PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Alternative concentration rule



Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 04:03 AM
I have created this rule after playing 5ed since beggining, both as DM and Player. It was created from frustration over limitations of clerics and other spellcasting. I was thinking if this rule should be a feat, but I figured enemies should be able to use this feature as well.

Also I don't know it should be in this section, but couldn't find any guide about it.

You can concentrate on number of levels of spells equal to your caster classes total level.

For example 7th level wizard can concentrate on one 4th level spell and one 3rd level spell simultaneously.

You can't concentrate on 2 instances of same spell (for example you can't concentrate on 2 Haste spells).

If you are forced to roll concentration check, you roll for each spell individually. If you fail on any of those rolls, you lose concentration on all of your spells.

For purpose of balancing, Polymorph spell works little different. To polymorph into beast of CR greater than 8, you need to cast Polymorph from spellslot equal to half of CR rounded up.

AuraTwilight
2017-05-24, 06:12 AM
This is absolutely abysmal for the balance of the game, as it re-allows combinations of spells the designers absolutely did not want spellcasters to maintain as they did in third edition.

Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 06:50 AM
This is absolutely abysmal for the balance of the game, as it re-allows combinations of spells the designers absolutely did not want spellcasters to maintain as they did in third edition.

Could you give me such example? As far as I have tested, it didn't break the game, even hasten resolving problem in and outside combat for both caster and martial PC.

Flashy
2017-05-24, 11:49 AM
Could you give me such example? As far as I have tested, it didn't break the game, even hasten resolving problem in and outside combat for both caster and martial PC.

Hold Person + Animate Objects puts out pretty overwhelming single target damage
Call Lightning + Invisibility lets you call the lightning bolts without breaking the invisibility
Conjure Elemental + Conjure Elemental for combat warping summoning ability (really any combination of conjuring spells)
Blur + Globe of Invulnerability + Fly creates a character functionally immune to most types of harm.

And even in the early game, Protection From Evil and Good + Shield of Faith could render a character extremely difficult to hit in an outsider or undead heavy campaign.

Most of these combos already exist, it's just that they required collaborative play before. I doubt you'll see the game smashed wide open, but you do open up more possibility of casters doing ridiculous things entirely by themselves.

Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 01:07 PM
Hold Person + Animate Objects puts out pretty overwhelming single target damage
Call Lightning + Invisibility lets you call the lightning bolts without breaking the invisibility
Conjure Elemental + Conjure Elemental for combat warping summoning ability (really any combination of conjuring spells)
Blur + Globe of Invulnerability + Fly creates a character functionally immune to most types of harm.

And even in the early game, Protection From Evil and Good + Shield of Faith could render a character extremely difficult to hit in an outsider or undead heavy campaign.

Most of these combos already exist, it's just that they required collaborative play before. I doubt you'll see the game smashed wide open, but you do open up more possibility of casters doing ridiculous things entirely by themselves.

I actually had a chance to get to test such situations (except CE+CE wich is not allowed under this rules). Maybe it's because of the way I DM, because those combos were easly beaten and actually backfired for the players. Easiest way I beated them was simply by disengaging. Most of cases they runned out of resources faster (most of those spells last 1 minute). They quickly learned not to.

I do realise that in some cases some of spell combinations could potentialy make casters better for a moment and not all groups would use it the same as we did. I do not assume it's a perfect rule. I made it because single spell concetration was frustrating for all. A situation when cleric or bard was boringly casted cantrips every round because 90% of their spell required concetration made me create those rules. Other times team was stuck with problem, because simplest solution was to cast 2 spells on different party members.

PS.
Globe of Invulnerability + Fly created one of the best final boss battles, when party fighter was batteling archmage in the sky. :smallbiggrin:

JNAProductions
2017-05-24, 01:14 PM
Hold Person+Animate Objects can't be disengaged from-you're paralyzed.

Call Lightning+Invisibility not only has fantastic range, but you don't even know WHERE the threat is coming from most of the time.

AvatarVecna
2017-05-24, 01:26 PM
An IRL friend of mine came up with a slightly similar rule: you are limited to a maximum number of concentration spells active at one time equal to your proficiency bonus, but if you're concentrating on more than one at a time, you have to make a Concentration save for each one when you get damaged...and losing concentration on one loses concentration on all of them...and for each one you lose concentration on, you gain a level of exhaustion. No level limit, though.

EDIT: It's hardly a perfect solution, and I'll readily admit we have as of yet to test it, but it seems dangerous enough to be a deterrence from trying to push things too far, particularly in the high levels (a lvl 16+ caster could very easily have to pass 6 consecutive concentration saves against every damage source, or immediately die from exhaustion).

Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 01:28 PM
Hold Person+Animate Objects can't be disengaged from-you're paralyzed.
By disengage I mean whole battle. Going solo on party in my games rarelly happen, and when it actually happens, partys barbarian or fighter were actually more treating, with or without Hold monster/person.


Call Lightning+Invisibility not only has fantastic range, but you don't even know WHERE the threat is coming from most of the time.
Call Lightning even without invisibility can be deadly, but mostly isn't. Cloud can't move and usually needs open field to really work. Plus why cast invisibility? If you are a druid, you call ligthning and change into rat or snake! Good luck finding this one.

lunaticfringe
2017-05-24, 02:06 PM
It's worth a shot. I'll try it out and see how my group likes it. Though I might go with an altered version of the Proficiency Bonus so my minions can use it too. How do you handle Monster/NPC casters OP?

Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 02:28 PM
It's worth a shot. I'll try it out and see how my group likes it. Though I might go with an altered version of the Proficiency Bonus so my minions can use it too. How do you handle Monster/NPC casters OP?

NPC casters always have info about they caster level (at least in official materials that I saw, like Monster Manual and and Elemental Evil), so I use that level. As for monsters special abilities it vary, since some monster like pixie can cast spells much over any stats, so for those kinds I usually stay with just one spell at time. If possible, I implement rules based on their hit dices if no caster levels are given (ilithid for example have a caster level for variant rules). And some monsters like beholder don't need to concentrate at all, since their powers are not spells.

Flashy
2017-05-24, 02:38 PM
NPC casters always have info about they caster level (at least in official materials that I saw, like Monster Manual and and Elemental Evil), so I use that level. As for monsters special abilities it vary, since some monster like pixie can cast spells much over any stats, so for those kinds I usually stay with just one spell at time. If possible, I implement rules based on their hit dices if no caster levels are given (ilithid for example have a caster level for variant rules). And some monsters like beholder don't need to concentrate at all, since their powers are not spells.

Just in case you didn't realize, hit dice have been divorced from CR this edition so that may not be a super useful metric. The CR 8 spirit naga and CR 4 ghost both have the same number of hit dice, for example.

You may just want to base it directly on CR when a spellcasting level isn't provided.

Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 03:03 PM
Just in case you didn't realize, hit dice have been divorced from CR this edition so that may not be a super useful metric. The CR 8 spirit naga and CR 4 ghost both have the same number of hit dice, for example.

You may just want to base it directly on CR when a spellcasting level isn't provided.

I do realize. It is another problem I had with 5ed really. Because algorythm for calculating CR can lead to strange situation, I try to judge it differently.

But on the subject, using DMG rules, giving monster higher damage per round by increasing for example it strength or increasing AC by increasing dexterity or natural armor would also make it concentrate on more spells, so I decided to rely on hit dices.

Potato_Priest
2017-05-24, 09:46 PM
For purpose of balancing, Polymorph spell works little different. To polymorph into beast of CR greater than 8, you need to cast Polymorph from spellslot equal to half of CR rounded up.


Are there beasts of CR greater than 8 in the monster manual or any other official sourcebook?

Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 11:26 PM
Are there beasts of CR greater than 8 in the monster manual or any other official sourcebook?

We have been using Tome of Beast from Kobold Press, biggest one there has 13 CR.

Potato_Priest
2017-05-24, 11:40 PM
We have been using Tome of Beast from Kobold Press, biggest one there has 13 CR.

Are there whales? I'd like to have whales.

Dark Sage
2017-05-24, 11:49 PM
Are there whales? I'd like to have whales.

Nope, no whales, just bigger dinosaurs.

Potato_Priest
2017-05-25, 12:12 AM
Nope, no whales, just bigger dinosaurs.

What's CR 13?

please be something aquatic

zeek0
2017-05-25, 06:00 AM
I do realise that in some cases some of spell combinations could potentialy make casters better for a moment and not all groups would use it the same as we did. I do not assume it's a perfect rule. I made it because single spell concetration was frustrating for all. A situation when cleric or bard was boringly casted cantrips every round because 90% of their spell required concetration made me create those rules. Other times team was stuck with problem, because simplest solution was to cast 2 spells on different party members.


Perhaps you are under the common misconception that casting a spell removes concentration. Only casting another spell requiring concentration is a problem.As such, it's a good idea to pad your spell list with a few broad-use non-concentration spells.

You speak of boringly casting cantrips each round. What I find more boring is to cast a few low-power concentration spells and sit on my persistent damage/effects and wards. It feels like it encourages less agency somehow.

You've put good thought into the balance of this rule. I just think that double concentration in most any form will have have a place in 5e.

Dark Sage
2017-05-25, 06:52 AM
Perhaps you are under the common misconception that casting a spell removes concentration. Only casting another spell requiring concentration is a problem.As such, it's a good idea to pad your spell list with a few broad-use non-concentration spells.

You speak of boringly casting cantrips each round. What I find more boring is to cast a few low-power concentration spells and sit on my persistent damage/effects and wards. It feels like it encourages less agency somehow.

You've put good thought into the balance of this rule. I just think that double concentration in most any form will have have a place in 5e.

I am fully aware of concentration rules. And my group was painfully reminded each time they wanted to cast another spell with concetration to help other players and informed that breaking they will stop concetrating on another spell, usually meaning very bad situation for warriors and archers.

What was most painfull to them was actually problems outside of battle, for example casting fly and invisibility on barbarian and fighter to ambush enemies behind walls. Many fun and creative plans were doomed, because casters couldn't concetrate on multiple spells.

zeek0
2017-05-25, 10:01 AM
I am fully aware of concentration rules.

Ah, okay.


What was most painfull to them was actually problems outside of battle, for example casting fly and invisibility on barbarian and fighter to ambush enemies .

As painful as this may be, I still don't see how preventing this is a problem.

The very world forces choices to be made, and part of playing the game is that you can't always do what you want, but, just sometimes, you do what you need. Not every instance of 'more powerful' necessarily leads to 'more awesome game'. I frequently find that difficult choices and working within challenging circumstances is the game.

Unless you have a good reason for thinking that casters are sub-par because they can't do poly-concentration, I can't see how this might be justified in a mechanical sense. However, I'm open to enlightenment.

Dark Sage
2017-05-25, 12:32 PM
As painful as this may be, I still don't see how preventing this is a problem.

The very world forces choices to be made, and part of playing the game is that you can't always do what you want, but, just sometimes, you do what you need. Not every instance of 'more powerful' necessarily leads to 'more awesome game'. I frequently find that difficult choices and working within challenging circumstances is the game.

Unless you have a good reason for thinking that casters are sub-par because they can't do poly-concentration, I can't see how this might be justified in a mechanical sense. However, I'm open to enlightenment.

I respect your point of view. I created this rule because limiting concetration hindered the play style at my table. I'm not at crusade against anyone. I siply presented the rule after testing it for anyone who might share my view. As with all houseroules, it was created to improve our game. It worked for us. May work for somebody else. :smallsmile:

zeek0
2017-05-25, 01:39 PM
I respect your point of view. I created this rule because limiting concetration hindered the play style at my table. I'm not at crusade against anyone. I siply presented the rule after testing it for anyone who might share my view. As with all houseroules, it was created to improve our game. It worked for us. May work for somebody else. :smallsmile:

Ack! I suspect that I was too hasty and rude. My apologies - the only rule should be 'have fun'. Please do!