Does it seem like WotC's writers forget Concentration is a limitation to anyone else?

[Segev]

Spoilers for Tales From the Yawning Portal's Sunless Citadel lurk here.

This isn't the only example, but it's the one that's on my mind. One nice thing about Tales From the Yawning Portal is that it gives some suggested tactics, from time to time. However, it seems like sometimes, those suggested tactics for spellcasters forget that the spells it recommends they cast require Concentration.




Specific and minorly spoilerific example below.


Belak is the druid boss of the Sunless Citadel adventure. He has minions and allies to make it a more solid and threatening encounter, and they give him a wand of entangle that's pretty nice. But the combat advice for Belak says that he casts barkskin early - "perhaps even before melee begins" - and that he "makes early use of his Wand of Entangle," but he can't actually do both. And given the size of the space, it would be difficult to cast entangle at a distance great enough that anybody breaking free wouldn't close to melee before he got another turn on which to cast barkskin. Further, he's got a wonderful flaming sphere spell prepared, which ALSO requires Concentration.

It strikes me that the writers forget that he can't have all of these up at once. Am I missing something obvious in how to tactically use these spells?

[GreyBlack]

Spoilers for Tales From the Yawning Portal's Sunless Citadel lurk here.

This isn't the only example, but it's the one that's on my mind. One nice thing about Tales From the Yawning Portal is that it gives some suggested tactics, from time to time. However, it seems like sometimes, those suggested tactics for spellcasters forget that the spells it recommends they cast require Concentration.




Specific and minorly spoilerific example below.


Belak is the druid boss of the Sunless Citadel adventure. He has minions and allies to make it a more solid and threatening encounter, and they give him a wand of entangle that's pretty nice. But the combat advice for Belak says that he casts barkskin early - "perhaps even before melee begins" - and that he "makes early use of his Wand of Entangle," but he can't actually do both. And given the size of the space, it would be difficult to cast entangle at a distance great enough that anybody breaking free wouldn't close to melee before he got another turn on which to cast barkskin. Further, he's got a wonderful flaming sphere spell prepared, which ALSO requires Concentration.

It strikes me that the writers forget that he can't have all of these up at once. Am I missing something obvious in how to tactically use these spells?

All of the modules from Yawning Portal are adapted from modules and adventures from previous editions. In this particular module, the edition they ripped it from is 3.x. As 3.x didn't have such restrictive concentration mechanics, they probably just copied the wording wholesale and didn't change it.

[Beleriphon]

The other thing to look out for is some items don't extend the Concentration mechanic when using them to mimic spells.

[JellyPooga]

Also, who says NPC's have to play by the same rules as the PC's?

[Aaaaand now I'm going to duck behind cover before shots are fired. *Swoosh* I'm out!]

But seriously, if you want the encounter to be more of a challenge, then by all means grant Belak the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time. Otherwise, stick to the PHB rules and enforce normal concentration. In all likelihood, I agree with GreyBlack and it was just an oversight/poor editing, but it could make for a memorable encounter with Belak wielding greater power than he should; perhaps drawing said power from the Gulthias tree (or whatever it's called; it's been a while since I last ran that adventure), or somesuch.

[Randomthom]

Also, who says NPC's have to play by the same rules as the PC's?

[Aaaaand now I'm going to duck behind cover before shots are fired. *Swoosh* I'm out!]

But seriously, if you want the encounter to be more of a challenge, then by all means grant Belak the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time. Otherwise, stick to the PHB rules and enforce normal concentration. In all likelihood, I agree with GreyBlack and it was just an oversight/poor editing, but it could make for a memorable encounter with Belak wielding greater power than he should; perhaps drawing said power from the Gulthias tree (or whatever it's called; it's been a while since I last ran that adventure), or somesuch.

While I agree that Monsters should be able to play fast & loose with character creation rules (e.g. giving them abilities from various classes), I kinda feel like concentration is perhaps too sensitive a subject for PC spellcasters that they may feel cheated if the NPC enemies can break that particular rule. I'd break the concentration rule perhaps for a creature with multiple heads

The example case could be fixed by a potion of barkskin.

[GloatingSwine]

Also, who says NPC's have to play by the same rules as the PC's?

They don't, but the ways in which they don't are not all equal.

If there's something the PCs feel particularly constrained by, then letting that slide for NPCs really highlights how restrictive it is to players and makes them feel yet more irritated by the restriction and will tend to make them grumble.

[CIDE]

Could be ruled that the Barkskin came from something like a potion (and the last one he had left). Maybe even have the prepared spell be from a disposable item too. That way you can avoid any kind of fight about how concentration works with your players and still get to keep all the shenanigans alive.

[Waazraath]

All of the modules from Yawning Portal are adapted from modules and adventures from previous editions. In this particular module, the edition they ripped it from is 3.x. As 3.x didn't have such restrictive concentration mechanics, they probably just copied the wording wholesale and didn't change it.

This. In this module, I think you see it best in the magic sword that shows up at the end, being based on a sunder mechanic that doesn't exist in this edition (I think I'll trade it for a Dragon Slayer sword when my party gets there).

[Zuras]

Also, who says NPC's have to play by the same rules as the PC's?

[Aaaaand now I'm going to duck behind cover before shots are fired. *Swoosh* I'm out!]

But seriously, if you want the encounter to be more of a challenge, then by all means grant Belak the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time. Otherwise, stick to the PHB rules and enforce normal concentration. In all likelihood, I agree with GreyBlack and it was just an oversight/poor editing, but it could make for a memorable encounter with Belak wielding greater power than he should; perhaps drawing said power from the Gulthias tree (or whatever it's called; it's been a while since I last ran that adventure), or somesuch.


Yeah, allowing NPCs to ignore primary game mechanics will normally go over like a lead balloon. Letting a CR 23 demon lord ignore concentration rules is one thing, doing that with a NPC based somewhat on a PC class doesn’t work.

Basically, any players who enjoy the tactical side of D&D will get salty when the DM starts breaking all the rules. If there aren’t any rules for the enemy, trying to figure out clever tactics is pointless, and instead of tactical combat you’re playing a game of mother-may-I.

If you need Belak to be tougher to hit, just give him a permanent Barkskin effect and flavor it as his skin being covered with hard mushroom-like material.

[Pex]

Also, who says NPC's have to play by the same rules as the PC's?

[Aaaaand now I'm going to duck behind cover before shots are fired. *Swoosh* I'm out!]

But seriously, if you want the encounter to be more of a challenge, then by all means grant Belak the ability to concentrate on more than one spell at a time. Otherwise, stick to the PHB rules and enforce normal concentration. In all likelihood, I agree with GreyBlack and it was just an oversight/poor editing, but it could make for a memorable encounter with Belak wielding greater power than he should; perhaps drawing said power from the Gulthias tree (or whatever it's called; it's been a while since I last ran that adventure), or somesuch.

I disagree. It's fine that NPCs use different rules, but that's for how they are created - the powers given and their HD. When it comes to playing the game everyone follows the rules. Give one NPC the ability to concentrate on more than one spell and players rightfully will scream bloody murder they cannot do the same and the DM is cheating. Concentration is a big deal, a fundamental of how the game is played.

There is an out where you can say the Entangle from the wand doesn't use Concentration, but when the PCs get the wand the no Concentration must apply to them as well. There is precedent where a few magic items that provide a Concentration spell don't require Concentration when used, but if you want the bad guy to cast Flaming Sphere his Barkskin goes away.

[Dalebert]

Or just take it at face value. He has cast Barkskin before hand. Maybe he just wants to be ready in case he's surprised or simply low in initiative. Then on his turn he casts Entangle. Barkskin goes away. Nothing in the description says it stays up when he casts another concentration spell.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I'd probably just make it a Potion of Barkskin, as some others advise. The fact he can't both Entangle and Flaming Sphere is fine, he can use whichever one fits the tactical situation better.

[JellyPooga]

Pow!


Pow!


Pow!


Kapow!

Ok, now I've safely dodged those shots, I'll point out that the GM is not only entitled, but required to create a challenge for the other players and that can and will often mean bending or breaking the rules. So long as there is some kind of legitimate story that can explain the thing an NPC can do that the PCs cannot, it's all gravy.

As I mentioned in my post above, Belaks connection to the Gulthias tree is an opportune "explainer" that if the PCs want to complete the mission, they won't have access to. Of course, as GM, you'll have to deal with the consequences if the PCs go off-piste and take advantage, just as much as if you put an adamantium door in a dungeon that the players decide to haul back to town as treasure, for example, but that is also part of your duty as GM to deal with.

Certainly there's some rules you need to be careful with messing around with and Concentration rules is one of them, but as has been pointed out, there are already workarounds that are RAW, so achieving the same effect through a little rule-bending instead isn't going to break the game any more than those will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Heretical thought--

What's the in play difference between
* no-concentration Barkskin
* the enemy having an AC of 16 through unspecified means?

If the group is demanding that the DM "show his work", there's already a severe lack of trust issue going on. And weaseling around it with "it was a potion" is unlikely to help things. Good groups trust their DM and the DM trusts the players. Monsters are not built like PCs, for a reason. Once both players and DMs understand that, life is much simpler. The DM is playing by the rules, but those rules are asymmetric (and are not the same as the players' rules). On purpose, but that's OK. At least IMO.

Now if I actually described him as casting the Barkskin spell after the players had engaged him, then there would be an expectation that Concentration would be in play and I'd run with that. But if it's already up when the players get there...probably not. It's just a special ability he has that acts like barkskin, but isn't.

[Chronos]

If you have him get the Barkskin from a potion, then you can probably toss in a couple of additional Barkskin potions on top of his normal loot. It'll provide an obvious explanation for how he was able to "break the rules", it'll make the players feel a little special for also being able to "break the rules" themselves, and it won't unbalance anything for them to get a couple of low-level single-use items.

[Nagog]

Spoilers for Tales From the Yawning Portal's Sunless Citadel lurk here.

This isn't the only example, but it's the one that's on my mind. One nice thing about Tales From the Yawning Portal is that it gives some suggested tactics, from time to time. However, it seems like sometimes, those suggested tactics for spellcasters forget that the spells it recommends they cast require Concentration.




Specific and minorly spoilerific example below.


Belak is the druid boss of the Sunless Citadel adventure. He has minions and allies to make it a more solid and threatening encounter, and they give him a wand of entangle that's pretty nice. But the combat advice for Belak says that he casts barkskin early - "perhaps even before melee begins" - and that he "makes early use of his Wand of Entangle," but he can't actually do both. And given the size of the space, it would be difficult to cast entangle at a distance great enough that anybody breaking free wouldn't close to melee before he got another turn on which to cast barkskin. Further, he's got a wonderful flaming sphere spell prepared, which ALSO requires Concentration.

It strikes me that the writers forget that he can't have all of these up at once. Am I missing something obvious in how to tactically use these spells?

Dont magic items bypass concentration requirements? Meaning the Wand of Entangle rather than having Entangle prepared means he doesn't have to concentrate on it/use a spell slot on it?

[Zuras]

Dont magic items bypass concentration requirements? Meaning the Wand of Entangle rather than having Entangle prepared means he doesn't have to concentrate on it/use a spell slot on it?

Magic items don’t bypass concentration requirements unless they say they do, and I am not aware of any magic item in the game that does so.

You can avoid the concentration requirement by phrasing the effect generated by the magic item as generating an effect for a given duration rather than allowing the user to cast a spell, like a Beholder’s eye rays.

This lets you get (for example) an “entangle” effect without concentration, but it has side effects. For example, a wand done in this way would also be immune to being counter spelled or dispelling vial Dispel Magic.

[Segev]

The Wand of Entangle does specifically just let the user cast the spell; Concentration is in effect.


If you have him get the Barkskin from a potion, then you can probably toss in a couple of additional Barkskin potions on top of his normal loot. It'll provide an obvious explanation for how he was able to "break the rules", it'll make the players feel a little special for also being able to "break the rules" themselves, and it won't unbalance anything for them to get a couple of low-level single-use items.

I like this idea. The other possibility would be that he benefits from the same "blessing" as the thralls, and just has it permanently. But making it a potion he brewed, perhaps from things harvested from the Gulthias Tree, would let me put one or two more potions on him as loot and let him have the barkskin effect without making him unexpectedly vulnerable or unable to use his other powers.

I don't want to make the Wand of Entangle break Concentration rules; it will definitely wind up in the party's hands. Probably going to the Ranger or the Wizard.

I expect to get a lot of mileage out of flaming sphere due to moving it being a bonus action. I need to think carefully about how to tactically use that and his other powers.

But I think I'll go with the Potions of Barkskin; those are a good solution to the problem. And it lets me pick a different spell for him to have prepared!

Edit: Also, I'm glad somebody brought up the lack of Sunder rules; that's an issue I wasn't at all prepared for, especially since it's called out as the ex-paladin's preferred tactic!

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Magic items don’t bypass concentration requirements unless they say they do, and I am not aware of any magic item in the game that does so.
Most potions do.

[EnnPeeCee]

I came across a similar oversight in the Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign book. There is a wizard towards the end of the campaign which is supposed to cast invisibility and fly on himself during the fight according to the book. Our DM started running the encounter that way, but after a few rounds and the players figuring out what was going on, there was a collective "Hey wait, can he actually do that?"

[ad_hoc]

As has been said, NPCs don't follow the rules that PCs do.

That's it.

There are endless possibilities of abilities and strengths or weaknesses NPCs can have that aren't available to PCs.

This isn't 3e.

[JNAProductions]

As has been said, NPCs don't follow the rules that PCs do.

That's it.

There are endless possibilities of abilities and strengths or weaknesses NPCs can have that aren't available to PCs.

This isn't 3e.

Unless stated otherwise, NPCs follow the same rules as PCs.

Many NPCs have abilities not available to players, but without an ability that explicitly states "This NPC may Concentrate on two spells simultaneously," they cannot.

For the OP and in general, replacing a buff spell with a Potion of [SPELL] is probably the best way to go about it. I would include two or three extras as loot, though!

[Shabbazar]

If NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs then you aren't playing a game, you are a guest in someone's story. Personally, I think it's amateur hour when a DM makes an exception for an NPC. The DM can grant this NPC anything in the rules -- hidden followers casting spells on him and maintaining concentration, potions, other magic items. When a DM can gift an NPC anything in the rules, what need is there to break the rules? An inability to challenge the party within the rules is a sign of a weak or unimaginative DM. The party is assaulting BBEG in his fully prepped lair and the DM has to break the rules to make it a challenge? :smallamused:

Failing to follow the rules makes the game world unpredictable. As someone said above, you aren't playing a game anymore, you're playing "mother-may-I."

[ad_hoc]

If NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs then you aren't playing a game, you are a guest in someone's story.

Every NPC/creature doesn't follow the rules for PCs.

As long as the NPC/creature is not changed after the fact to counteract what the players decide to do then it's fair game.

Deciding an NPC can have Barkskin without concentration is the same as deciding they have 100hp or damage resistance or can cast 5th level spells or whatever. They're all choices that are made that don't follow PC rules.

[Luccan]

As has been said, NPCs don't follow the rules that PCs do.

That's it.

There are endless possibilities of abilities and strengths or weaknesses NPCs can have that aren't available to PCs.

This isn't 3e.

I disagree. You can, of course, ignore all the rules you want when running your game and if your players are fine with it yadda yadda yadda. But I think at some level in D&D the rules actually interact with the game world itself and magic is the most obvious place this happens. Spells act a certain way. Clerics cast Cleric spells, Wizards cast Wizard spells, and so on with exceptions made because of subclass. You can make changes to this system, but it's tied in with the world so I believe it needs to 1. be explainable in a satisfying manner (a fireball that does cold damage was altered because the caster studied ice magic) 2. be consistent (others can learn to cast this iceball if they study it, just like with other spells).

Concentration is a part of this magic system. To take a character intended to be a druid, like the PC druids, and give them an exception for no reason or for a reason that doesn't even have a slight chance of being recreated by PCs is inconsistent to the world itself. JellyPooga gave an example of how it could be explained in universe. And perhaps the binding to the tree results in or requires something horrible/costly enough the PCs won't want to pursue it, but so long as it remains replicable and possible for others to do so, it doesn't break the verisimilitude of the game. And I think that players and DMs interested in treating the game world as real for a few hours every week or two should strive for that consistency.

[ad_hoc]

I disagree. You can, of course, ignore all the rules you want when running your game and if your players are fine with it yadda yadda yadda. But I think at some level in D&D the rules actually interact with the game world itself and magic is the most obvious place this happens. Spells act a certain way.

Sorcerers break the way magic works. They augment established spells.

Having a sorcerer use 'meta-magic' to augment a fireball is the same as saying an NPC has a special fireball that they can augment.

They're all abilities. The PC creation rules are codified. The NPC ones aren't.

There are even monsters out there who get to take actions when it isn't even their turn. They're all breaking the rules because there are no NPC/creature rules until they are written down.

Giving NPCs special abilities is not 'ignoring rules'.

[Luccan]

Sorcerers break the way magic works. They augment established spells.

Having a sorcerer use 'meta-magic' to change the shape of a fireball is the same as saying an NPC has a special fireball that they can control the shape of.

They're all abilities. The PC creation rules are codified. The NPC ones aren't.

There are even monsters out there who get to take actions when it isn't even their turn. They're all breaking the rules because there are no NPC/creature rules until they are written down.

Giving NPCs special abilities is not 'ignoring rules'.

I'd argue Sorcerers are specific exceptions to the rules, but fair enough that it isn't necessarily breaking rules. However, I stand by my point that how magic and specifically spellcasting works in D&D isn't simply a set of out-of-universe guidelines that should only be observed by players. If you want an NPC to be considered a druid by the players, they should act like a druid the players could roll up. To do otherwise has the potential to damage player buy-in to a game world.

[ad_hoc]

If you want an NPC to be considered a druid by the players, they should act like a druid the players could roll up. To do otherwise has the potential to damage player buy-in to a game world.

This is where we disagree.

I really didn't like this approach to the game that 3e had and I'm very glad that 5e has done a 180 on it.

It's totally fine to prefer the 3e way but I don't and I think it is good to recognize that other players probably feel similarly to me too.

I feel the world is richer, and I have more buy-in, when other beings can have abilities and powers that aren't run of the mill so to speak. I don't want the world to be confined solely by what content has been developed and balanced out for players.

NPCs also work differently. PCs are designed to have long adventuring days and then turn those into complete adventures. Most NPCs last for a scene at most or even just 3 rounds of combat. Even for the ones who stick around longer they still don't get that much screen time; not only that but they should have more unique abilities being such important NPCs.

[Luccan]

This is where we disagree.

I really didn't like this approach to the game that 3e had and I'm very glad that 5e has done a 180 on it.

It's totally fine to prefer the 3e way but I don't and I think it is good to recognize that other players probably feel similarly to me too.

I feel the world is richer, and I have more buy-in, when other beings can have abilities and powers that aren't run of the mill so to speak. I don't want the world to be confined solely by what content has been developed and balanced out for players.

NPCs also work differently. PCs are designed to have long adventuring days and then turn those into complete adventures. Most NPCs last for a scene at most or even just 3 rounds of combat. Even for the ones who stick around longer they still don't get that much screen time; not only that but they should have more unique abilities being such important NPCs.

I'll admit, I do disagree with you and I don't see that changing. I am intrigued, however, to see how you would deal with a player wanting to know why the NPC druid can concentrate on two spells and other druids can't.

Edit: I suppose what I mean is, would you at least have an explanation the PCs could discover or the players could at least know or would it just be "because it's more interesting"? Because as a player, I could probably live with "you can't replicate it for X reason, but here's why". But "Nah, it's just cool" would take me out of the game way more than the one encounter would bring me in.

[ad_hoc]

I'll admit, I do disagree with you and I don't see that changing. I am intrigued, however, to see how you would deal with a player wanting to know why the NPC druid can concentrate on two spells and other druids can't.

Edit: I suppose what I mean is, would you at least have an explanation the PCs could discover or the players could at least know or would it just be "because it's more interesting"? Because as a player, I could probably live with "you can't replicate it for X reason, but here's why". But "Nah, it's just cool" would take me out of the game way more than the one encounter would bring me in.

In this specific case? I would just explain it as an innate ability. Their Druidicness allows them to innately have a Barkskin spell.

While I don't feel the need to justify things in PC terms, if you want to go more that route you can look at it as though the Druid just has a different subclass. Maybe that is one of the things their subclass does for them.

In general I wouldn't frame it as 'just because' but more 'that's a special ability they have, it's right here on the sheet'.

I am much more concerned with having the NPC/creature codified before the party interact with them (and even before the PCs are created ideally).

So I wouldn't like it if a DM just decided the NPC was going to just start stacking concentration spells because the fight is too easy. To bring it back to the OP, if a book said this is what they do, then I think it is completely fine for them to do the thing (assuming it wasn't a gross error. Think of the CR 8 Assassin near the beginning of HotDQ, clearly that MM entry was altered after it was put into the adventure).

[Segev]

In this specific case? I would just explain it as an innate ability. Their Druidicness allows them to innately have a Barkskin spell.

While I don't feel the need to justify things in PC terms, if you want to go more that route you can look at it as though the Druid just has a different subclass. Maybe that is one of the things their subclass does for them.

In general I wouldn't frame it as 'just because' but more 'that's a special ability they have, it's right here on the sheet'.

I am much more concerned with having the NPC/creature codified before the party interact with them (and even before the PCs are created ideally).

So I wouldn't like it if a DM just decided the NPC was going to just start stacking concentration spells because the fight is too easy. To bring it back to the OP, if a book said this is what they do, then I think it is completely fine for them to do the thing (assuming it wasn't a gross error. Think of the CR 8 Assassin near the beginning of HotDQ, clearly that MM entry was altered after it was put into the adventure).
The Druid "monster" entry in the MM already covers a lot of "druidness" without having to build a PC-legal druid build. I don't see a need to give them additional special abilities that break the standard game rules (e.g. "extra concentration"). That said, it'd be easy enough to justify barkskin as always in effect based on the Gulthias Tree; it gives this to its thralls, so why not its willing servant/partner/caretaker?

Well, the answer to "why not?" is due to HOW it gives it to its thralls. But he's clearly expecting to have it in the fight. So the solution of potions stands out. It also lets me give some loot to hand out that sates any "but why can't we do it, too?" questions.

I'm now actually more concerned about Shatterspike, since the lack of rules supporting it have been brought up. I'm vascilating between finding another Uncommon sword to replace it with, or inventing some sort of disarming/weapon-breaking rule unique to it

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The Druid "monster" entry in the MM already covers a lot of "druidness" without having to build a PC-legal druid build. I don't see a need to give them additional special abilities that break the standard game rules (e.g. "extra concentration"). That said, it'd be easy enough to justify barkskin as always in effect based on the Gulthias Tree; it gives this to its thralls, so why not its willing servant/partner/caretaker?

Well, the answer to "why not?" is due to HOW it gives it to its thralls. But he's clearly expecting to have it in the fight. So the solution of potions stands out. It also lets me give some loot to hand out that sates any "but why can't we do it, too?" questions.

I'm now actually more concerned about Shatterspike, since the lack of rules supporting it have been brought up. I'm vascilating between finding another Uncommon sword to replace it with, or inventing some sort of disarming/weapon-breaking rule unique to it


Disarm
A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.

The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller. Optional rule from the DMG

[Segev]

Optional rule from the DMG

Hm, that's helpful. Thanks! I'll look that up and see if there are any other rules for inspiration in there, but that gives me a starting point. :)

[Warlush]

For what it's worth, the only NPC I've ever seen that can concentrate on two spells simultaneously is Niv Mizzet, a 15,000 year old ancient dragon from Ravnica. If you give some CR 5 druid that ability it won't break the game, it will just make it harder to creat interesting challenges in the future. And yeah as a player I get really salty when the DM obviously ignores limitations they hold us to. They can always add more monsters if the party is too powerful. Only the kind of DM who fuges rolls in their favor would just ignore the concentration mechanic for something as pitiful as bark skin. Just give him more hit points, that's totally a RAW option.

[Willie the Duck]

Personally, I'm quite the fan of the idea that Barkskin doesn't require concentration. Perhaps they are on to something... :smalltongue:


However, so far nothing in the OP tells me that the designers don't know the rules -- Belak can cast Barkskin early and then liberally use that Wand of Entangle... he just has to drop his concentration on Barkskin when he does so. But if the opposition is entangled, mission accomplished (and a lot less need to have that AC boost). Is it somewhat wasteful of a 2nd level spell slot? Possibly. Possibly by design. Not every opponent is supposed to make perfect tactical decisions. I'm not exactly convinced that all this was deliberate and by design, but it's not inconceivable.

[Segev]

Personally, I'm quite the fan of the idea that Barkskin doesn't require concentration. Perhaps they are on to something... :smalltongue:


However, so far nothing in the OP tells me that the designers don't know the rules -- Belak can cast Barkskin early and then liberally use that Wand of Entangle... he just has to drop his concentration on Barkskin when he does so. But if the opposition is entangled, mission accomplished (and a lot less need to have that AC boost). Is it somewhat wasteful of a 2nd level spell slot? Possibly. Possibly by design. Not every opponent is supposed to make perfect tactical decisions. I'm not exactly convinced that all this was deliberate and by design, but it's not inconceivable.
If I take it at face value, and assume they knew exactly what they were suggesting, it seems to me the intended order of operations is:

1) Attempt to converse. (Fight is largely inevitable because of Belak's goals, but still.)
2) Before the PCs close to melee, Belak uses Wand of Entangle to try to keep them from closing. (Almost certain to fail to keep all of them stuck.)
3) Cast barkskin before they reach him. (This drops the entangle effect, and also means he's now wasted two rounds on doing not a whole lot. Plus, knowing my PCs, he's taken attacks from all the meleeists by now.)

Never use flaming sphere.

Now, he has 2 meat shields who can soak up some attacks, plus a fellow spellcaster, but I have found those go down very very quickly. Or be ignored, because I can't roll to hit to save my monsters' lives, but that's just my luck, not game balance. Well, to a degree. +2 or +3 to hit usually means I need a 13+ with my monk and barbarian in the party, and even the ranger is pretty well-armored. The elf mage does as mages do and stays well back, making it hard to target him and harder to justify it (he's not that much more devastating than the barbarian or monk).

[Doug Lampert]

I'll admit, I do disagree with you and I don't see that changing. I am intrigued, however, to see how you would deal with a player wanting to know why the NPC druid can concentrate on two spells and other druids can't.

Edit: I suppose what I mean is, would you at least have an explanation the PCs could discover or the players could at least know or would it just be "because it's more interesting"? Because as a player, I could probably live with "you can't replicate it for X reason, but here's why". But "Nah, it's just cool" would take me out of the game way more than the one encounter would bring me in.

Because the NPC's abilities are different from a PC's, most NPC spellcasters have no subclass, they have different powers instead. They have different sizes and numbers of HD, they have far fewer special powers.

"If you'd rather be an NPC build with this specific special power of concentration free barkskin, you can probably figure out a way to do it, but you'll need to give up X levels of normal advancement to manage it, and you do not actually know at this time how big X is because this is not a part of the normal advancement of your abilities as you were trained. Magic is quirky and different people access it in different ways. Probably you should start your experiments by being a druid and binding yourself to this tree thing, of course that will stop you from adventuring, have fun."

Seriously, this is not a hard one to explain. As others have pointed out, the tree GIVES a permanent barkskin like effect to other characters.

[Segev]

Seriously, this is not a hard one to explain. As others have pointed out, the tree GIVES a permanent barkskin like effect to other characters.

In all honesty, one might be able to have a fun Neutral-to-Evil campaign where the PCs agree to become thralls of the tree, and the tree / Belak is now their quest-giver, they're cursed to be NE, and they get permanent barkskin.

[Stone-Ears]

I've always been under the impression that while the PCs are definitely not normal, the Bosses that the PC faces are even less normal. They've figured out some hack, something to make them powerful and a threat in ways that's not conventionally available to PCs.

The players should never be under the assumption that they can do what the NPCs do.

So, having some innate ability to cast barkskin without having to concentrate on it isn't really that powerful an NPC ability and it goes well with the boss at hand. Though y'all do come up with good justifications for why he has the innate ability vis a vis the tree.

[bloodshed343]

I'd argue Sorcerers are specific exceptions to the rules, but fair enough that it isn't necessarily breaking rules. However, I stand by my point that how magic and specifically spellcasting works in D&D isn't simply a set of out-of-universe guidelines that should only be observed by players. If you want an NPC to be considered a druid by the players, they should act like a druid the players could roll up. To do otherwise has the potential to damage player buy-in to a game world.

I'd argue that Sorcerers are a narrative mistake and occupy a design space best represented by bards, but my opinions on the subject are not very popular.

[Warped Wiseman]

I've always been under the impression that while the PCs are definitely not normal, the Bosses that the PC faces are even less normal.

IMO, this depends greatly on the setting and level of the campaign. At low levels in a crowded setting like Faerûn, the PCs are often downright mundane.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Because the NPC's abilities are different from a PC's, most NPC spellcasters have no subclass, they have different powers instead. They have different sizes and numbers of HD, they have far fewer special powers.

"If you'd rather be an NPC build with this specific special power of concentration free barkskin, you can probably figure out a way to do it, but you'll need to give up X levels of normal advancement to manage it, and you do not actually know at this time how big X is because this is not a part of the normal advancement of your abilities as you were trained. Magic is quirky and different people access it in different ways. Probably you should start your experiments by being a druid and binding yourself to this tree thing, of course that will stop you from adventuring, have fun."

Seriously, this is not a hard one to explain. As others have pointed out, the tree GIVES a permanent barkskin like effect to other characters.
That will be a lot of character rerolls from the people I know.
Every time something like that is happening there will be a character reroll.

[Luccan]

Seriously, this is not a hard one to explain. As others have pointed out, the tree GIVES a permanent barkskin like effect to other characters.

Which, as I said in literally my first post, I'd be willing to accept assuming PCs could make this deal too even if they never would. I then later conceded I could probably live with never being able to receive it if there were an actual reason other than "it was interesting/more challenging for them to have it". Because, to be fair to ad_hoc, they pointed out we already do that with legendary and lair actions. What I don't want is random NPCs given powers that don't have any explanation, particularly when they are intended to represent a group similar to the PCs, because that will break any game immersion way more than their one encounter will draw me in.

Also, you seem to think my issue is permanent Barkskin. It's concentrating on two spells, not a boosted AC, that I find to be more of a problem. But as I said, if it's explainable, then it's less if an issue (though I wouldn't go around encouraging DMs to break all semblance of balance by letting too many NPCs do that).

[Waazraath]

Optional rule from the DMG

The problem is shatterspike sunders, it doesn't disarm. And sunder isn't supported in 5e even with optional rules, as far as I know.

[Doug Lampert]

That will be a lot of character rerolls from the people I know.
Every time something like that is happening there will be a character reroll.

So? You make up your new character, and ...?

In 20 levels you'll have all the powers of a level 5 druid, AND, if you can find a specific tree that adventurers destroyed last year, you'll ALSO get the amazing power of a no-concentration bark-skin.

Wow. You're players really aren't interested in character power are they?

I specifically said, ""If you'd rather be an NPC build with this specific special power of concentration free barkskin, you can probably figure out a way to do it, but you'll need to give up X levels of normal advancement to manage it, and you do not actually know at this time how big X is because this is not a part of the normal advancement of your abilities as you were trained. Magic is quirky and different people access it in different ways. Probably you should start your experiments by being a druid and binding yourself to this tree thing, of course that will stop you from adventuring, have fun."

You find that tempting? Why?

[Segev]

Would it be more than an uncommon sword should do to use the Disarm rules for Shatterspike, but give it Advantage on disarm attempts and make it destroy nonmagical weapons that are objects on a successful Disarm?

My instinct is that this will actually be too powerful, but my instincts with 5e are not yet well-honed.

This is to give rules to the intended use of it to destroy weapons. I might keep the auto rot against objects; I am not sure that’s really a buff when there aren’t rules for sundering items.

[Waazraath]

Would it be more than an uncommon sword should do to use the Disarm rules for Shatterspike, but give it Advantage on disarm attempts and make it destroy nonmagical weapons that are objects on a successful Disarm?

My instinct is that this will actually be too powerful, but my instincts with 5e are not yet well-honed.

This is to give rules to the intended use of it to destroy weapons. I might keep the auto rot against objects; I am not sure that’s really a buff when there aren’t rules for sundering items.

I think it is quite powerful, but what is more important for me: I don't want to introduce sundering rules in 5e. It's one of those rules that are cool if they are used once or twice at dramatic moments, but when you can almost auto-sunder somebody's weapon, that'll often be the most powerful ability a martial can use, against a large number of opponents. Certainly in 5e, where monsters have a lot of hp and one shotting them isn't an option. That'll turn sundering into a gimmick quite quickly, I'm afraid. Therefore, I deceided to ignore the whole thing and replace it with a giant slayer or dragon slayer (probably the latter), when my party gets there next session. I don't know if they are also 'uncommon' but they are comparable in power afaic, cause very situational besides the +1 (that shatterspike has as well).

[Segev]

I think it is quite powerful, but what is more important for me: I don't want to introduce sundering rules in 5e. It's one of those rules that are cool if they are used once or twice at dramatic moments, but when you can almost auto-sunder somebody's weapon, that'll often be the most powerful ability a martial can use, against a large number of opponents. Certainly in 5e, where monsters have a lot of hp and one shotting them isn't an option. That'll turn sundering into a gimmick quite quickly, I'm afraid. Therefore, I deceided to ignore the whole thing and replace it with a giant slayer or dragon slayer (probably the latter), when my party gets there next session. I don't know if they are also 'uncommon' but they are comparable in power afaic, cause very situational besides the +1 (that shatterspike has as well).

They're actually rare, and also so situational as to be nearly useless in Tomb of Annihilation. So both "sell for tons of gold" and "not useful enough to keep," which is the worst possible combination in a magic item.

[ChildofLuthic]

I'm not super comfortable giving a character two concentration slots, since like I'm cheating at a game, somehow. Like, with how much I joke about wanting to kill my players, and how much I actively run combat as a game where I try to kill my players while also being as fair as possible, the only thing that keeps me from being a bad DM is that I play more or less by the same rules the players do, and I don't run any encounters that are unbalanced. I straight up tell my players "My goal is to kill your characters in a fair fight, so that when they die, you know it's your fault." Because of that, it needs to be a fair fight.

I can think of three ways to get around this.

1) Give the NPC a potion of barkskin or a wand of entangle. Give the players that wand or one of those potions after they beat the druid - if it's not unfair for me to use, it's not unfair for them to have.

2) Make it so the druid has some sort of mystical bond with the tree that makes his skin barky all the time. This gives him a 16 AC, not unlike a certain skill.

3) The tree is magical and, as an action, someone can touch the tree and have their skin turned barky, giving them an AC of 16 if their AC was lower than that before.


As a sidenote, I don't blame any DM that doesn't feel the same discomfort. My style of running games doesn't need to be everyone's style.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I'm not super comfortable giving a character two concentration slots, since like I'm cheating at a game, somehow. Like, with how much I joke about wanting to kill my players, and how much I actively run combat as a game where I try to kill my players while also being as fair as possible, the only thing that keeps me from being a bad DM is that I play more or less by the same rules the players do, and I don't run any encounters that are unbalanced. I straight up tell my players "My goal is to kill your characters in a fair fight, so that when they die, you know it's your fault." Because of that, it needs to be a fair fight.

I can think of three ways to get around this.

1) Give the NPC a potion of barkskin or a wand of entangle. Give the players that wand or one of those potions after they beat the druid - if it's not unfair for me to use, it's not unfair for them to have.

2) Make it so the druid has some sort of mystical bond with the tree that makes his skin barky all the time. This gives him a 16 AC, not unlike a certain skill.

3) The tree is magical and, as an action, someone can touch the tree and have their skin turned barky, giving them an AC of 16 if their AC was lower than that before.


As a sidenote, I don't blame any DM that doesn't feel the same discomfort. My style of running games doesn't need to be everyone's style.

There are two main problems with killing players:
1)
Hiding the bodies or making someone else take the blame.

2)
Your player pool will get smaller everytime you do it.

I agree with you.


Edit: wow I write badly when I am half sleeping while standing in the bus

[Segev]

There is tow main problems with killing players:
1)
Hiding the bodies or making someone else take the blame.

2)
Your player pool will get smaller everytime you do it.



You're not properly using necromancy, then, to run your games!


Yeah, I've settled on giving him 3 potions of barkskin, one of which he'll drink early on. My one issue with this is that it makes it look like he's just handed potions to his two tree-thrall minions rather than that being a mysterious thing, but it's not a huge deal and I'll mess around with my presentation until I'm happy.

This gives the PCs 2 such potions for their own use after they win, making it far less an unfair cheat.

Side note: he HAS a Wand of Entangle, but it doesn't obviate the need for Concentration.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You're not properly using necromancy, then, to run your games!


Yeah, I've settled on giving him 3 potions of barkskin, one of which he'll drink early on. My one issue with this is that it makes it look like he's just handed potions to his two tree-thrall minions rather than that being a mysterious thing, but it's not a huge deal and I'll mess around with my presentation until I'm happy.

This gives the PCs 2 such potions for their own use after they win, making it far less an unfair cheat.

Side note: he HAS a Wand of Entangle, but it doesn't obviate the need for Concentration.

Well, you can make the effect look different or give them a check to know that the minions have no sign of drinking potions.

Or make the effect of the potion still up after the Druid is dead and the effect of the minions end as they die(maybe the other way)

[TripleD]

I agree with the posters that NPCs, by and large, don’t have to follow the rules of PCs. They can have abilities that PCs flat out don’t.

Concentration though... that feels a bit too “fundamental” to just chuck away. It’s almost like facing a martial character that doesn’t have to make attack rolls because “they are so good they automatically hit”.

[Sharur]

I'm not super comfortable giving a character two concentration slots, since like I'm cheating at a game, somehow. Like, with how much I joke about wanting to kill my players, and how much I actively run combat as a game where I try to kill my players while also being as fair as possible, the only thing that keeps me from being a bad DM is that I play more or less by the same rules the players do, and I don't run any encounters that are unbalanced. I straight up tell my players "My goal is to kill your characters in a fair fight, so that when they die, you know it's your fault." Because of that, it needs to be a fair fight.

I can think of three ways to get around this.

1) Give the NPC a potion of barkskin or a wand of entangle. Give the players that wand or one of those potions after they beat the druid - if it's not unfair for me to use, it's not unfair for them to have.

2) Make it so the druid has some sort of mystical bond with the tree that makes his skin barky all the time. This gives him a 16 AC, not unlike a certain skill.

3) The tree is magical and, as an action, someone can touch the tree and have their skin turned barky, giving them an AC of 16 if their AC was lower than that before.


As a sidenote, I don't blame any DM that doesn't feel the same discomfort. My style of running games doesn't need to be everyone's style.

ChildOfLuthic, you're doing your mother proud, it seems :tongue:.

I feel a little differently, in that I try to tell a collaborative story (the dice are there to resolve disagreements, so that in theory, there is never "nuh-uh vs yeah huh" bickering). But the discomfort is there, because the DM is wearing multiple hats, of which the most directly applicable and conflicting are enemy combatant/strategist as well as supposedly neutral referee.

While I'm fine with giving NPCs things that the players don't get and can't salvage (counterpoint, player asking "why can't I use Body Thief like a Intellect Devourer"), a mechanical basis for abilities has a couple of advantages:

1) it can help with the art (not science) of encounter balancing,
2) it can help if things go wrong and a player feels cheated, if one can pull back the sheet and show fair mechanics, and
3) I like to make my own monsters and NPCs as stat blocks that I can reskin easily; in addition to being a fun creative exercise for me, I find it leads to better (or at least faster prepared and more applicable) encounters if/when my party goes off the rails. Swap spell selection and possibly some defenses and this week's fell druid with barkskin can become next week's volcano shaman with basaltskin or a library guardian in a few months' time with an arcane ward.

I also like to split narrative actions from mechanical activities, somewhat, because it feels like I can allow more without worrying about balance. For example, if I was going to implement your second or third point, I'd mechanically give Belak a Boon for one-use concentration-less barkskin that he can activate as an action, courtesy of the Gulthias Tree, but narratively have him down a potion. Doing so still rewards parties that sneak up and surprise him (and/or start combat out of a social encounter), by causing him to start with lower AC and spend a turn getting the AC boost, and punish groups who allow Belak to get the drop on them, or at least time to prepare.

[MaxWilson]

While I'm fine with giving NPCs things that the players don't get and can't salvage (counterpoint, player asking "why can't I use Body Thief like a Intellect Devourer")

"Because you're playing a human, not an Intellect Devourer. If you ever want to play an Intellect Devourer as a PC I'll probably allow it if you can think up an appropriate motivation/background, but you won't get a class and won't advance in levels no matter how much XP you gain, because Intellect Devourers don't do that."

[NNescio]

"Because you're playing a human, not an Intellect Devourer. If you ever want to play an Intellect Devourer as a PC I'll probably allow it if you can think up an appropriate motivation/background, but you won't get a class and won't advance in levels no matter how much XP you gain, because Intellect Devourers don't do that."

Wizard: I use True Polymorph Shapechange to become an Intellect Devourer. I still have my class features, right? And can use them if I steal an appropriate body, yes?

[JackPhoenix]

The problem is shatterspike sunders, it doesn't disarm. And sunder isn't supported in 5e even with optional rules, as far as I know.

Shatterspike doesn't sunder. Shatterspike autocrits objects (like any adamantine weapon does), and you can pick slashing or bludgeoning damage when it's relevant. We already have rules for attacking objects.

It works perfectly fine, even if the use is a bit niche.

[Pex]

As has been said, NPCs don't follow the rules that PCs do.

That's it.

There are endless possibilities of abilities and strengths or weaknesses NPCs can have that aren't available to PCs.

This isn't 3e.

Up to a point; the point being players start complaining the DM is being unfair/cheating. Doesn't matter how much the game says DMs can't cheat. When the players feel he is, he is.

Put in another familiar way. What the DM says, goes. If the DM says enough stupid stuff, the players go too.

Edit: It's a subtle difference but an important one. If the tree provides Barskin to all its followers, fine. It's credible. A magic item provides the benefit by the power of DMium. The problem lies if the druid casts Barskin and also another Concentration spell keeping the Barkskin. That's breaking rules.

[Segev]

Shatterspike doesn't sunder. Shatterspike autocrits objects (like any adamantine weapon does), and you can pick slashing or bludgeoning damage when it's relevant. We already have rules for attacking objects.

It works perfectly fine, even if the use is a bit niche.

Its use is DM fiat, because the rules for attacking objects are DM fiat. "Decide how many hp an object has when a player decides to attack it." There's some guidelines, thankfully, for some broad categories, but those don't actually apply to most weapons! Doing double damage when attacking a weapon wielded by another creature is near-meaningless when the hp and AC of the weapon are entirely up to the DM and more or less required to be made up on the spot.

The way the module says for the DM to play Sir Bradford, Shatterspike is meant to be sundering weapons.

[Shabbazar]

Put in another familiar way. What the DM says, goes. If the DM says enough stupid stuff, the players go too.

Edit: It's a subtle difference but an important one. If the tree provides Barskin to all its followers, fine. It's credible. A magic item provides the benefit by the power of DMium. The problem lies if the druid casts Barskin and also another Concentration spell keeping the Barkskin. That's breaking rules.

Kudos to you for continuing to tilt at this windmill. However, to be honest, it's not really a subtle difference. It's an obvious difference. The fact that some people can't grasp it doesn't mean it's a subtle point, it just means they can't grasp the obvious.

[JackPhoenix]

Its use is DM fiat, because the rules for attacking objects are DM fiat. "Decide how many hp an object has when a player decides to attack it." There's some guidelines, thankfully, for some broad categories, but those don't actually apply to most weapons! Doing double damage when attacking a weapon wielded by another creature is near-meaningless when the hp and AC of the weapon are entirely up to the DM and more or less required to be made up on the spot.

The way the module says for the DM to play Sir Bradford, Shatterspike is meant to be sundering weapons.

Why wouldn't they apply to weapons? Weapons have material, which determines their AC, and they have size, which partially determines their HP. We have rules for that. All that remains for the DM to do is to decide if the weapon is question counts as fragile or resilient, which is needed to really determine the HP, and pretty much any usable weapon falls into the later category, except possibly bows and... actually, any ranged weapon.

[ad_hoc]

I agree with the posters that NPCs, by and large, don’t have to follow the rules of PCs. They can have abilities that PCs flat out don’t.

Concentration though... that feels a bit too “fundamental” to just chuck away. It’s almost like facing a martial character that doesn’t have to make attack rolls because “they are so good they automatically hit”.

I think it's fine if we just look at it as the NPC has an innate ability that works like Barkskin.

I mean, it's Barkskin, it's fine.

They don't have double concentration, they can just have Barkskin going without it.

For me it's just so much easier to go by what the book says in game rather than to waste time trying to work it out.

[Segev]

Why wouldn't they apply to weapons? Weapons have material, which determines their AC, and they have size, which partially determines their HP. We have rules for that. All that remains for the DM to do is to decide if the weapon is question counts as fragile or resilient, which is needed to really determine the HP, and pretty much any usable weapon falls into the later category, except possibly bows and... actually, any ranged weapon.

I'll look at the rules provided again, but they didn't actually seem to provide any NUMBERS. Just suggestions that you should consider the materials and assign some value. But I may have missed something.

[JackPhoenix]

I'll look at the rules provided again, but they didn't actually seem to provide any NUMBERS. Just suggestions that you should consider the materials and assign some value. But I may have missed something.

They provide a lot of numbers. 2 tables of them, one with AC, one with HP according to size and resilieice.