Concentration and Short Rests

[MarkTriumphant]

I've tried to find this elsewhere with no luck. Has anybody any clarity on what the rules say about whether it is possible to hold concentration on a spell while having a short rest? This would obviously make Hex a bit more powerful, as sustaining it for 8 hours from 5th level would free up a spell slot for something else.

[Eslin]

There's nothing that says you can't, and it's pretty clear you're meant to be able to considering it can last 24 hours.

[Gurka]

It's a bit ambiguous... It does say that to gain the benefit of a short rest you must do nothing more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending wounds".

It sounds to me like it's up to the DM whether (s)he considers maintaining a concentration spell as more taxing than reading.

For me, I'd require an attribute check to maintain the spell through the rest. If you fail, then you lose the spell... If you fail really badly, maybe you lose the benefit of the rest too.

[odigity]

It's a bit ambiguous... It does say that to gain the benefit of a short rest you must do nothing more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending wounds".

It sounds to me like it's up to the DM whether (s)he considers maintaining a concentration spell as more taxing than reading.

For me, I'd require an attribute check to maintain the spell through the rest. If you fail, then you lose the spell... If you fail really badly, maybe you lose the benefit of the rest too.

Thinking is no more strenuous than reading, which presumably also requires thinking.

Fluff-wise, I think a base concentration check (DC 10) to make sure you don't get bored and start daydreaming and lose concentration for 1+ hrs would make sense, but RAW, it's just adding more difficulty to the character that isn't already in the PHB, which I think is probably unfair.

If you still want to do it, might want to consider explorign the concept of passive concentration, like passive perception. Except that's 10 + ability bonus + proficiency bonus, so if the DC 10, everyone would pass even with a 10 in their spellcasting ability and no proficiency, so I'm not sure how to create the mechanical analog here. Maybe it doesn't make sense because it was never intended to be necessary?

[Segev]

Honestly, I think choosing to use the word "concentration" as a hold-over from earlier editions, but redefining it as they have, was a mistake. It's more "commitment" or "maintenance" of the spell. You can only maintain one spell, or you're committing to it, and can only be committed to/maintain one spell at a time. You're not really "concentrating" on it any more than you "concentrate" on holding a mug of coffee in your hand. You could lose hold if startled or the like, but you also can forget its there until something reminds you by calling for you to put it down if you want to use that appendage for anything else.



As an aside, I wonder if we'll get spellcasters who have amongst their shticks the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time?

[Galen]

First things first, I concede this issue is not spelled clearly in the rules, and what follows is not RAW, but my interpretation. Based on this:
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration.
I believe that if fighting doesn't interfere with concentration, then certainly resting should not. I'm going to allow my PCs to maintain concentration across a short rest.

[odigity]

As an aside, I wonder if we'll get spellcasters who have amongst their shticks the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time?

I'm hoping for a feat. The concentration is too limiting right now, they have to offer some abilities to bend it. A feat slot to be able to maintain two (con) spells instead of one would not be broken, it just gives you some new combinations to play with (keep Bless going while casting Smite spells, or keep Darkness and Silence going together...)

If a feat can give you an extra attack (Polearm Master), then +1 buff spell doesn't seem that broken.

[Galen]

I'm hoping for a feat. The concentration is too limiting right now, they have to offer some abilities to bend it. A feat slot to be able to maintain two (con) spells instead of one would not be broken, it just gives you some new combinations to play with (keep Bless going while casting Smite spells, or keep Darkness and Silence going together...)

If a feat can give you an extra attack (Polearm Master), then +1 buff spell doesn't seem that broken.
I have to disagree. The Concentration mechanic is just what the doctor ordered to reign in the caster domination of 3.5. Now mundanes can actually play with Wizards and Clerics and not be irrelevant. Why? Because a Wizard can have Fly or Stoneskin, but not both. Allowing casters to increase the amount of buffs they carry by +100% might be too much for the mundanes, especially with new spells undoubtedly being published in splats. I really hope they will not print such a feat.

[Oscredwin]

I think sleeping, taking damage, are casting a spell that requires concentration are the only things that break concentration. I think the example of having your (mystical) hands full is a good metaphor for how this works.

I'm hoping that psions get the ability to concentrate on 2 powers at a time (and get a set of powers balanced around this).

[odigity]

The Concentration mechanic is just what the doctor ordered to reign in the caster domination of 3.5. Now mundanes can actually play with Wizards and Clerics and not be irrelevant.

I agree.


Allowing casters to increase the amount of buffs they carry by +100% might be too much for the mundanes, especially with new spells undoubtedly being published in splats. I really hope they will not print such a feat.

I disagree. (disclosure: I'm not a 5e expert yet)

Concentration is an important limitation to solve the 3.5e god problem, but no one is proposing eliminating it. Just bending it. I don't see how having one buff up is balanced, but two is broken. It doesn't make the Wizard a god, and realistically, the wizard would probably be casting those spells on the fighter anyway.

Having two spells going at once also means you'd lose *both* if you got hit and failed your check (or maybe it'll be two checks, one for each spell -- or a combined harder than normal check). While the benefit is great, the risk compounds linearly with it, keeping it check.

Competent Magic: The Gathering players don't use creature enchantments for this reason -- you don't want to lose two resources to one removal spell cast by your opponent.

Summary: Allowing two simultaneous concentration spells is not the same as eliminating the balance that the concentration mechanic adds.

[odigity]

Basically, allowing two spells just opens up some new and interesting combos, just like Polearm Master and Sentinel does for martials. You can do new things, but you don't become god.

[Galen]

I don't see how having one buff up is balanced, but two is broken.
Simple math: if there are 100 different Wizard spells printed, allowing one of them active at once means the devs need to only worry about 100 possible combinations. Allowing two of them to be active at once, means the devs need to look at 4,950 combinations.

Do you understand that 100 buffs are relatively easy to control for possible brokenness, while 4,950 combinations are not? I'm pretty sure broken combinations will rapidly appear as soon as this is allowed. And once those combos appear, you can't go back anymore. Because it's all official WotC material. And now you have the same broken combos being regurgitated in optimization guides and handbooks, and before you know it you find yourself playing 3.5 all over again. Thanks, but no thanks. I am very happy that the "one spell at a time" line was drawn in the sand, and would like to keep it this way.


Summary: Allowing two simultaneous concentration spells is not the same as eliminating the balance that the concentration mechanic adds.It very well might, and I am not willing to take a risk of destroying my favorite game to find out.

[badintel]

A feat slot to be able to maintain two (con) spells instead of one would not be broken, it just gives you some new combinations to play with (keep Bless going while casting Smite spells, or keep Darkness and Silence going together...)

I could get behind a feat that used verbiage limiting the casting of the second concentration based spell to another target. In other words A cleric could cast a buff on themselves and on a party member, but not two buffs on themselves. A wizard could debuff two seperate enemies but not two debuffs on the same enemy. I'm not sure how this would apply to spells like Hex and Hunter's Mark...but it could be doable.

[odigity]

Do you understand that 100 buffs are relatively easy to control for possible brokenness, while 4,950 combinations are not?

That's a good point. I can't say your fear is unfounded. But I'm still not sure that's a 100% slam dunk case for why it's not worth considering at all.


And once those combos appear, you can't go back anymore. Because it's all official WotC material. And now you have the same broken combos being regurgitated in optimization guides and handbooks, and before you know it you find yourself playing 3.5 all over again.

That's already happening now with Polearm Master + Sentinel, or Polearm Master + War Caster. Granted, those combos were clearly intended, yet they're also clearly stand-out combos in 5e so far, better than most. A similar situation to the one you described as happening once two concentration spells are allowed.

Furthermore, two-concentration spell combos are possible even now, they just require two casters in the party. (Pretty common.) The hypothetical feat I proposed would just make it possible to do the same thing with one char instead of two -- which would be a problem if it resulted in a god wizard, but I don't see how it does. It's still very limited.

Lastly, I'm playing a level 2 Paladin, on my way to level 3. All but two of the 1st level spells on the Paladin list require concentration -- including the friggin Smite spells, even though you're going to discharge them immediately on the same round. It's really, REALLY annoying. Can you see how someone might be more concerned about making it more fun for 99% of us rather than living in fear of the 1% abusing some cool combo that's overpowered relative to other combos?

[Eslin]

That's a good point. I can't say your fear is unfounded. But I'm still not sure that's a 100% slam dunk case for why it's not worth considering at all.



That's already happening now with Polearm Master + Sentinel, or Polearm Master + War Caster. Granted, those combos were clearly intended, yet they're also clearly stand-out combos in 5e so far, better than most. A similar situation to the one you described as happening once two concentration spells are allowed.

Furthermore, two-concentration spell combos are possible even now, they just require two casters in the party. (Pretty common.) The hypothetical feat I proposed would just make it possible to do the same thing with one char instead of two -- which would be a problem if it resulted in a god wizard, but I don't see how it does. It's still very limited.

Lastly, I'm playing a level 2 Paladin, on my way to level 3. All but two of the 1st level spells on the Paladin list require concentration -- including the friggin Smite spells, even though you're going to discharge them immediately on the same round. It's really, REALLY annoying. Can you see how someone might be more concerned about making it more fun for 99% of us rather than living in fear of the 1% abusing some cool combo that's overpowered relative to other combos?

The smite bit is really goddamn annoying.

Gonna cast elemental weapon to boost my weapon for the rest of this battle, and I'm gonna blow my other fifth level spell on banishing smite to buff this attack!
>elemental weapon disappears

[odigity]

I could get behind a feat that used verbiage limiting the casting of the second concentration based spell to another target. In other words A cleric could cast a buff on themselves and on a party member, but not two buffs on themselves. A wizard could debuff two seperate enemies but not two debuffs on the same enemy. I'm not sure how this would apply to spells like Hex and Hunter's Mark...but it could be doable.

That's a good attempt at adding safety limits, though I don't see how you could justify it fluff-wise. In fact, it seems to me it would be easier to concentrate on a pair of spells that rest on the same target.

What about you just can't cast any more spells while concentrating on two existing ones? That seems like a pretty good safety limit. Would make it more fun for the spellcasting martials (like Paladin), get a bless and bane up then start swinging. Not as useful for full spellcasters, because they can't do much once they've got two spells up, so again, god wizard averted.

[odigity]

The smite bit is really goddamn annoying.

Gonna cast elemental weapon to boost my weapon for the rest of this battle, and I'm gonna blow my other fifth level spell on banishing smite to buff this attack!
>elemental weapon disappears

Exactly. I want to keep Bless up AND drop a smite on the boss. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Those are the two jobs of the Paladin, after all.

[badintel]

Exactly. I want to keep Bless up AND drop a smite on the boss. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Those are the two jobs of the Paladin, after all.

Perhaps a ruling that smite spells are no longer concentration and only last one round?

[odigity]

Perhaps a ruling that smite spells are no longer concentration and only last one round?

That would definitely help alleviate this particularly egregious problem. There may be other similar examples.

I personally like the idea of playing a Rogue Arcane Trickster/Warlock with Devil's Sight Invocation. If you could maintain Darkness and Silence at the same time, you could single-handedly go room by room and take out a whole castle.

Ok, maybe that would be broken... but it's still accomplishable now with a partner, or a spellcasting familiar. (Are there any of those yet?)

[obryn]

The devs have said that concentration is considered a fundamental balancing mechanism.

I do not think you will ever see a generalized "may concentrate on two spells" feat or feature.

You may, however, eventually see abilities which allow you to ignore a Concentration requirement for certain, very-specific spells.

[Chen]

There should be some way to let you play a buffing wizard (who buffs his allies) without concentration being such a big issue. I can see not wanting wizards to stack buffs on themselves, but a Wizard casting black tentacles to hold some monsters and then wanting to cast fly on the fighter to go let him catch the escaping bad guy should be doable in some way.

[Galen]

There should be some way to let you play a buffing wizard (who buffs his allies) without concentration being such a big issue. I can see not wanting wizards to stack buffs on themselves, but a Wizard casting black tentacles to hold some monsters and then wanting to cast fly on the fighter to go let him catch the escaping bad guy should be doable in some way.
I am actually going to insert a houserule in my game: A caster who casts a Concentration spell on a willing target may have the target concentrate on the spell instead of the caster. So the wizard can give Stoneskin to one ally, Fly to another ally, and Invisibility to the third. He can still only have one buff on himself.

This makes the casters a lot better at helping teammates without turning them into gods that do not need teammates.

[Rezby]

I'm half expecting to see in the DMG a godlike artifact, built by gods, meant for gods, that allows something along the lines of concentration on two spell effects or something like that. That would be reasonable I think, as by the time your PCs are getting the weapons of the gods themselves is around the time they start becoming gods themselves.

[MaxWilson]

I personally like the idea of playing a Rogue Arcane Trickster/Warlock with Devil's Sight Invocation. If you could maintain Darkness and Silence at the same time, you could single-handedly go room by room and take out a whole castle.

Ok, maybe that would be broken... but it's still accomplishable now with a partner, or a spellcasting familiar. (Are there any of those yet?)

Silence isn't mobile, it's a fixed area, so you'll have to get Pass Without Trace instead.


I am actually going to insert a houserule in my game: A caster who casts a Concentration spell on a willing target may have the target concentrate on the spell instead of the caster. So the wizard can give Stoneskin to one ally, Fly to another ally, and Invisibility to the third. He can still only have one buff on himself.

This makes the casters a lot better at helping teammates without turning them into gods that do not need teammates.

That makes the Ring of Spell storing much less attractive.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

That makes the Ring of Spell storing much less attractive.

Yes, probably not worth buying. Oh, wait...

[odigity]

I am actually going to insert a houserule in my game: A caster who casts a Concentration spell on a willing target may have the target concentrate on the spell instead of the caster. So the wizard can give Stoneskin to one ally, Fly to another ally, and Invisibility to the third. He can still only have one buff on himself.

This makes the casters a lot better at helping teammates without turning them into gods that do not need teammates.

That's a clever solution mechanically, though I can't buy the fluff. Even if a spell was transferrable in that way, there's no way a fighter with no magical training could be expected to "concentrate" on a spell.

[Galen]

That's a clever solution mechanically, though I can't buy the fluff. Even if a spell was transferrable in that way, there's no way a fighter with no magical training could be expected to "concentrate" on a spell.
Ooooh. "there is no way". Dem are fighting words, especially when it comes to, what is essentially, fiction. Are you basically saying that there is no way one would create a fiction in which a non-magically-trained fighter can fly when assisted by a magically-trained wizard? A pretty strong statement, I'd say. Let's see ...

The wizard touches the fighter and mumbles an incantation. The fighter suddenly feels very light, like a feather. With a bit of focus, he can even control his movements. At first, he's not certain. Like John Carter taking his first uncertain steps on Barsoom, he floats a bit first, and then ...

"Hey, look at this, I can throw myself on the ground and miss it!"
"Let me try a loop-de-loop... wow, this thing really works! I guess this is some powerful magic!"
"What's that? A manticore? I can take it in mid-air! Bring it on!"
Several axe swings later, the manticore's corpse thuds heavily on the ground.

(Alternative ending that was cut by the producers: "aaah, those spikes really hurt! I can't ... I can't control this flight thing anymore! Help! I'm falling! Heeeeelllllppppp! <thud>")

[odigity]

Ooooh. "there is no way". Dem are fighting words, especially when it comes to, what is essentially, fiction. Are you basically saying that there is no way one would create a fiction in which a non-magically-trained fighter can fly when assisted by a magically-trained wizard? A pretty strong statement, I'd say. Let's see ...

The wizard touches the fighter and mumbles an incantation. The fighter suddenly feels very light, like a feather. With a bit of focus, he can even control his movements. At first, he's not certain. Like John Carter taking his first uncertain steps on Barsoom, he floats a bit first, and then ...

"Hey, look at this, I can throw myself on the ground and miss it!"
"Let me try a loop-de-loop... wow, this thing really works! I guess this is some powerful magic!"
"What's that? A manticore? I can take it in mid-air! Bring it on!"
Several axe swings later, the manticore's corpse thuds heavily on the ground.

(Alternative ending that was cut by the producers: "aaah, those spikes really hurt! I can't ... I can't control this flight thing anymore! Help! I'm falling! Heeeeelllllppppp! <thud>")

That's a lovely scene you've described, and it has it's appeal. It does depend on intepreting "concentration" as merely controlling the spell's benefits (giving fly to another creature), rather than actually maintaining the magical forces or whatever that power it, which I'd imagine would require the training or innate ability of an actual spellcaster. But, it's fluff, so there's no right answer.

It would definitely be fun, no question.

As it stands now, does the caster actually have to control the movements of the flying creature while the poor fighter shouts "no, left a bit! wait, that's too much!"? Because that's really funny and unfortunate...

[Theodoxus]

Couple things - I agree 1000% with the whole 'Concentration is a stupid name' Much rather call it maintenance. It does harken back to DAoC though, so the nostalgia is nice. However, if it's considered maintenance, then there's no reason why another character, even as magically inept as a Champion or Frenzy Barbarian can't maintain it. It's a cost of having the spell up, not an intrinsic part of the spell itself. The caveat being, I wouldn't use this mechanic myself - but at least fluff wise, it can be molded to make sense.

Second, I think maintaining two spells is fine with a feat, as long as they're both cast at the minimum slot level for the spell (so no concentrating on a Level 3 Bless) - and thus specifically isn't useful to Warlocks (not that I have anything against Warlocks, but without a convoluted reasoning, it's just easier to say 'no').

Concentration can break action economy - normally you'd need two casters (and sometimes the same class) to have two different spell effects maintained. Removing the need for a second caster frees up the party slot for something else - which may or may not be better balance wise, but there you have it. But outside of Twinning a spell, there isn't a way to Bless a group of people without using a much higher spell slot. If everyone in a group of 6 wants Bless, but you can only cast it on three, three people are SOL. If instead, you could maintain concentration on two 1st level Blesses, you cover all 6 without having to use a 4th level slot. (I'm AFB, I think that's how Bless is written, pardon me if I'm wrong.)

Heck, I'd be all for a feat that just allows for Twinning of concentration based spells. Base level or not (base is easier, but the limitation on using the same spell already is pretty strict).

[rollingForInit]

I could see something like a Summoner subschool, that allows a character to maintain two summoned or conjured creatures at the same time. That wouldn't be quite as broken as allowing two of any concentration spells, would it? Much easier to ensure balancy, at least, and it would be neat if a powerful Wizard could have two monsters under his or her command instead of just one.

Of course, if you loose concentration, you might end up with two pissed of monsters instead of just the one.

[Abithrios]

That's a clever solution mechanically, though I can't buy the fluff. Even if a spell was transferrable in that way, there's no way a fighter with no magical training could be expected to "concentrate" on a spell.

Anyone living in such a magical world would be capable of interacting with magic in ways that us nonmagical people cannot. Swinging a sword for a living in no way makes a character mundane.


That's a good attempt at adding safety limits, though I don't see how you could justify it fluff-wise. In fact, it seems to me it would be easier to concentrate on a pair of spells that rest on the same target.


The magical energies would be oriented in opposite "directions", so would cancel out rather than doubling up. It makes sense to me, but I am not sure I could explain my interpretation without lapsing into advanced math and physics concepts.

[odigity]

This thread made me realize something:

Since sustained spells are so valuable, and concentration slots are such a limited resource (1/person), it's important to try to fill every character's concentration slot with something. So, characters who otherwise wouldn't bother with spellcasting should be encouraged to dip one level of cleric or take Magic Initiate feat so they can hold a Bless or Heroism, freeing the full spellcasters to cast debuffs that allow saves and therefore require high spellcasting abilities.

[MaxWilson]

I could see something like a Summoner subschool, that allows a character to maintain two summoned or conjured creatures at the same time. That wouldn't be quite as broken as allowing two of any concentration spells, would it? Much easier to ensure balancy, at least, and it would be neat if a powerful Wizard could have two monsters under his or her command instead of just one.

It's probably easier mechanically to just make summoning spells that scale with spell slots, like Conjure Animals/Minor Elemental do.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Lastly, I'm playing a level 2 Paladin, on my way to level 3. All but two of the 1st level spells on the Paladin list require concentration -- including the friggin Smite spells, even though you're going to discharge them immediately on the same round. It's really, REALLY annoying. Can you see how someone might be more concerned about making it more fun for 99% of us rather than living in fear of the 1% abusing some cool combo that's overpowered relative to other combos?

You can still Divine Smite without breaking concentration; it's not even a spell cast technically.

Paladins, Rangers, and other half-casters are usually going to be more concerned about running out of spell slots then concentration budget, at least at lower levels.

Spells like Thunderous Smite are Concentration so you can keep them up until you hit things, if you want to house rule a one turn duration option it isn't terribly out of line. It does reduce the difference between your choices though IMO.

[Geoff]

As an aside, I wonder if we'll get spellcasters who have amongst their shticks the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time? I would be surprised if we didn't eventually get one or more of the following:

A sub-class with the ability to concentrate on one or more additional spells.

An item that can maintain concentration on a spell for you.

A spell that divides your mind so that you can concentrate on two spells at once (probably among other things).

A playable race that lets you concentrate on two spells at once (maybe it has two heads).

A feat that makes it harder to break your concentration and/or lets you concentrate on more than one spell at a time.

A spell that 'powers' a concentration spell for a set, shorter, duration, based on the slot used to cast it.

A metamagic option that removes the concentration requirement from a spell.

A companion creature who can maintain concentration on a spell for you.

A spell/item/whatever that lets a non-caster ally assume concentration for you.


The thing is, concentration is exactly the kind of mechanic that a designer suffering inspiration block can circumvent to make the item/book/race/class/whatever he's needs to finish before deadline 'cool' without actually having to come up with anything actually new, interesting, or creative. And, exception-based design encourages that kind of shortcut.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

i think magical items are the most likely way around concentration - items with the ability to cast concentration spells within very strict parameters. A good example might be any item that grants the user the ability to fly, or other effects similar to a concentration spell (like advantage on an ability check).

[Galen]

I would be surprised if we didn't eventually get one or more of the following:

A sub-class with the ability to concentrate on one or more additional spells.

An item that can maintain concentration on a spell for you.

A spell that divides your mind so that you can concentrate on two spells at once (probably among other things).

A playable race that lets you concentrate on two spells at once (maybe it has two heads).

A feat that makes it harder to break your concentration and/or lets you concentrate on more than one spell at a time.

A spell that 'powers' a concentration spell for a set, shorter, duration, based on the slot used to cast it.

A metamagic option that removes the concentration requirement from a spell.

A companion creature who can maintain concentration on a spell for you.

A spell/item/whatever that lets a non-caster ally assume concentration for you.


The thing is, concentration is exactly the kind of mechanic that a designer suffering inspiration block can circumvent to make the item/book/race/class/whatever he's needs to finish before deadline 'cool' without actually having to come up with anything actually new, interesting, or creative. And, exception-based design encourages that kind of shortcut.
Yes, I had a nightmare like this a few nights ago. In my nightmare, it was caster domination and 3.5 all over again. And then I woke up. Whew.

[rlc]

I would be surprised if we didn't eventually get one or more of the following:


I think they might actually be pretty firm on this, though I'm sure there will definitely be monsters that can do it, like demogorgon or an ettin mage.

[Geoff]

I think they might actually be pretty firm on this. I'm only reasoning from past performance (which is no guarantee, of course), but D&D has always experienced plenty of power creep and exceptions to once-hard-seeming limitations were often part of it. WotC, in particular, has a track record of changing design philosophies mid-stream, and Mike Mearls, in particular, even among WotC developers, seems particularly prone to such things (look at how 4e/Essentials/post-Essentials whip-sawed around, or look at the Dragon articles he authored, himself, things like Magic of the Feywild were filled with deviations from established design norms).

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm hoping that psions get the ability to concentrate on 2 powers at a time (and get a set of powers balanced around this).
Given that psionicists interacted with concentration in some special ways in 3.5, it seems both possible and appropriate that they might do so once more. And giving them different restrictions of their own could alleviate threats to game balance.

(That's not to say that it will, though, if that's what they do with psionics or anything else, so best to keep the ol' ban-hammer at the ready, just in case. Just having most core options fall within a narrower range of power definitely helps with that, since you can't really crack down on stuff that's that's above the general power level of the alternatives if the available options don't have a general power level.

I get the impression, just based on what other people have been saying, that establishing a general power level is a thing that WotC has gotten significantly better at than they were in 3rd Edition. Which maybe isn't saying much, but it's nice to see they're improving!)


What about you just can't cast any more spells while concentrating on two existing ones?
The thing is, it's pretty much impossible by definition to focus on two different things at once. So that's a good attempt at maintaining a safety limit, but I don't see how you could justify it fluff-wise.

;)


That's a lovely scene you've described, and it has it's appeal. It does depend on intepreting "concentration" as merely controlling the spell's benefits (giving fly to another creature), rather than actually maintaining the magical forces or whatever that power it
No, it doesn't.


, which I'd imagine would require the training or innate ability of an actual spellcaster.
Well, there's the problem! Just don't imagine that and it works fine.


That's a clever solution mechanically, though I can't buy the fluff. Even if a spell was transferrable in that way, there's no way a fighter with no magical training could be expected to "concentrate" on a spell.
I don't see how you can buy unexplained antigravity without accepting the fundamental and entirely standard fantasy premise that magic is generally capable of doing things it has no way of doing, even though that obviously makes no sense.

... Or did it just not occur to you that the spell itself could grant anyone at all the ability to maintain it? Because, um, the whole "Magic can do anything" premise covers a lot of ground. It covers all the ground. All of it.

So far as I can tell, the difference between magical and non-magical things is that the audience agrees to accept that magical things can work any way the author wants, just so long as how they work is consistent. As such, I see absolutely no reason why this should not be a panacea so far as suspension of disbelief is concerned. Not only do you not have to limit magic to spellcasting, you don't have to limit it to anything. You can just go ahead and say "Everything in this world is totally magical, even the things that seem exactly like ordinary things in the real world under normal circumstances".

After all, if magic is the suspension of the laws of nature, then a totally magical universe is just one with its own natural laws that are different from ours, and thus not "the" laws of nature, i.e. the natural laws that we're familiar with. And unlike the idea of being able to break natural laws, which is impossible by definition, there doesn't seem to be anything internally contradictory about the idea that a different universe could have different natural laws of its own. So a completely magical universe actually makes a lot more sense than a partially magical universe, since the former makes perfect sense and the latter makes no sense, and the difference between perfect sense and no sense is a lot! :)

I may have overstated some of my points, but hopefully you can kind of see what I'm getting at.

[Safety Sword]

Thinking is no more strenuous than reading, which presumably also requires thinking.



Have you read some of the replies on these forums? It's pretty clear you can write without thinking at least..

[Hytheter]

(keep Bless going while casting Smite spells

I think they should just make Smite Spells not be concentration based. It doesn't reall fit the concept of the spells, and the effects don't really match up with other concentration effects since it only applies to the next attack. It should be Bonus Action casting time, usable immediately after hitting with an attack. No concentration, just "SMITE EVIL!!!" and off you go.


I am actually going to insert a houserule in my game: A caster who casts a Concentration spell on a willing target may have the target concentrate on the spell instead of the caster. So the wizard can give Stoneskin to one ally, Fly to another ally, and Invisibility to the third. He can still only have one buff on himself.

This makes the casters a lot better at helping teammates without turning them into gods that do not need teammates.

This seems like a very workable idea. At the very least, there should be a feat which allows you to do that.

[Pex]

I think they should just make Smite Spells not be concentration based. It doesn't reall fit the concept of the spells, and the effects don't really match up with other concentration effects since it only applies to the next attack. It should be Bonus Action casting time, usable immediately after hitting with an attack. No concentration, just "SMITE EVIL!!!" and off you go.


The concentration is for the rider effects, not the damage, plus the possibility of missing on your turn so you can still have it in effect for next turn in case you do it.

[Abithrios]

Have you read some of the replies on these forums? It's pretty clear you can write without thinking at least..

The problem with that argument is that those comments also lack evidence of reading, even when they start by quoting an earlier post.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The concentration is for the rider effects, not the damage, plus the possibility of missing on your turn so you can still have it in effect for next turn in case you do it.

Concentration isn't necessary to have ongoing effects. Just look at mage armor. But some of the smites do have rider effects that are appropriate to need concentration, such as maintaining the oh-my-god-I'm-on-fire effect of searing smite. Others not so much. Thunderous smite is one-time damage and a knock back effect; there's no ongoing effect to maintain. It could easily retain the "until your next hit" effect and not require concentration.
Maybe it was a conscientious balance decision by the designers to limit the Paladin's ability to buff and apply damage simultaneously. But it does seem to make things less fun for the paladin player.

[Hytheter]

The concentration is for the rider effects, not the damage

Hm, I didn't realise the added effects were sometimes tied to spell duration. But then if we're already changing the spell you can just change the duration of the riders from "spell's duration" to "x rounds".


, plus the possibility of missing on your turn so you can still have it in effect for next turn in case you do it.
That's why I said it should be cast when you hit with an attack. That guarantees that it never goes to waste without having to hold onto it and make concentration checks.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

That's why I said it should be cast when you hit with an attack. That guarantees that it never goes to waste without having to hold onto it and make concentration checks.

I kind of like this dynamic. If you miss, there's a bit of tension over whether you've blown your spell or if you'll have another shot of landing it. There's no player input though, the dice do all the decision making, so it's drama without any control.

[Hytheter]

I kind of like this dynamic. If you miss, there's a bit of tension over whether you've blown your spell or if you'll have another shot of landing it. There's no player input though, the dice do all the decision making, so it's drama without any control.

Holding onto a Smite just doesn't feel right to me. It should be "I SMITE THEE!" not "I SMITE THEE...later, maybe".

[Oscredwin]

Ummmmm, if smite spells aren't concentration (and have a duration of 1 min or something) why can't I have 2-3 of from prebuffing (or a series of misses)? That might be OP. You can have a rule of "only one smite spell is active at one time" and that would be a decent house rule, but I can very easily see why they didn't open that door in the core rule book.

[Hytheter]

Ummmmm, if smite spells aren't concentration (and have a duration of 1 min or something) why can't I have 2-3 of from prebuffing (or a series of misses)? That might be OP. You can have a rule of "only one smite spell is active at one time" and that would be a decent house rule, but I can very easily see why they didn't open that door in the core rule book.

Well first of all to apply multiple debuffs with Smite will take at least that many rounds of combat (as opposed to walking into combat with that many buffs already). That's assuming you hit them every round and they fail their saves every time (buffs don't require a save).
Secondly, the smites aren't really that stackable. Two of them already do not have ongoing concentration effects - Thunderous is resolved instantaneously and Staggering lasts until the end of their turn. Searing and Blinding Smites allow the opponent to make a free save every turn to shake off the effect. Branding Smite is barely a debuff at all, it just makes them more visible. Wrathful Smite is kind of debilitating and hard to shake off, but they can ignore the effects just by attacking someone else. Banishing Smite temporarily removes the creature from combat - you obviously can't apply any more debuffs at this point, and any you applied beforehand will have worn off by the time the creature returns.

In other words, none of the smites are really conducive to debuff stacking. At worst, you can apply Wrathful, searing, blinding and branding. But it'll take four rounds of combat if you're lucky (how many rounds does it take to just kill an opponent anyway?) and most of those give fresh saves every turn or are easily mitigated.

Banishing, Branding and arguably searing are also the only ones that make sense to require ongoing magical concentration. While the cause of the others is magical, the ongoing effects are not.

[Safety Sword]

Just a thought:
If the paladin smite spells became a non-stackable weapon temporary enchantment (perhaps with the exception of magic weapon allowing to stack?) it would remove the need to concentrate because the effect had already occurred. You could still make the spell discharge after a successful weapon attack if that is the intent of the smite spells, which I believe it is. You can still make the spell end if you stop using the weapon for any reason.

What would this break that I'm not seeing?

[DanyBallon]

I'm still figuring out if I would allow multiple concentration spells in my home game, and if yes, how will it be allowed, either by a magic item, by a feat, or a good old house rules. Either way, allowing a caster to maintain more than one concentration spell should have limitation, either giving you disadvantage on you concentration checks, risking loosing both spell, and/or requiring a concentration check every round/minute/hour, and/or if more than one spell is maintained, applying disadvantage to all other actions, attack and spellcasting include. I think, this way, players, may cast multiple concentration spells, but in order to do so, they'll have to consider well the repercussions.

[jkat718]

In keeping with the idea of dual Concentration, why not make the ruling be that, if one spell triggers, you must make a Concentration check to either maintain the other spell, possibly with Disadvantage, and/or make a Concentration check for the spell to trigger possibly? That way, you can multitask as we do normally (ie. poorly), but if one task grabs your focus, you might hurt the other thing. Alternatively, force a Concentration check for both spells, and whichever spell rolls higher continues (would probably mitigate multiple Concentration spells, but more realistic).


Option 1 (check on "offhand" spell): I'm writing my D&D campaign while helping a player out with his character sheet via online chat. As I'm writing some brilliant fluff, I get an alert saying that the player responded to me. I go check the chat, respond, and go back to writing. Unfortunately, I have lost my train of thought, and my flow is broken. However, if I take a second to skim what I just wrote, I might be able to pick up where I left off. OR I can ask my player to hold on a second, while I finish up my writing.

[Doug Lampert]

What about you just can't cast any more spells while concentrating on two existing ones? That seems like a pretty good safety limit. Would make it more fun for the spellcasting martials (like Paladin), get a bless and bane up then start swinging. Not as useful for full spellcasters, because they can't do much once they've got two spells up, so again, god wizard averted.

Sounds like the best suggestion so far.


The thing is, it's pretty much impossible by definition to focus on two different things at once. So that's a good attempt at maintaining a safety limit, but I don't see how you could justify it fluff-wise.

Eh? The wizard can CAST ANOTHER SPELL while concentrating. He can fight with weapons. He can run, jump, and sprint.

It obviously is not your full concentration. If it were you couldn't cast at all while concentrating. Or talk, or fight, or any of the nearly unlimited other things you can do while concentrating.

Unless somehow casting a spell requires LESS concentration than keeping it going then your objection makes no sense to me. You can cast a different spell while concentrating on one spell, so why can't you concentrate on two spells at once? The fluff is fairly trivial, the very ability to cast while concentrating means that concentrating isn't using more than half your attention.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I don't really see the benefit of screwing with the concentration rules. it really opens up some potential OP with the number of possible concentration combos.


It obviously is not your full concentration.
think of it as making a phone call. it would be pretty hard to do two phonecalls at the same time, but if someone asks you a question while you are on the phone you can reply quickly.

On that note, there are true multi-taskers IRL with the ability to keep track of more than one thing at a time. They are pretty rare though and generally the better people think they are at multitasking the worse they are in practice.

[Morukai]

I've tried to find this elsewhere with no luck. Has anybody any clarity on what the rules say about whether it is possible to hold concentration on a spell while having a short rest? This would obviously make Hex a bit more powerful, as sustaining it for 8 hours from 5th level would free up a spell slot for something else.

Rules don't really say either way, but devs say yes, as long as you don't sleep, you can hold a concentration spell through a rest.

[Tiberius777]

I believe that if fighting doesn't interfere with concentration, then certainly resting should not. I'm going to allow my PCs to maintain concentration across a short rest.

I couldn't agree more - You can concentrate on a spell in a battle, not to mention, cast spells that don't require concentration while concentrating on that very spell.

[Perseus]

That's a clever solution mechanically, though I can't buy the fluff. Even if a spell was transferrable in that way, there's no way a fighter with no magical training could be expected to "concentrate" on a spell.

As long as the fighter thinks happy thoughts then they can fly...

[The_Ditto]

An item that can maintain concentration on a spell for you.
A companion creature who can maintain concentration on a spell for you.
.

Sounds like a psicrystal to me :)

[Giant2005]

I believe that if fighting doesn't interfere with concentration, then certainly resting should not. I'm going to allow my PCs to maintain concentration across a short rest.

Yes resting doesn't interfere with concentration but does concentration interfere with resting?

[ghost_warlock]

Sounds like a psicrystal to me :)

Exactly, "solicit psicrystal" was the 3e psion ability that allowed two concentrations. I think there was a spell in the spell compendium that allowed a caster to do a similar trick by having their familiar concentrate on a spell for them.

Not that wizards in 5e really need more goodies like that in their gift bag. :smalltongue:

[Dalebert]

Keep in mind that there are even ritual spells that can be cast during a short rest which strongly implies that concentration (specifically that which pertains to spells) and rest don't interfere with one another.

EDIT: I looked up concentration and it's made very clear by RAW that short rests do not break it. They say "normal activity" does not break it, which is left (probably purposefully) vague. Then they get very specific about the 3 things that break concentration:


Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
• Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on two spells at once.
• Taking damage. W henever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must m ake a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
• Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.

And offer that DM might want to consider environmental phenomena:


The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm -tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.

Short rests do not meet any of those criteria unless you take a nap (are incapacitated).