates. Compared to 1E magic generally feels so nerfed in comparison that none of my players feel like things are out of balance, nor do I.

I suspect that if I had started with 5E I wouldn't notice a darn thing and the game would run fine, but to my old 1E-trained brain, highly comfortable with the "quadratic spellcaster", I/we generally feel like casters are underpowered compared to warriors and rogues.

That said, I also run a higher magic game, and comfortable handing out magical weapons that do more damage per strike than would be the 5E norm - but I don't think that I ran the numbers the damage output/resistance would equalize.

D.

 

[Fluerdemal]

Don't change the concentration mechanic. Change the spells that require concentration.

And Rituals.

I love the mechanic for Ritual magic, but it seems mostly like a wasted opportunity - on top of the somewhat odd applications of Concentration.

D.

 

[Blue]

Honestly, and perhaps it's an artifact of my DMing style, it doesn't really become that much of a buff - or perhaps it's that the fact that spellcasters are such high value targets that this compensates. Compared to 1E magic generally feels so nerfed in comparison that none of my players feel like things are out of balance, nor do I.

I suspect that if I had started with 5E I wouldn't notice a darn thing and the game would run fine, but to my old 1E-trained brain, highly comfortable with the "quadratic spellcaster", I/we generally feel like casters are underpowered compared to warriors and rogues.

That said, I also run a higher magic game, and comfortable handing out magical weapons that do more damage per strike than would be the 5E norm - but I don't think that I ran the numbers the damage output/resistance would equalize.

I think the idea that 5e casters are underpowered compared to martial characters is not generally held. If this works for your table then by all means run with it, but realize that feedback from the forums will likely be against what people are seeing at their own tables, where casters aren't considered weaker.

 

[Worrgrendel]

Don't change the concentration mechanic. Change the spells that require concentration.

This. So much this. This is a large reason for the house rule mechanic that I came up with (posted earlier in the thread). The other major reason why I felt like "breaking the concentration mechanic" was that at higher levels there are still so many good lower level spells that do not get used at all because the caster is concentrating on a higher level spell (rightfully so). Essentially what you end up with is casters of X class of higher level all end up with exactly the same spell list for the lower spell levels because they are no longer taking these lower level concentration spells.

Also, someone else pointed out that the caster heavy party was a pretty biased sample for my house rule mechanic. True, it may look that way on the surface, but the Ranger and Paladin rarely concentrate on more than one spell (and did not even have the ability to do so until they hit level 9), less so the Ranger because of Hunter's Mark being only 1st level (and really is an extra 1d6 damage per hit at level 17 REALLY that game breaking? A Flametongue sword is better than that). The Monk in the party (and there was a Rogue Assassin early on that had to drop out) have had zero complaints or felt like they were being overshadowed by the house rule concentration mechanic by the party casters.

The other thing I have noticed is people keep mentioning "Mages" and "Wizards" benefiting from increased concentration and this is taking away from the Sorcerer. My house rule is for "casters" not just Wizards. All spell casters get the benefit, including the Sorcerer. So, yes, the Wizard (or Cleric or Bard or Druid or Warlock) could concentrate on 3 spells by level 17, but the Sorcerer with Twin Spell could concentrate on 6! Is that diminishing the Sorcerer's schtick? FYI, I also agree that Sorcerers could use more spells known (but that is a separate issue).

 

[Fluerdemal]

I think the idea that 5e casters are underpowered compared to martial characters is not generally held. If this works for your table then by all means run with it, but realize that feedback from the forums will likely be against what people are seeing at their own tables, where casters aren't considered weaker.

I didn't say that they were underpowered compared to martial characters, I said they were underpowered compared to 1E casters. ;-)

D.

 

[Thurmas]

Honestly, you could probably just give spells the same ability as Bestow Curse. 3rd level spell, but if cast with a 5th level slot or higher, it doesn't require concentration. I've never heard anyone complain about that being broken.

So, casting a spell at 2 slots higher removes the concentration mechanic.

Maybe not for all spells, but certainly for more than just Bestow Curse.

 

[Gadget]

It's always struck me that the problem isn't the concentration mechanic, which I think is fine. It is instead that there are too many spells that require concentration that shouldn't. Passive effects that you shouldn't actually have to think about, such as Wall of Stone or Web shouldn't require concentration. Those are just physical manifestations that with enough time, crumble or fade away. It's the active effects, such as Telekinesis or Flaming Sphere that should require concentration.

Don't change the concentration mechanic. Change the spells that require concentration.

I'm mostly in agreement with this. There are so many spells that the Concentration mechanic dooms to the dustbin of niche application that really shouldn't be. It would probably be unwise to get just jettison the concentration requirement outright for many of them (though not all, I'm looking at you flame arrows), but adding in the same option as bestow curse: "..when cast at x level does not require concentration. Then there's the option of just outright tweaking some spells so they are worth their spell slot and concentration. Sadly, even as recently as Xanthanar's, the devs have provided spells that are not really up to their slot cost and concentration (to be fair, there are many spells in Xanthanar's that are up to snuff).

 

[Blue]

I didn't say that they were underpowered compared to martial characters, I said they were underpowered compared to 1E casters. ;-)

D.

Sorry, I took the casters vs. warriors and rogues as 5e vs. 5e in the following:

I suspect that if I had started with 5E I wouldn't notice a darn thing and the game would run fine, but to my old 1E-trained brain, highly comfortable with the "quadratic spellcaster", I/we generally feel like casters are underpowered compared to warriors and rogues.

 

[Fluerdemal]

Sorry, I took the casters vs. warriors and rogues as 5e vs. 5e in the following:

No harm, no foul.

D.