Did WotC get Concentration backwards?

[JellyPooga]

So 5e has been out for a few years now and one of the design conceits it introduced was to limit stacking spell effects by limiting spellcasters to concentrating on a single "concentration" spell at a time. This created a sense of balance in spellcasting to avoid both lighting up individual characters as a kind of "superman" of the party (encouraging more team-focused play) and the inevitable half an hour of pre-combat buffs whenever the party had the chance/opportunity to. Great.

Did they take the wrong approach here?

Would it not have been more intuitive and streamlined to limit not the number of spells a caster can maintain, but the number of magical effects a character can endure/have active on them? I mean, 5e already introduced the notion of attunement slots for magical items; why not extend that to magical effects as a whole? It avoids the question of whether a given spell should or shouldn't be a concentration effect or not, it maintains game balance by having a limit of how many buffs can be stacked, it can be amalgamated with the attunement rules easily enough (less rules is generally better than more rules...as a rule). Given the sheer number of different types of effect D&D was inevitably going to have, it kind of makes more sense to me to put this horse before the cart instead of vice versa. There's not only spells, but magical items, potions, blessings, DM invented effects, monster abilities, class features and so on and so forth and how they all interact is much easier to adjudicate if there's not a limit on how often or whathaveyou they can each individually be used or maintained, but how many can affect an individual at any given time. This could potentially extend to negative effects as well; the tougher or more experienced a character becomes the less negative effects can be applied to them at a given time.

Exactly what any of this might actually look like on paper isn't something I've thought about just yet, but I will be. Just wanted to get the notion out there for your consideration.

[Hael]

I happen to agree with you. The problem was death stacks of buffs. But I disagree with the majority, who sadly seem to enjoy a dumbed down mechanic and use this as a check on the power level of casters.

I would argue that it does not do a good job of that, and ends up simply removing interesting spell combinations and combat tactics. Worse, the net effect of this ‘nerf’ was to be used as a justification for removing other caster checks that were much more interesting and important for game play.

I continue to think that 1 action free casting in the middle of a horde, with no negative repurcusions (fizzles, opportunity attacks, etc) is one of the silliest things in 5e, and basically enabled the current state of affairs (eg counterspell wars, 1 lvl tank mage dips that all but guarentee free casting and permanent concentration etc).

[Amnestic]

I disagree for a few reasons:

1) Concentration not only limits how many spells you can have active at a time, it also gives a raw damage solution to spells - break the concentration. You don't need Dispel Magic to sort it out, you can just stab Joe Lich in the gut real hard and boom there goes his wall of force. Seems harder to mentally justify stabbing as breaking 15 spells as easily as 1 spell if they break all at once, and making it a sliding scale adds needless complexity.

2) Simplicity. 1 (concentration) spell is less book-keeping on an individual level than "I've got haste on this guy, bless on these two, shield of faith on myself, what else can I throw out here?". Likewise, it prevents 'novaing' of buffs for a fight. You're encouraged to drip feed your slots on buffs, presumably as a mechanism to try to avoid the 5 minute adventuring day.

3) Causes weird scaling with group size. To an extent this is always going to be the case (if a fight is balanced for the party, a party of 2 getting a haste buff on one guy is going to be more impactful than a party of 8 getting a hast buff on one guy) but it would probably lead to weird playstyles, which tapers into...

4) Would it encourage 'buffbotting'? While you could argue that's a fair playstyle (people want the Warlord for a reason!) it should probably be limited to a single (sub)class. A change to concentration like you suggest would in my eyes encourage buffbotting on a more active turn-to-turn way during combat, which some would argue is only a hop, skip and a trip away from back to healbotting, which they don't seem to really want in 5e.

[Contrast]

I tend to agree with Amnestic, while your idea addresses the buff limitation side of concentration, it doesn't address that concentration introduces counterplay (and specifically counterplay that martials tend to be better at) for spells that would otherwise have none.

I would point out there are many concentration spells which aren't buffs at all.

[Chronic]

Well, my first problem with your concept is that not every concentration spell is a buff or a debuff. Second would be that tracking would be a pain. Third would be that you put the burden on the buffed (more often than not the martial) instead of the buffers. My 4th issue is that some might like the improbable combinations leading to broken effects, I really don't. There is an argument in making combat more interesting, but I really don't think it's the way to do it.
Concentration might be a very simple mechanics, but in my experience it simply works. It's not a crude band-aid like legendary resistance for example.

[Hytheter]

My only issue with concentration is that I think they were overzealous in applying it such that many spells are just not worth casting at all.

[Dienekes]

Well, my first problem with your concept is that not every concentration spell is a buff or a debuff. Second would be that tracking would be a pain. Third would be that you put the burden on the buffed (more often than not the martial) instead of the buffers. My 4th issue is that some might like the improbable combinations leading to broken effects, I really don't. There is an argument in making combat more interesting, but I really don't think it's the way to do it.
Concentration might be a very simple mechanics, but in my experience it simply works. It's not a crude band-aid like legendary resistance for example.

Yeah, I kinda agree here. As is, Concentration remains one of the few mechanics of 5e I think actually meshes flavor and effect really well. For something that requires long term focus you have to concentrate on it. How does an opponent deal with that? They try to break your concentration by putting your life at risk.

Simple. Neat. Efficient.

[stoutstien]

My only issue with concentration is that I think they were overzealous in applying it such that many spells are just not worth casting at all.

This is probably true but they also tend to have durations that cause issues as well so if you were to go through and remove concentration you'd have to also cut some of those down as well.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree for a few reasons:

1) Concentration not only limits how many spells you can have active at a time, it also gives a raw damage solution to spells - break the concentration. You don't need Dispel Magic to sort it out, you can just stab Joe Lich in the gut real hard and boom there goes his wall of force. Seems harder to mentally justify stabbing as breaking 15 spells as easily as 1 spell if they break all at once, and making it a sliding scale adds needless complexity.

2) Simplicity. 1 (concentration) spell is less book-keeping on an individual level than "I've got haste on this guy, bless on these two, shield of faith on myself, what else can I throw out here?". Likewise, it prevents 'novaing' of buffs for a fight. You're encouraged to drip feed your slots on buffs, presumably as a mechanism to try to avoid the 5 minute adventuring day.

3) Causes weird scaling with group size. To an extent this is always going to be the case (if a fight is balanced for the party, a party of 2 getting a haste buff on one guy is going to be more impactful than a party of 8 getting a hast buff on one guy) but it would probably lead to weird playstyles, which tapers into...

4) Would it encourage 'buffbotting'? While you could argue that's a fair playstyle (people want the Warlord for a reason!) it should probably be limited to a single (sub)class. A change to concentration like you suggest would in my eyes encourage buffbotting on a more active turn-to-turn way during combat, which some would argue is only a hop, skip and a trip away from back to healbotting, which they don't seem to really want in 5e.

I don't see your points (3) and (4) as being unique or endemic to "unbound" concentration, but rather a problem of the current rules on the subject. The Bard is a perfect example of a Class that has very little offensive capability and relies on buffs and debuffs as its primary playstyle. Allowing them to maintain multiple buffs/debuffs only enhances an otherwise somewhat limited play experience (e.g. "I buff the Fighter!...er, I guess I mostly just spam Vicious Mockery for the rest of the battle"). (2) is also a problem solved by individual preferences; nothing forces a player to have multiple buffs running if that's not their style and for those whose style it is, it's no more a "pain" than it is for a Rogue to constantly seek Advantage for Sneak Attack or a Wizard to track their own spell slots. As for "Nova" buffs, it becomes again a player choice of where or when to use their resources; if a player or group enjoys the 5-minute workday, so be it. If they're in a situation where they have multiple encounters and blow it all on the first one, then that's their choice; there's no grand benefit to forcing players to conserve resources in that way.


Yeah, I kinda agree here. As is, Concentration remains one of the few mechanics of 5e I think actually meshes flavor and effect really well. For something that requires long term focus you have to concentrate on it. How does an opponent deal with that? They try to break your concentration by putting your life at risk.

Simple. Neat. Efficient.
This, as with Amnestic's first point, doesn't have to go away. If a spellcaster has multiple spell effects in play and they take damage, they can still be forced to make a concentration check to maintain those spells (either for individual spell effects or one check to fail them all). Why would "unbound" concentration necessitate removing that rule?


Well, my first problem with your concept is that not every concentration spell is a buff or a debuff. Second would be that tracking would be a pain. Third would be that you put the burden on the buffed (more often than not the martial) instead of the buffers. My 4th issue is that some might like the improbable combinations leading to broken effects, I really don't. There is an argument in making combat more interesting, but I really don't think it's the way to do it.
Concentration might be a very simple mechanics, but in my experience it simply works. It's not a crude band-aid like legendary resistance for example.

Whilst not every concentration spell is a buff or debuff, there's not many that aren't and I can't (off the top of my head) think of any that would be especially game-breaking if "unbound" by single concentration. Even if there are, specific rules for or changes to those spells could easily solve any such balance issue. Further, why is any "burden" on the buffed any more of an issue than the reverse? Shouldn't the buffed character be invested in the effects on their own character? It's a pretty common problem I've experienced and heard/read about that players forget the buffs they're under; "don't forget to add you d4 for Bless!" "You're Hasted, don't forget the additional speed" etc. etc. If the onus was on the player controlling the buffed character to track the buffs they have, they're more likely to remember to use them. As for broken combinations...I think the possibility of it is likely overstated and there's nothing actually preventing them under the current rules anyway if you have multiple casters. At least under my proposed rule, there's some kind of limit to the amount of stacking that can happen.

[Amnestic]

I don't know if there's that many Concentration spells that aren't 'worth it'. There's some (Barkskin), no doubt, but usually it's not concentration limiting a spell, it's just the spell not being very good in general and not worth the action cost. Removing concentration would buff them, sure, but usually won't fix the underlying problem.


there's no grand benefit to forcing players to conserve resources in that way.

There is - because player choice informs common modes of play. The game designers don't want you to be able to nova your spell slots, because it encourages more long rest-focus, which then leaves short rest classes out in a lurch, even moreso than they already are.



This, as with Amnestic's first point, doesn't have to go away. If a spellcaster has multiple spell effects in play and they take damage, they can still be forced to make a concentration check to maintain those spells (either for individual spell effects or one check to fail them all). Why would "unbound" concentration necessitate removing that rule?

In your hypothetical alternative methodology we'd be seeing threads about "Why is concentrating on 15 different spells at once as easy as concentrating on 1 spell?"




Whilst not every concentration spell is a buff or debuff, there's not many that aren't and I can't (off the top of my head) think of any that would be especially game-breaking if "unbound" by single concentration.

Literally every summon/conjure spell.
Walls of Ice/Fire/etc.
Area of Effect spells like Whirlwind, Reverse Gravity, Entangle, Web, etc.
Heat Metal doesn't actually target a creature, it targets an object, so it wouldn't count as a debuff.

[Tanarii]

Nope. Besides not all concentration spells being Buffs/Debuffs, it also limited the number of concentration effects that caN be spread across multiple creatures to the limits of one spell. You can't Bless your party and Bane the enemy at the same time. You can't Haste multiple targets by dumping spell slots. Etc.

[RSP]

Since you’ve changed Conc to attunement-esque, and you can only have so many effects on you at a time, can you then be “immune” to debuffs by either being full Attunement, or just already having the max amount of buffs?

[PhantomSoul]

If you want to expand the number of 'stronger' spells you want to have active but avoid issues like RSP's (forcing concentration spells onto a creature to prevent buffs or debuffs) and probably many others (e.g. this likely downgrades buffing melee characters, if they're making more concentration saving throws from being attacked more), maybe you just change how concentration is written: you can have a number of spell levels from concentration spells up to your maximum spell level (or proficiency bonus or whatever) active at one time. So if you're level 9 and have a max spell level of 5, for example, you could have a level 5 concentration spell, level 4+1 spells, 3+2 spells, 3+1+1 spells, ..., or 1+1+1+1+1 spells. You might want to add "can only concentrate on one instance of any given spell at a time" like you can't stack a single spell on a target. I'd be reluctant to do this for spellcasters, but it's one of the baseline things I think is cool to make psionics feel different while being within some comparable parameters.

[Pooky the Imp]

Personally, I just wish Concentration scaled in some way.

e.g. when you reach a certain level, you can Concentrate on a spell of 1st level or lower, in addition to one other spell of any level. Then at a higher level you can Concentrate on a spell of 2nd level or lower in addition to another spell of any level etc.

[Pex]

I'm fine with concentration being a burden of the spellcaster, but I'm not a fan of all its implementation. A spellcaster should be able to concentrate on more than one spell as the levels progress. A number equal to half proficiency bonus, round down, would be good. Each spell gets its own concentration check.

What I'm more bothered with is some spells shouldn't be concentration limited. Mainly, these are spells that are meant to be or often used in melee combat. Magic Weapon, Flameblade, Shield of Faith, Barkskin, etc. even if you don't cast it on yourself. Imagine casting Magic Weapon on the fighter's sword because the monster is resistant or immune to non-magic weapons. The wizard loses concentration and now the fighter is screwed. Also, you're in melee. You will get hit. You can lose the spell before you get the chance to use it let alone more than one round's worth of use.

Polymorph is tricky. It makes sense to have concentration when used as an attack but as a buff to lose it at the wrong time can be real bad. However, it probably is best it is concentration, so it can't be a blanket call of all spells used for melee. Still, for me any spell that is specifically about a weapon or armor shouldn't be concentration. If a spellcaster really wants to nova casting them on all party members let him. It's still going nova for all that means going nova, the good and the bad, even though it's not a series of big boom spells.

I wouldn't mind a feat and/or a class feature that allows the recipient of a spell to take the burden of concentration.

[Unoriginal]

Did they take the wrong approach here?

Nope.



Would it not have been more intuitive and streamlined to limit not the number of spells a caster can maintain, but the number of magical effects a character can endure/have active on them?

Concentration exists to limit the caster, not to limit how many buffs/debuffs a characters can get.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why does it make sense that a higher tier character can simultaneously be resistant enough to limit the debuffs they receive but also receptive enough to increase the amount of buffs they receive?

They're being affected by magic in both instances, seems like a nightmare to think of any particular reason why spellcasting would have a limitation like this on both ends.

[f5anor]

So 5e has been out for a few years now and one of the design conceits it introduced was to limit stacking spell effects by limiting spellcasters to concentrating on a single "concentration" spell at a time. This created a sense of balance in spellcasting to avoid both lighting up individual characters as a kind of "superman" of the party (encouraging more team-focused play) and the inevitable half an hour of pre-combat buffs whenever the party had the chance/opportunity to. Great.

Did they take the wrong approach here?

I agree, I would have preferred a solution where the power of the spells is reduced, or where negative effects would be stacked on the caster with multiple concentration effects.

For example a reduction in spell save DC, or possibly advantage when saving against? would be a far more interesting mechanism. Alternatively, successive saves could be imposed on the caster to maintain concentration, etc.

The current restriction, while needed is a bit too blunt.

[JellyPooga]

There is - because player choice informs common modes of play. The game designers don't want you to be able to nova your spell slots, because it encourages more long rest-focus, which then leaves short rest classes out in a lurch, even moreso than they already are.
Then they failed in that design goal. The 5-min adventuring day is still very much a problem even with the limitation on concentration spells.


In your hypothetical alternative methodology we'd be seeing threads about "Why is concentrating on 15 different spells at once as easy as concentrating on 1 spell?"And under the current rules you get threads like this one (among others on related topics). That's not an argument against a different rule.


Nope. Besides not all concentration spells being Buffs/Debuffs, it also limited the number of concentration effects that caN be spread across multiple creatures to the limits of one spell. You can't Bless your party and Bane the enemy at the same time. You can't Haste multiple targets by dumping spell slots. Etc.Is the ability to buff a friend and debuff a foe a problem? Or de/buffing multiple targets by using multiple slots & actions? At the end of the day, the limited resource of most effects is (or should be) sufficient to balance most cases. What need is there to further limit spellcasters?

I guess the real question is "What purpose does the limit of being able to concentrate on only a single spell actually serve?".
- It's not to limit effect stacking. Multiple spellcasters or sources (e.g. potions) can easily stack effects or have effects running simultaneously.
- It does limit spellcasting in general, but is that necessary given both limited spell slots and action economy?
- It doesn't exclusively or more easily allow for mundane methods of interrupting/disrupting spell effects.

What does it do?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nope.

Concentration exists to limit the caster, not to limit how many buffs/debuffs a characters can get.

This. Concentration does exactly what it's supposed to do, in the least-intrusive fashion. We can quibble about which spells exactly need the tag, but it does its job and does it well.



I guess the real question is "What purpose does the limit of being able to concentrate on only a single spell actually serve?".
- It's not to limit effect stacking. Multiple spellcasters or sources (e.g. potions) can easily stack effects or have effects running simultaneously.
- It does limit spellcasting in general, but is that necessary given both limited spell slots and action economy?
- It doesn't exclusively or more easily allow for mundane methods of interrupting/disrupting spell effects.

What does it do?

1. By requiring multiple people to all cooperate, it does limit effect stacking in a material way. It means that instead of one person being able to buff themselves or the party up and maintain multiple effects, while simultaneously debuffing the enemies, it requires multiple people and limits what they can do. It means that you're trading off offensive control for defensive buffing. Which your solution doesn't do at all.
2. It does heavily limit it, and yes, it's necessary. It's one part of the whole. And, in my opinion, the whole set of limits doesn't go far enough. There are a lot of spells that need to be gutted or removed entirely.
3. Compared to what came before, yes it does. Before, you'd need to be a high-level caster + have all the right dispelling spells prepped to interrupt and disrupt spell effects--it was trivial to bypass or ignore anything else. I'd say that, if anything, concentration's downside needs more teeth. As in making it harder to effortlessly pass the save.

[Amnestic]

Then they failed in that design goal. The 5-min adventuring day is still very much a problem even with the limitation on concentration spells.

Perhaps they did, but your suggestion would make it worse, not better. Why would they want to further encourage a gameplay philosophy they're already trying to design against?



I guess the real question is "What purpose does the limit of being able to concentrate on only a single spell actually serve?".
- It's not to limit effect stacking. Multiple spellcasters or sources (e.g. potions) can easily stack effects or have effects running simultaneously.

Potions are consumables, and while - yes, multiple spellcasters can stack buffs...that's all they can do. Your suggestion would have the same buff stacking but also they could have a bunch of Summon X creatures and also they could toss down some area denial like Web and also they could do some other stuff, all at once. Objectively, these spellcasters would be less limited. Therefore concentration serves a purpose in its current form of limiting effect stacking, whatever the "effects" may be.

Not to mention that teamplay to buff together should be encouraged instead of Joe Wizard doing it all on his own.



- It does limit spellcasting in general, but is that necessary given both limited spell slots and action economy?

Yes, because some spells don't have short durations, like a number of the summon spells.



What does it do?

It's telling that when I pointed out a bunch of the non-buff/debuff concentration spells you couldn't think of you just let them slide. Like...do you want more minionmancy? Is that the ideal?

[TotallyNotEvil]

I'm deeply bothered by how concentration is a static measure- the very same spell that took your entire attention when you were on day 3 of Hogwarts fighting giant rats in the abandoned classroom still takes your entire attention when you are dueling Darrazand the Balor before a portal to the Abyss.

Something like "you can concentrate on a number of spell levels equal to the level of the highest spell you can cast" could be neat.

[JellyPooga]

1. By requiring multiple people to all cooperate, it does limit effect stacking in a material way. It means that instead of one person being able to buff themselves or the party up and maintain multiple effects, while simultaneously debuffing the enemies, it requires multiple people and limits what they can do. It means that you're trading off offensive control for defensive buffing. Which your solution doesn't do at all.Is it a problem if the party puts all their proverbial spellcasting eggs in one basket? Wouldn't a prudent party spread their buffs and debuffs out anyway?


2. It does heavily limit it, and yes, it's necessary.Why?


3. Compared to what came before, yes it does. Before, you'd need to be a high-level caster + have all the right dispelling spells prepped to interrupt and disrupt spell effects--it was trivial to bypass or ignore anything else. I'd say that, if anything, concentration's downside needs more teeth. As in making it harder to effortlessly pass the save.

I'm not comparing it to what came before. I'm comparing it to the alternative of "not having a limit of one spell". I'm suggesting an alternative in which you can still disrupt spells using mundane means; forcing concentration checks to maintain spell effects, only you can concentrate on multiple effects simultaneously. Is there some glaring issue with this that I'm not seeing?


Perhaps they did, but your suggestion would make it worse, not better. Why would they want to further encourage a gameplay philosophy they're already trying to design against?Does it actively make the 5-min workday worse? Spellcasters can already blow their entire resource pool in a matter of rounds concentration limits or not. Allowing them a (limited) ability to merely cast multiple spells of longer than instantaneous duration that are largely arbitrarily assigned as such is hardly waving a great big banner saying "cast all your spells at once!".


Potions are consumables, and while - yes, multiple spellcasters can stack buffs...that's all they can do. Your suggestion would have the same buff stacking but also they could have a bunch of Summon X creatures and also they could toss down some area denial like Web and also they could do some other stuff, all at once. Objectively, these spellcasters would be less limited. Therefore concentration serves a purpose in its current form of limiting effect stacking, whatever the "effects" may be.Again, I'll ask if that's a bad or necessary thing? I'll go back to the example of spellcasters that cast one spell, whether it be a buff, area denial, summon or debuff and then sit back and spam the optimal cantrip. Is that dynamic, which is very much a common spellcaster dynamic in this edition, conducive to entertaining play? Is it really required for gameplay balance?


Not to mention that teamplay to buff together should be encouraged instead of Joe Wizard doing it all on his own.What about team Wizard and his Barbarian Friends? They don't have the option of spreading out their buffs and debuffs, let alone if they want area control or summons in the mix. Is "pick one and love it" the message?


It's telling that when I pointed out a bunch of the non-buff/debuff concentration spells you couldn't think of you just let them slide. Like...do you want more minionmancy? Is that the ideal?

It's not telling at all, it just means I had a wider point to address. Do I want more minionmancy? Yes. Do I want more buffs and debuffs? Yes. Do I want more area control? Yes. I want spellcasters to be spellcasters and that means allowing them the freedom to cast their spells. Do I think they should be able to do it without limit? Of course not, that's why I'm exploring this idea. You'll note that I've not outlined anything resembling a solid rule yet; I'm looking for the specific purpose and effect that "single concentration" has and whether it is, in and of itself, of value compared to the alternative and what, if any, the limitations should or could be. Your pointing out a bunch of spells without explaining why they'd be problematic if "unbound", doesn't actually help the conversation, because unbased opinions aren't very informative.


Since you’ve changed Conc to attunement-esque, and you can only have so many effects on you at a time, can you then be “immune” to debuffs by either being full Attunement, or just already having the max amount of buffs?The question of what happens when one reaches their effect stacking limit is important, yes. Granting immunity to debuffs by stacking debuffs is obviously not an option.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I feel like Concentration does help keep a majority of classes in line. Take, for example, the simple Druid. Most of the Druid's spells are Concentration, few of them are buffs. Lets say you allow a Caster to have 3 Concentration spells at once. A level 10 Moon Druid can have:

- Flaming Sphere, Bonus Action to control, uses a Dex save, deals 2d6 damage at base level, increases damage by 1d6 per level

- Moonbeam, takes an Action to control, deals 2d10 damage at base level, increases damage by 1d10

- Conjure Animals, one of the most broken summoning spells in the game, even if you only give them a single CR 2 creature, takes 0 actions to control

- Fire Elemental Wild Shape, can deal an unavoidable 1d10 fire damage via movement

The only saving grace is that it would take a Druid 3 rounds to cast all of that. And for simplicity, lets give them a Giant Constrictor Snake. If they did that Druid is doing a minimum of 3d10+2d6+2d8+4, provided the snake hits and the Druid keeps their Concentration. That's 36.5 damage per round for about 1 minute. Their damage increases if the enemy attacks them with a melee attack, or tries to move away without disengaging. Keep in mind, that's just a pair of 2nd level spells, a 3rd level spell, and a level 10 Druid. By level 10, you have stronger spells to Concentrate on.


Things don't get better with other casters. Imagine a Bladesinger with Haste, Shadowblade, Darkness, and the Fighting Style that gives them 10ft of Blindsight. They're gonna have Advantage on all their attacks, enemies will have Disadvantage to hit them, their AC is gonna be sky high due to Haste and Bladesong, and their three attacks will by a minimum of 2d8+Dex Mod. Thankfully you can't cast Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade with Shadow Blade anymore, though some DMs allow it.

If you're a DM that would allow it you're looking at 7d8+(Dex Mod*3) damage. Calculating it out, that's 40.5 damage in one round if the Bladesinger has a 16 Dex...all at the cost of two 2nd level spells and a 3rd level spell.

But even that pales to what happens if you multiclass. Lets go a bit higher with our levels and look at the destruction a Fighter 2/Wizard 10 can do. In a single round, such a build can pull off some crazy stunts. And all they need is Wall of Force to do it. Wanna kill via Exhaustion? Sickening Radiance + Wall of Force on turn 1.

Wanna just kill with chip damage? 5th level Cloud of Daggers + Wall of Force. That's 10d4 Slashing damage with no way to avoid it or escape for 1 minute for a grand total of 60d4. Keep in mind, there is no save for Wall of force, and you can make it a dome that is up to a 10ft radius. Meaning you can make it a 5ft radius if you like, giving the trapped soul no-where to run.


Basically, my is that the problem isn't buff stacking. Buff stacking would be a very minor issue at best, and not really a major concern. The issue of letting you cast multiple Concentration spells are once is damage and debuffs. Concentration spells tend to do a lot of damage, especially when they last for more than one round. They typically end up matching the damage of an Instantaneous spell after 2 or 3 rounds. And that's just a single Concentration spell. If you stack them, that damage skyrockets.

[JellyPooga]

So, I feel like Concentration does help keep a majority of classes in line. Take, for example, the simple Druid. Most of the Druid's spells are Concentration, few of them are buffs. Lets say you allow a Caster to have 3 Concentration spells at once. A level 10 Moon Druid can have:

- Flaming Sphere, Bonus Action to control, uses a Dex save, deals 2d6 damage at base level, increases damage by 1d6 per level

- Moonbeam, takes an Action to control, deals 2d10 damage at base level, increases damage by 1d10

- Conjure Animals, one of the most broken summoning spells in the game, even if you only give them a single CR 2 creature, takes 0 actions to control

- Fire Elemental Wild Shape, can deal an unavoidable 1d10 fire damage via movement

The only saving grace is that it would take a Druid 3 rounds to cast all of that. And for simplicity, lets give them a Giant Constrictor Snake. If they did that Druid is doing a minimum of 3d10+2d6+2d8+4, provided the snake hits and the Druid keeps their Concentration. That's 36.5 damage per round for about 1 minute. Their damage increases if the enemy attacks them with a melee attack, or tries to move away without disengaging. Keep in mind, that's just a pair of 2nd level spells, a 3rd level spell, and a level 10 Druid. By level 10, you have stronger spells to Concentrate on.

36 damage per round after 3 rounds of setting it up and 3 spells plus two uses of another limited resource (Wild Shape)? At level 10?

An pretty average level 5 Fighter with PAM and GWM is dealing what? 2d10+1d4+30+(3xStr mod) multiplied by a (generous) 60% hit rate for 31 damage per round. No resources spent. No set-up. Colour me unimpressed by your level 10 Druid and all those rounds and resources spent for less than what someone half their level can do faster and more efficiently. None of the rest of your post is really relevant because two Wizards can still do all of it! Effect stacking simply isn't the problem that single-Concentration is solving.

[heavyfuel]

That's an interesting take on Concentration. I honestly don't think it crossed the developers' minds, much like I'd never seen anyone bringing it up.

Your approach to concentration doesn't do anything to balance AoE Control Spells, which seem to be the main target of Concentration spells. You mention high level characters being immune to multiple effects on them, but most of the time you only need 1 effect. A character that's charmed by Hypnotic Pattern or paralyzed with Hold Person is out of the fight regardless of how many other effects are present on them.

As such removing Concentration on its entirety is just going to make these already super valuable spells even more valuable.

I could see a case for some Concentration buffs being changed from "regular Concentration" to "new Concentration" and it not breaking the game. Stuff like Expeditious Retreat, Protection from Energy, and Fly could all be made into "new Concentration" and the only consequence would be a stronger party in general instead of only a stronger Caster;

[Amnestic]

Does it actively make the 5-min workday worse? Spellcasters can already blow their entire resource pool in a matter of rounds concentration limits or not. Allowing them a (limited) ability to merely cast multiple spells of longer than instantaneous duration that are largely arbitrarily assigned as such is hardly waving a great big banner saying "cast all your spells at once!".

If it allows spellcasters to nova more - which it does, via longer duration spells - then yes, it does actively make it worse. It doesn't matter by how much. That it does at all is a bad thing.



Again, I'll ask if that's a bad or necessary thing? I'll go back to the example of spellcasters that cast one spell, whether it be a buff, area denial, summon or debuff and then sit back and spam the optimal cantrip. Is that dynamic, which is very much a common spellcaster dynamic in this edition, conducive to entertaining play? Is it really required for gameplay balance?

Yes, for the reason as above. "Spellcasters need a buff" is frankly a bizarre take for 5th edition, especially when the buff is apparently focused around late tier 2-onwards where they've got those spellslots to burn on multiple concentration spells at once.


Is "pick one and love it" the message?


Yes, explicitly so.

A secondary reason behind Concentration being what it is is simplicity for DMs. If they've got one (or more) spellcasting creature they don't need to think about how many spells are active and keep track of all the effects going across multiple creatures. They've got 1 spell per spellcaster. Simple, straightforward. DMs have enough to keep track of without adding more.

"Well, DMs can just not do more!" you might say, but that's suddenly introducing more asymmetry and also powerboosting the players while not doing the same for the monsters, which means monsters need rebalancing. Rebalancing in a way that is a lot harder to account for because suddenly there's a lot more cogs that can get turned and a lot more wheels that can be greased. Suddenly action economy is skewed even further.



Do I want more minionmancy? Yes.

You ever played with a shepherd druid dropping 8x literally anything on the field? And now you want them to be able to multiply that even more? Madness. Just imagining a druid vs. enemy druid where they're spamming Conjure Animals and steadily filling up the board with more and more bodies, each of which has its own health to keep track of.

"Oh just break their concentration"? Much harder than you'd think when there's a gazillion bodies in the way and they're almost certainly rocking ways to buff their conc saves.


Your pointing out a bunch of spells without explaining why they'd be problematic if "unbound", doesn't actually help the conversation, because unbased opinions aren't very informative.


If you can't see why unrestricted minionmancy is problematic then I suggest you playtest it and find out for yourself.

[Greywander]

While I understand your point, I think other people have already pointed out some reasons why your idea has some issues. Also, your version would greatly diminish the power of having a second caster in the party, as you wouldn't be able to cast a concentration spell on someone that the other caster had already cast one on. The vanilla version does still allow buff stacking, you just need multiple casters to pull it off. Personally, I choose to view that as a feature, since it means that bringing a second or third caster to a party opens up a lot of potential options for stacking concentration spells, while still limiting what a single caster is able to accomplish by themselves.


Personally, I just wish Concentration scaled in some way.

e.g. when you reach a certain level, you can Concentrate on a spell of 1st level or lower, in addition to one other spell of any level. Then at a higher level you can Concentrate on a spell of 2nd level or lower in addition to another spell of any level etc.

I'm deeply bothered by how concentration is a static measure- the very same spell that took your entire attention when you were on day 3 of Hogwarts fighting giant rats in the abandoned classroom still takes your entire attention when you are dueling Darrazand the Balor before a portal to the Abyss.

Something like "you can concentrate on a number of spell levels equal to the level of the highest spell you can cast" could be neat.
I'd like to see something like this as well. Maybe chunking spell levels together. For example, maybe a cantrip uses one concentration slot, 1st and 2nd level spells use two slots, 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells use three slots, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells use four slots, and 9th level spells use five slots. Then you get a number of slots equal to, say, proficiency bonus. Something like that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: Did WotC get Concentration backwards?
No, they had to address the caster power spiral, and this was one of the ways to do it.
Another of the ways was to reduce the raw number of spells available (compare the spells prepared /known in 3.x with 5) Beyond that I tend to agree with this post.

I disagree for a few reasons:

[False God]

Re: Did WotC get Concentration backwards?
No, they had to address the caster power spiral, and this was one of the ways to do it.
Another of the ways was to reduce the raw number of spells available (compare the spells prepared /known in 3.x with 5) Beyond that I tend to agree with this post.

Long story shot, THIS. Being able to hand out all sorts of cookies to everyone is one of the reasons casters are so silly powerful.

I think 5E got it right for what they were going for. Further, I feel like the burden of concentration should always be on the caster. "Cast and forget" is a mechanic that really pumps up caster power level in older editions. Casting is their THING, and they should be responsible for it.

While I do feel that 5E limited things a LOT, it was necessary for the much reduced power level 5E was going for. Personally I'm a fan of the 4E "sustain" system, but it's easy enough to implement:
1st concentration eats your bonus.
2nd eats your action.
3rd eats your move.
Sure, you can concentrate on several things, but eventually you're capable of doing nothing else. Which certainly fits for some classic magic-user archetypes, but you're also an easy target and damage triggers all your concentration checks, so you're putting a lot on the line.

[Psyren]

I'm with Amnestic on this one, especially the first two points (ease of bookkeeping, and limiting the caster.) In particular, limiting the caster is not just about restricting the number of buffs they can throw out, but it's about the additional downside of the caster needing to protect their concentration or else lose those spells early. It's not the biggest weakness in the world, but it is something full casters need to consider in their build, especially those who don't have Con as a strong save like Artificers and Sorcerers do.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think that like a lot of 'problems' that are brought forward, this one is likewise mitigated with a 6-8 (or more) encounter day. If conservation of resources is necessary then more lower level concentration spells are relevant for less deadly encounters.

[Keravath]

I have to say I like the concentration mechanic in general as a balancing and tactical element. Casters have to choose which spell to use and then decide if there are enough targets affected to continue it.

The idea of limiting the magic effects placed on the target to try to limit the impact of magic also doesn't really make much sense to me.

Examples: The cleric casts bless on party members and since they can only be subject to one magical effect they are now immune to hypnotic pattern or any other spell that imposes an on-going magical condition - they might even be immune to fireball and every other magic spell if they can only be affected by one magical thing at a time.

Caster uses hypnotic pattern - gets 2 out of 6, casts it again since they don't need concentration, another 3 of 6 fail giving them 5 out of 6 locked down so he casts it a third time to get the last one and anyone who might have been awakened.

Caster casts 4 haste spells on the party (uses a lot of slots but if it is a one and done battle - the caster doesn't care).

The cleric casts bless, spirit guardians, summon celestial two or three times ... uhm no.

Personally, I find concentration to be a much better, more balanced and even a more enjoyable mechanic than letting casters use spell slots on as many spells as they like.

[Unoriginal]

"Spellcasters need a buff" is frankly a bizarre take for 5th edition

Saddly it's a very frequent one.

[JellyPooga]

To avoid a multi-quote extravaganza, I'm just going to respond to points raised in general terms, rather than specifically.

1) Minionmancy. This is a self-regulating "problem", by which I mean it's not a problem at all. Yes, if you're playing on a battle grid and junking up the map with dozens of critters and taking each of their turns individually, it can grind the pace of play to a halt, become a frustration and so forth. If that's a problem, then it's not a problem of having multiple summons active per se, whether they come from a single spell or multiple, but of the systems being used to adjudicate that state of play. It's also a problem of locale as well; trying to cram a dozen extra critters into a 20x20 room is very different to those same summons on an open plain. In this situation, the caster/player is the problem, not the rule; right spell for the right scenario and all that; no-one is casting Conjure Animals if there's nowhere to summon said animals, let alone doing it twice unless they're being an ass. The issues with minionmancy are a classic example of a theoretical problem that in actual play is either not a problem at all or can easily be handled with appropriate play or rulings, unless the problem is a Problem Player, but that's not something any rule can deal with. Dealing with multiple summons is also a current issue if multiple casters are present, regardless of my suggested rule change. Single-concentration is not solving this as an issue any more than it's solving effect stacking in general.

2) Book-keeping and ease of play. I did address this earlier, but I'll expand somewhat. Yes, allowing casters to maintain multiple spells could, in theory, be something of a headache of book-keeping. Not only tracking what effects are affecting which characters, but their individual durations too. This is part of why my suggestion is to have some kind of limit on how many effects can be in play; my original one being akin to or an extension of the attunement system for magic items, but I'm not tied to it. I'd also point out that unbinding single-concentration isn't going to mean that every character capable of casting three or four concentration spells is going to get them active in every fight. Other limitations are already in place to curb that; spell slots and action economy being the primary two. Further, casters can already have multiple active spells and I don't hear any complaints against that; I suggest that the current system is more complex than it needs to be by dividing those spells that require concentration from those that don't. I acknowledge that unbinding concentration will increase the instances of multiple spells to track; I counter this with the fact that there are already multiple tracked effects and adding a few more is no great onus. If the intention of single-concentration is to limit bookkeeping, then I'm merely suggesting that the limit of "one" is arbitrary under the circumstances.

3) It's not about buffing spellcasters. Does my proposed change make spellcasters more powerful? Yes...potentially. As I've mentioned several times, I've yet to suggest any concrete rules here. I'm very much interested in maintaining some kind of balance and I'm very much not suggesting simply removing the concentration rule wholesale (and I'm certainly not suggesting removing the ability to lose concentration on a spell by taking damage, etc.). As has also been mentioned multiple times, stacked effects in any problem case are not addressed by single-concentration being a rule; any two casters under current rules can stack effects, whether they be area control, debuffs, buffs or indeed summons/minionmancy to create any combinations a single caster can (or more). Should two casters working in tandem be more powerful than a single caster? Yeah, probably. Should a very powerful spellcaster be able to match or outmatch the power of multiple lower level casters, much as a single warrior might be able to outmatch multiple weaker foes? Also yeah, probably! That's the kind of dynamic I'm looking for here and yes, I concur that merely limiting the number of buffs or effects on a character is likely not going to be sufficient to keep balance.

4) Shared responsibility. Yes, I agree that spellcasting is and should be the spellcasters responsibility. I also think that the effects affecting a character should also be the responsibility of that character. The notion of a character only being able to handle so much magic isn't a far stretch; after all, Level 1 Wizards can only handle casting Level 1 spells while Level 10 Wizards can handle much more powerful magic. Why not extend similar logic to characters in general? Drink a dozen potions and isn't that magic going to get all mixed up? Is it worth boosting the strength of someone that's already got boosted strength? How much magic can a body handle before it all gets out of control? Magic is (or should be!) crazy stuff. This is why my first thought was magic item attunement, including the bizarre state of play that has some items require it and others not. Why not streamline the whole shebang into one nice, neat system of ongoing effects vs. instantaneous ones? Hey, while we're at it, why not make it scale nice and neat-like with, perhaps (call me crazy) something linked to Proficiency bonus? Ooh, while we're in the vicinity, why not get the player who's character is affected be the one tracking and getting involved with the effects on their own damn character? Am I wrong to expect the Barbarian to care whether he's Blessed or not? Or to wonder if they want the choice to forsake the magic of their Boots of the North for a minute to enjoy that Blessing?

5) Multiple Spells =/= Ultimate Powah! Is it really so bad if a caster wants to burn a whole bunch of spell slots to achieve the result they want? The summoner that wants minions that have a little extra bite in their sting. The Illusionist that really wants to lock down his foes, so casts Hypnotic Pattern three times (three!) to lock up all his foes without having to free ones he's already mazed. The Druid that spends three turns (and a bonus action) and multiple resources just to match something a Fighter half their level can do much more easily. Yes, spellcasters with access to multiple active effects can be powerful...and they should be! They're spending the resources, paying the price. The question is what can one caster do that multiple casters can't do better if the solo caster is given the opportunity to have multiple active effects in play? A party of four Clerics can have four Spirit Guardians active and wreck an encounter without having to lift a single holy bommyknocker. What's one Cleric spending three turns casting a whole heap of different buffs got on that? Under the circumstances, given I'm not suggesting removing the idea of losing concentration, a single caster casting multiple spells is significantly weaker than using teamwork to have those same spells in play but cast by different casters. One Wizard casting Haste on the entire party isn't a power-play, it's a bloody liability! One bad hit and a failed Concentration check and the whole party loses a turn.

[Leon]

This created a sense of balance in spellcasting to avoid both lighting up individual characters as a kind of "superman" of the party (encouraging more team-focused play)

That is just bad player choice, the good player choice made the whole party Super with buffs.

[AdAstra]

I especially like concentration because it adds another "axis" to spells. While it renders some spells pretty mediocre, it makes others substantially more useful because not requiring Concentration is a boon. I think it's by far the simplest and best way to put a limit on the power of buffs, summons, and debuffs especially. Your version of concentration doesn't do much at all to limit the latter two, with Summons not being an effect on an existing creature and debuffs usually being pretty debilitating individually.

If I were to change anything about the mechanic it would be to add a bit more granularity to it, such as separating out the "One active at a time" and "beat up to dispel" mechanics, but the game really doesn't need it. If anything casters need more limitations rather than less, and the game should absolutely avoid making other players do the caster's bookkeeping for them whenever feasible.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I especially like concentration because it adds another "axis" to spells. While it renders some spells pretty mediocre, it makes others substantially more useful because not requiring Concentration is a boon. I think it's by far the simplest and best way to put a limit on the power of buffs, summons, and debuffs especially. Your version of concentration doesn't do much at all to limit the latter two, with Summons not being an effect on an existing creature and debuffs usually being pretty debilitating individually.

If I were to change anything about the mechanic it would be to add a bit more granularity to it, such as separating out the "One active at a time" and "beat up to dispel" mechanics, but the game really doesn't need it. If anything casters need more limitations rather than less, and the game should absolutely avoid making other players do the caster's bookkeeping for them whenever feasible.

"One active at a time"? Are you thinking a character could have something long term like Pass Without Trace up, then cast something with a short term concentration, then go back to Pass Without Trace? That seems like an interesting mechanic that would help out some of the 1/2 casters with limited slots and access to things like Hunter's Mark and the previously mentioned PWT. Though again, I suppose it represents power creep for the full casters who probably don't need it.

More generally to this thread I do think there are some casters, notably Rangers and Druids, who just don't seem to have enough non-concentration spells at some levels. I think rather than a complete overhaul there should be a few more non-concentration options for those classes.

[Greywander]

If I were to change anything about the mechanic it would be to add a bit more granularity to it, such as separating out the "One active at a time" and "beat up to dispel" mechanics, but the game really doesn't need it. If anything casters need more limitations rather than less, and the game should absolutely avoid making other players do the caster's bookkeeping for them whenever feasible.
For the "beat up to dispel" aspect, I could see doing something like this: Let's say that every spell you have active adds to the DC of concentration saves, and when you fail a save you have to choose which spells to "give up" in order to bring the DC low enough for you to pass. So let's say the base DC from damage is 20, and you have three spells active: a 1st level spell (+1 DC), a 3rd level spell (+3 DC), and a 4th level spell (+4 DC), so the final DC is 28. You roll and get a 26, which is a fail. If you give up the 1st level spell, the DC reduces to 27 and you still fail, so that doesn't help. You would need to give up either the 3rd or 4th level spell to reduce the DC to a passing value, allowing you to keep concentration on your remaining spells.

And this, by the way, could be applied to all spells, since it doesn't actually impose a limit to how many spells you can have active, it only allows them to be broken by failing a concentration save. Also, this way we're not removing a limitation, but expanding it to cover spells that weren't already concentration. That said, we might also want to have spells that specifically can't be dispelled by attacking the caster.

[sithlordnergal]

36 damage per round after 3 rounds of setting it up and 3 spells plus two uses of another limited resource (Wild Shape)? At level 10?

An pretty average level 5 Fighter with PAM and GWM is dealing what? 2d10+1d4+30+(3xStr mod) multiplied by a (generous) 60% hit rate for 31 damage per round. No resources spent. No set-up. Colour me unimpressed by your level 10 Druid and all those rounds and resources spent for less than what someone half their level can do faster and more efficiently. None of the rest of your post is really relevant because two Wizards can still do all of it! Effect stacking simply isn't the problem that single-Concentration is solving.

Do keep in mind, I wasn't exactly choosing the most amazing spells for the Druid in that example. Normally they'd only get the 3d6 or 2d10. Consider the other spell combos I pointed out.

[Psyren]

Dealing with multiple summons is also a current issue if multiple casters are present, regardless of my suggested rule change.

When every caster has to choose between having a summon out and maintaining some other impactful buff / debuff / bfc, then multiple summons are less likely to be an issue in the first place. Casting and keeping them going becomes a meaningful tradeoff, even for summoning-focused characters.


I acknowledge that unbinding concentration will increase the instances of multiple spells to track; I counter this with the fact that there are already multiple tracked effects and adding a few more is no great onus.

It's not "a few more." Of the concentration-free buff spells, the ones likely to show up in combat (e.g. Spiritual Weapon, Aid, Mirror Image etc) are limited and a pretty known quantity at this point. Tripling (or more) that entire possibility space would not be good for the game.


Should a very powerful spellcaster be able to match or outmatch the power of multiple lower level casters, much as a single warrior might be able to outmatch multiple weaker foes? Also yeah, probably!

Higher level spells (and subclass features) already let powerful spellcasters do this. Also, bounded accuracy intentionally limits the degree to which a single high-level character can > multiple low level ones.

I'm not completely against the idea of being able to concentrate on more than one spell or instance of a spell at a time - but ways to do so should be very limited. Twin Spell gives a good idea of how hard this should be to do.



More generally to this thread I do think there are some casters, notably Rangers and Druids, who just don't seem to have enough non-concentration spells at some levels. I think rather than a complete overhaul there should be a few more non-concentration options for those classes.

This I agree with - but with general splat creep I expect this to solve itself without needing a systemic overhaul. Who knows, maybe 5.5e will reprint a couple of additional buff spells without concentration too.

[Kane0]

Yeah the onus of keeping spells running should be on the caster most of the time, some I could see taking temporary attunement of the recipient as a lesser form of concentration for those buff spells that ride the line between whether or not they need it as a balancing factor (tensers, divine favor, etc)

[Hytheter]

Regarding concentration 'progression': If it were up to me spells would have more upcasting options, and one of those for some spells would be to remove concentration. Yeah, you can have Bless up at the same time as another buff, but it'll cost you a third level slot.* Bestow Curse kind of does this but I think that's the only one.

*Just an example, don't @ me

[JellyPooga]

Do keep in mind, I wasn't exactly choosing the most amazing spells for the Druid in that example. Normally they'd only get the 3d6 or 2d10. Consider the other spell combos I pointed out.
The point is still irrelevant because stacking spells isn't or cannot be (to my mind) what single concentration is in place to address (see commentary RE: multiple casters).

When every caster has to choose between having a summon out and maintaining some other impactful buff / debuff / bfc, then multiple summons are less likely to be an issue in the first place. Casting and keeping them going becomes a meaningful tradeoff, even for summoning-focused characters.It already is, or at least should be, a meaningful trade off because of the spell slot and action expenditure. If a spell is so powerful as to require additional rules to limit its use, I suggest it should probably be a higher level. If it's the case that the spell, alone, isn't too powerful for its level but could be in conjunction with other spells then single concentration isn't doing anything to address that possibility and that given nothing else is, it should still be higher level or have other sanctions to address that issue.


It's not "a few more." Of the concentration-free buff spells, the ones likely to show up in combat (e.g. Spiritual Weapon, Aid, Mirror Image etc) are limited and a pretty known quantity at this point. Tripling (or more) that entire possibility space would not be good for the game.
It's not just spell effects that are tracked though. Barbarian Rage, Bardic Inspiration (yes, it has a duration too!), some Channel Divinity effects, Wild Shape, some Ki effects, etc. etc. Not to mention the effects of magic items, terrain or other ongoing effects. Adding the possibility (just the possibility, given the resource and action cost of doing do) of adding, realistically speaking at most, two or three additional effects in a given combat is far from doubling or tripling the workload. And that's not going to be every combat either, unless a character is heavily focused or invested in such a playstyle, in which case I'll again ask the question of why that would be a problem?


I'm not completely against the idea of being able to concentrate on more than one spell or instance of a spell at a time - but ways to do so should be very limited. Twin Spell gives a good idea of how hard this should be to do.
If you're suggesting adding another resource to allow additional "concentration slots" then I would stray away from that idea. My intent was to streamline things, not the reverse. As I mentioned previously, it is not my intent to give spellcasters a power boost; I still want there to be a limit on how ongoing effects are handled. I just think it's been handled with a patch that cramps an entire playstyle and I've yet to hear anyone give me a solid answer to the question of what, if anything, single concentration (as opposed to multiple concentration) actually achieves in practice.

The best answer so far is "spells/spellcasters are too powerful and need more limits", but if that's the case then their primary balancing factor (i.e. spell level and casting time) is what's at fault and single concentration isn't fixing it.

[Kane0]

The idea stuck with me, and im interested now.

Of the spells that currently require concentration are there any that people would rather take an attunement spot of the target for the duration? I'm thinking buffs like Magic Weapon are good candidates.

Edit: So far my shortlist is Divine Favor, Heroism, X Smite, Flame Blade, Magic Weapon, Shadow Blade, Crusader's Mantle, Elemental Weapon, Flame Arrows, Lightning Arrow, Stoneskin, Holy Weapon, Swift Quiver, Investiture of X, Tenser's Transformation

[Unoriginal]

The point is still irrelevant because stacking spells isn't or cannot be (to my mind) what single concentration is in place to address (see commentary RE: multiple casters).
It already is, or at least should be, a meaningful trade off because of the spell slot and action expenditure. If a spell is so powerful as to require additional rules to limit its use, I suggest it should probably be a higher level. If it's the case that the spell, alone, isn't too powerful for its level but could be in conjunction with other spells then single concentration isn't doing anything to address that possibility and that given nothing else is, it should still be higher level or have other sanctions to address that issue.


It's not just spell effects that are tracked though. Barbarian Rage, Bardic Inspiration (yes, it has a duration too!), some Channel Divinity effects, Wild Shape, some Ki effects, etc. etc. Not to mention the effects of magic items, terrain or other ongoing effects. Adding the possibility (just the possibility, given the resource and action cost of doing do) of adding, realistically speaking at most, two or three additional effects in a given combat is far from doubling or tripling the workload. And that's not going to be every combat either, unless a character is heavily focused or invested in such a playstyle, in which case I'll again ask the question of why that would be a problem?


If you're suggesting adding another resource to allow additional "concentration slots" then I would stray away from that idea. My intent was to streamline things, not the reverse. As I mentioned previously, it is not my intent to give spellcasters a power boost; I still want there to be a limit on how ongoing effects are handled. I just think it's been handled with a patch that cramps an entire playstyle and I've yet to hear anyone give me a solid answer to the question of what, if anything, single concentration (as opposed to multiple concentration) actually achieves in practice.

The best answer so far is "spells/spellcasters are too powerful and need more limits", but if that's the case then their primary balancing factor (i.e. spell level and casting time) is what's at fault and single concentration isn't fixing it.

Again, Concentration is to limit the caster, not to limit the spell.

Concentration is an additional primary balancing factor, because it limits how much the individual character can do.

A single caster being unable to have both Polymorph and Summon Greater Demon going on at the same time is a good thing.

[Waazraath]

Having read the thread, for me so far the arguments against keeping concentration as it is >>> the proposed changes.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm deeply bothered by how concentration is a static measure- the very same spell that took your entire attention when you were on day 3 of Hogwarts fighting giant rats in the abandoned classroom still takes your entire attention when you are dueling Darrazand the Balor before a portal to the Abyss. Hello, my name is Dil Husty, level 19 bard. Before I go into battle, I am able to buff our swordsman with Foresight (8 hour buff), myself with Truesight (hour long buff) and freedom of movement (hour long buff) neither of which require concentration. And before that, we did heroes' feast for the whole party because a nutritious breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

I did that kind of support planning on numerous occasions; when we hit combat I tended to use slow on the enemy (with a spell save DC of 19 it often stuck for multiple rounds, particularly with my Res Con feat helping me make a few conc rolls). Multi buff is available to high level casters depending on the spells that you have available.

Something like "you can concentrate on a number of spell levels equal to the level of the highest spell you can cast" could be neat. And it would be OP as heck.

[EggKookoo]

I've said before, concentration is a good mechanic but it's one case where the devs went too far for simplicity over depth. Sometimes you need to go with the more complicated mechanic, if the added gameplay depth warrants it. In this case, concentration is trying to handle two largely-unrelated mechanical effects at the same time. "I got hit and dropped the spell" is not related intrinsically at all to "I can only maintain one 'special' spell at a time." Remember, this is a game that separates "did I damage the enemy?" and "how much did I damage the enemy?" into an attack roll and a damage roll.

[Tanarii]

I'd probably rather have all arcane spells provoking OAs and being interrupted if hit mid-cast than the concentration disruption mechanic, to be honest. But I'd have to see it in play to see how it panned out. I know in my campaign, arcane casters casting a spell while right next to someone is fairly common, but so it getting hit on enemy turns.

[Unoriginal]

I'd probably rather have all arcane spells provoking OAs and being interrupted if hit mid-cast than the concentration disruption mechanic, to be honest.

Wouldn't that mean there is no way beside Dispel Magic to end a spell before its duration is spent, once it's cast?

[Xervous]

While I dislike concentration for a variety of reasons I’m not going to accuse WotC of failing to deliver on their apparent intent. They wanted to limit complexity, pull down the power ceiling, and allow Martials to interact with various big spells. The only place I feel they didn’t fully deliver was in the realm of damage breaking concentration, as casters have an easier task of pushing large single hits that are sufficient to threaten big save DCs. It’s a narrow subset of martial builds that produce large hits and thus large CON DCs, but casters can just hurl a single roll damage option off their list. This isn’t as much of an issue early on, but when enemies start producing nastier concentration effects and have higher saves, most martiais are still producing DC 10 saves which may very well lead to death being what breaks concentration.

[Amnestic]

I'd probably rather have all arcane spells provoking OAs and being interrupted if hit mid-cast than the concentration disruption mechanic, to be honest. But I'd have to see it in play to see how it panned out. I know in my campaign, arcane casters casting a spell while right next to someone is fairly common, but so it getting hit on enemy turns.

I don't mind the intent, but if my choice as a caster is between:
Stand in place, provoke OA, and lose spell if I get hit.
and
Move 5' away, provoke OA, and don't lose spell if I get hit (since I haven't cast it yet)

Then 99% of the time I'll be moving away and eating the OA that I'd get regardless, since at least that way I don't risk my spellcast.

It would mean casters couldn't misty step completely out of danger, but I'm not sure it would affect much else with regards to actual spell delivery.

[Tanarii]

Wouldn't that mean there is no way beside Dispel Magic to end a spell before its duration is spent, once it's cast?
Yup. Which is how D&D has typically worked.

Edit: It might be reasonable to leave a "kill the caster to end" clause in concentration though

[TotallyNotEvil]

Hello, my name is Dil Husty, level 19 bard. Before I go into battle, I am able to buff our swordsman with Foresight (8 hour buff), myself with Truesight (hour long buff) and freedom of movement (hour long buff) neither of which require concentration. And before that, we did heroes' feast for the whole party because a nutritious breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

I did that kind of support planning on numerous occasions; when we hit combat I tended to use slow on the enemy (with a spell save DC of 19 it often stuck for multiple rounds, particularly with my Res Con feat helping me make a few conc rolls). Multi buff is available to high level casters depending on the spells that you have available.
And it would be OP as heck.

Sure, and multibuff is also available at low levels, say Darkvision and Gift of Alacrity.

Doesn't change the fact that the concentration spells remain a binary state for the entirety of the game, which feels incredibly artificial to me. Dil Husty still can't keep that Bane going without eating all of his concentration, even eighteen levels later.

Also, would it? Spells still cost spell slots, y'know. Ten buffs now means, ten fewer fireballs/slows/hypnotic patterns or whatever have you. Just like the Foresight on your swordsman means no Wish for the day. Buffs, even concentration ones, also usually have a maximum duration. All of those slots spent on 1 minute maximum duration stuff, like, say, the ever popular Haste? That's going to be one, maybe two fights if its a tight dungeon and you rush it.

I'm not saying it wouldn't change things, but honestly, I think the edition could use a bit more wiggle room when doing things. I dislike, for example, how most spells that are just ok but for reasons require concentration are more or less never used, because why would you? You have one precious slot, that's always going to be used by the same two-three best concentration spells you know/prepared. Because spells prepared, and especially spells known, are very, very valuable.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, and multibuff is also available at low levels, say Darkvision and Gift of Alacrity.
Doesn't change the fact that the concentration spells remain a binary state for the entirety of the game, which feels incredibly artificial to me. Dil Husty still can't keep that Bane going without eating all of his concentration, even eighteen levels later. Right. Player mastery and research required to leverage that to the max, yes. And that is fine, gameplay wise and 'each spell has its own strengths and weaknesses' - feature, not bug. And spell casting is not risk free.

Also, would it? Spells still cost spell slots, y'know. Ten buffs now means, ten fewer fireballs/slows/hypnotic patterns or whatever have you. Just like the Foresight on your swordsman means no Wish for the day.
That's right; you have to make choices. Feature, not bug.
This isn't 3.x. And there are a few spells (like bestow curse) that if you cast it at higher levels the concentration requirement goes away. :smallwink:

I dislike, for example, how most spells that are just ok but for reasons require concentration are more or less never used, because why would you? I used the heck out of concentration spells with Dil Husty. (She). And I had to carefully choose spells at level up so that I had some non concentration spells, like blindness, handy as well. Ended up with, at high level, Prismatic Spray and Raulothim' Psychic Lance for "shoot 'em in the face" spells. But mostly buff, debuff, and utility.

You have one precious slot, that's always going to be used by the same two-three best spells. Full casters have more than one slot. Where you get the idea that the italicized bit is true is beyond me. Have you played a lot of full casters in Tier 2 and Tier 3? My experience tells me that you are profoundly wrong about that. As an aside, the infamous "EB blastomatic warlock" complaints get voiced a lot on this board but in _actual play_ I have never seen anyone complain about being able to cast EB.

[Psyren]

It already is, or at least should be, a meaningful trade off because of the spell slot and action expenditure. If a spell is so powerful as to require additional rules to limit its use, I suggest it should probably be a higher level. If it's the case that the spell, alone, isn't too powerful for its level but could be in conjunction with other spells then single concentration isn't doing anything to address that possibility and that given nothing else is, it should still be higher level or have other sanctions to address that issue.

Summons are exactly as powerful as they need to be with concentration. I have not heard of anyone suggesting that summons are weak in this edition, especially since most of them are much easier to carry between combats than in 4e and even 3e.

Any changes to the concentration mechanic would mean reevaluating the effects the change would have on those spells, and the ones I've seen proposed here would unbalance them.



It's not just spell effects that are tracked though. Barbarian Rage, Bardic Inspiration (yes, it has a duration too!), some Channel Divinity effects, Wild Shape, some Ki effects, etc. etc. Not to mention the effects of magic items, terrain or other ongoing effects. Adding the possibility (just the possibility, given the resource and action cost of doing do) of adding, realistically speaking at most, two or three additional effects in a given combat is far from doubling or tripling the workload.

"There are tons of things to track in combat in this edition already, so the percentage added by doubling/tripling things just on the spell side is a smaller portion of the overall whole than that!" is not the awesome flex you seem to think it is. You're still adding a bunch more bookkeeping to combat that doesn't need to be there.



And that's not going to be every combat either, unless a character is heavily focused or invested in such a playstyle, in which case I'll again ask the question of why that would be a problem?
...
If you're suggesting adding another resource to allow additional "concentration slots" then I would stray away from that idea. My intent was to streamline things, not the reverse. As I mentioned previously, it is not my intent to give spellcasters a power boost; I still want there to be a limit on how ongoing effects are handled. I just think it's been handled with a patch that cramps an entire playstyle and I've yet to hear anyone give me a solid answer to the question of what, if anything, single concentration (as opposed to multiple concentration) actually achieves in practice.

The best answer so far is "spells/spellcasters are too powerful and need more limits", but if that's the case then their primary balancing factor (i.e. spell level and casting time) is what's at fault and single concentration isn't fixing it.

I don't see how casters having the current limitation "cramps their style." They're still the most powerful classes in the game by a fairly wide margin - which I don't have a problem with - but making them even stronger AND bogging down combat with more bookkeeping in the process is unnecessary on two fronts.

I'm not asking for casters to have more limits; I'm saying I'm fine with the limits they currently have.


And there are a few spells (like bestow curse) that if you cast it at higher levels the concentration requirement goes away. :smallwink:

Indeed, and there are even spells that remove the concentration requirement from other spells (like Planar Binding.) Rather than change the concentration rules I would make more spells like these - you can have more concentration-free spells for an appropriately material build cost, and the DM has reasonable control over whether and how often you can obtain/use these methods.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Right. Player mastery and research required to leverage that to the max, yes. And that is fine, gameplay wise and 'each spell has its own strengths and weaknesses' - feature, not bug. And spell casting is not risk free.

Well, given that there's no risk of an attack of opportunity while casting right in someone's face, there's not that much risk of just not getting your spell off. You might lose it if its concentration and you get damaged, but you will still have gotten some utility from it.

And I don't see how you are refuting any point I made there? Yes, each spell is good at different things. It still doesn't stop feeling terribly artificial that the world's greatest bard can't keep one of the most beginner of beginner bard spells going without her full attention.


That's right; you have to make choices. Feature, not bug.
This isn't 3.x. And there are a few spells (like bestow curse) that if you cast it at higher levels the concentration requirement goes away. :smallwink:
I used the heck out of concentration spells with Dil Husty. (She). And I had to carefully choose spells at level up so that I had some non concentration spells, like blindness, handy as well. Ended up with, at high level, Prismatic Spray and Raulothim' Psychic Lance for "shoot 'em in the face" spells. But mostly buff, debuff, and utility.

And I want more choices to make. It's like legos, or cooking- being able to make unique combinations of pieces/flavors adds entire dimensions to it.

Having both cheese and tomatoes available is good. Making a pizza, tho? That's a whole 'nother ballgame. I want to be able to make that dang pizza.

Mind, I like the idea of Bestow Curse's mechanic of losing concentration becoming more popular, that's a fix too. I just want more spice to it.

Perhaps that could become a universal rule? All spells (maybe sans summons) with a duration that requires Concentration can be upcast at two levels higher and not require it?


Full casters have more than one slot. Where you get the idea that the italicized bit is true is beyond me. Have you played a lot of full casters in Tier 2 and Tier 3? My experience tells me that you are profoundly wrong about that. As an aside, the infamous "EB blastomatic warlock" complaints get voiced a lot on this board but in _actual play_ I have never seen anyone complain about being able to cast EB.
I believe you mistook my meaning: as you only have the one concentration slot, there's fierce competition between a small handful of good and great spells pushes aside all of the ok ones, because the concentration slot is simply that valuable, and that scarce.


As a more general comment, I see a lot of concern for summoning spells. I don't see why they couldn't have an asterisk denoting that they take up your entire concentration, or you can't concentrate on two summons, or something else to keep them in line.

[Xervous]

And I don't see how you are refuting any point I made there? Yes, each spell is good at different things. It still doesn't stop feeling terribly artificial that the world's greatest bard can't keep one of the most beginner of beginner bard spells going without her full attention.

And I want more choices to make. It's like legos, or cooking- being able to make unique combinations of flavours/pieces adds entire dimensions to it.


It looks like you’re at the edge of “why am I playing 5e?” Instead of griping that the system designed to be accessible while highlighting iconic facets is too shallow, perhaps look to a system that either offers more options or better commits to delivering a feel? In spite of the marketing, 5e isn’t a do everything system.

[Toadkiller]

I would concur with that - there are many games out there. D&D being a gateway to them isnÂ’t a bad thing at all.

My thought on the concentration thing: if the players are buffed through the roof than the opposition just needs to be harder. There isn’t a net gain, so what’s the point? Just to get to “harder” fights faster but then negate the difficulty?

[Willie the Duck]

I don't think anyone is necessarily wrong. OP is right that (paraphrasing) an alternate version of 5e could have been invented with number of stackable effects being a spell limiter. This one is the broadest concession, IMO, since we basically have to design and re-balance the game from the ground up (so of course it could be done, we're shifting the heavy lifting to hypothetical game designers).

I also agree that there could be a only slightly modified 5e where (for example) a high level bard class feature might be to get a second concentration slot, limited to low level spells (or even low level spells from certain schools, or the like). I don't immediately know of any killer combos that would make one regret this decision, but I'm sure there are. I know I've seen groups where a homebrew magic item was made that allowed a second concentration, and the effects were predictably very powerful.

However, for my money, I'm most interested in this:

Indeed, and there are even spells that remove the concentration requirement from other spells (like Planar Binding.) Rather than change the concentration rules I would make more spells like these - you can have more concentration-free spells for an appropriately material build cost, and the DM has reasonable control over whether and how often you can obtain/use these methods.

There certainly could be. More spells that used the Mage Armor duration model*, or the upcast-to-remove-concentration-requirement model. That would certainly allow for more diversity in spells, spells used, and spells up. This seems like the easiest change to make and the easiest to re-balance, as each spell to get the change would go under review.
*my group has already done this with barkskin

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, I'm not seeing buff stacking period as the issue so much as Caster Nova Buffing (cast my whole day's slots in two dozen buffs). As it stands, the buff stacks are reduced - to the number of Casters available. Sometimes, making your beatstick Blessed, Hasted, and Enlarged is still the best solution.

Now casters are capable of doing just about everything - just not all at the same time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Indeed, and there are even spells that remove the concentration requirement from other spells (like Planar Binding.) Rather than change the concentration rules I would make more spells like these - you can have more concentration-free spells for an appropriately material build cost, and the DM has reasonable control over whether and how often you can obtain/use these methods. I wonder if they ran out of time before game release, and had such a large spell book, that they didn't go back and plug that into more spells.

Well, given that there's no risk of an attack of opportunity while casting right in someone's face I think I reminded you that this isn't 3.5e. Discard old assumptions, embarce the new game for what it is. That's how I finally began to enjoy this edition. I had some deep AD&D systems mastery/assumptions that this edition didn't fit.
And I don't see how you are refuting any point I made there? I am not required to.

And I want more choices to make.
And your full caster isn't giving you enough choices? What level are you playing? What classes?

Having both cheese and tomatoes available is good. Making a pizza, tho? That's a whole 'nother ballgame. I want to be able to make that dang pizza. Some folks will kvetch about anything ... :smallcool:


Mind, I like the idea of Bestow Curse's mechanic of losing concentration becoming more popular, that's a fix too. I just want more spice to it. Maybe could ask for more variety for Tier 3 and Tier 4 martial class options. Casters are already full of choice.


I believe you mistook my meaning: as you only have the one concentration slot, there's fierce competition between a small handful of good and great spells pushes aside all of the ok ones, because the concentration slot is simply that valuable, and that scarce. That's right. Feature, not bug. You have to make choices.

My thought on the concentration thing: if the players are buffed through the roof than the opposition just needs to be harder. There isn’t a net gain, so what’s the point? Just to get to “harder” fights faster but then negate the difficulty? Something something spiral Something something rocket tag Something something conversation is not far off.

I don't think anyone is necessarily wrong. OP is right that (paraphrasing) an alternate version of 5e could have been invented with number of stackable effects being a spell limiter. This one is the broadest concession, IMO, since we basically have to design and re-balance the game from the ground up (so of course it could be done, we're shifting the heavy lifting the hypothetical game designers). They get paid by the hour. :smallwink:

I know I've seen groups where a homebrew magic item was made that allowed a second concentration, and the effects were predictably very powerful. We had an encounter where our wizard cast slow and my cleric cast bless. A buff and a debuff working at once called for teamwork. The front liners had a field day.
There certainly could be. More spells that used the Mage Armor duration model*, or the upcast-to-remove-concentration-requirement model. That would certainly allow for more diversity in spells, spells used, and spells up. This seems like the easiest change to make and the easiest to re-balance, as each spell to get the change would go under review. *my group has already done this with barkskin Barkskin as Mage Armor, Druid edition, has been the house rule for my games since I picked up the DM gauntlet again. (/rant about barkskin deleted)

[Greywander]

The problem with this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dxICJHd518) is less the buff stacking and more that a single caster can do all this by themselves. Buff stacking via multiple casters is a feature, I think. If buffs per person were what was limited, then you'd really only need a single caster in the party, and bringing a second caster would be largely redundant. The way it is now, bringing a second caster adds a lot of potential for stacking concentration effects. Someone mentioned teamwork earlier; well, this is a kind of teamwork, too. Sure, you can stack all your buffs on one person and let them go to town, but you can't do it by yourself. You have to work as a team to buff that one person. And buffs aren't the only concentration spells. Tricks like Sickening Radiance + Wall of Force require two casters, and are shockingly effective.

You already can't stack the same spell, which I think is enough of a limitation. Double or triple Bless would definitely be an issue, but having two or three clerics means you can have Bless up at the same time as another good concentration spell.

I still like my idea of having concentration slots equal to your proficiency bonus, with cantrips taking 1 slot, 1st/2nd level spells taking two slots, 3rd-5th taking 3, 6th-8th taking 4, and 9th level spells taking 5 slots. At max level, you could have six concentration cantrips active at once, or three 1st or 2nd level spells, or two 3rd-5th level spell, and you'd only ever be able to have one 6th+ level concentration spell active at a time. Of course, this would be a big buff to casters, so I could see balancing it out by, say, reduce spell slot totals, or something else, but that would be another discussion.

Edit:

I know I've seen groups where a homebrew magic item was made that allowed a second concentration, and the effects were predictably very powerful.
One iteration I saw for this was a lantern that would light when you passed concentration to it. If the flame was extinguished, the lantern's concentration would be broken. So while it allowed for a second concentration spell, it was pretty fragile, and would be easy to disrupt if the enemy was able to figure out that they needed to extinguish the lantern.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing to note: making things more powerful doesn't, in general, improve the number of choices you have in actuality. Instead, all it does is reinforce the dominated game. The strong options get stronger faster than the weak ones do.

In this case, adding one more concentration slot only means that instead of casting polymorph OR haste (picked at random) and ignoring a bunch of other spells, now you cast polymorph AND haste. And as long as you're not adding enough concentration slots that you can have all the strong spells up simultaneously plus some, you'll still never cast those weaker concentration spells.

The inherent problem here is that some spells are just too strong. Any change that doesn't address that fact by fixing that imbalance (ie nerfing them) won't actually increase the number of choices you have. It'll just make those even stronger.

You can't get to balance by buffs alone. If the new buffed spells aren't better than the old standbys, they'll still get ignored. If they are better, then you just have a different imbalance. And equality isn't an option unless everything's homogeneous.

----

As a side note, if there are always 2-3 spells that are the best for every occasion you run into, your DM is doing a lousy job of creating diverse encounters. And this, I think, is at the core. People are doing 1-2 fights per long rest, mostly against 1-3 large monsters, in mostly white-room-like environments. Which skews the calculus tremendously. And not in a good way.

[Greywander]

Those are actually some really great points. I think part of the problem is that D&D's magic isn't mystical enough. For example, Shield of Faith gives you +2 AC. And that's it. Just a straight buff to a stat. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't really feel magical. And eventually the game will come to a point where it's understood well enough that people understand which of these simple, straightforward concentration spells are the best to use.

A more mystical kind of magic would be a lot more conditional. Shield of Faith only works against fiends and undead, for example. Bless only affects those with the same alignment as you, or who worship the same deity as you. Spells become a lot more niche, requiring you to read the situation and use the right spell. Is that a monstrosity, or an aberration? You have two different spells that each only work on one or the other. Choose wisely.

It's kind of similar to some of the other ideas that have been thrown around regarding things like silvered or cold iron weapons. Silvered weapons would be a lot more meaningful if there were some monsters that could only be hurt by silvered weapons; magic weapons wouldn't work. And likewise, maybe a different monster requires a cold iron weapon. Or a weapon gilded with gold. Or a weapon made from yew, or oak, or birch.

I think 5e is afraid to enter this territory. It wants magic weapons to work against everything. It wants a good spell to always be a good spell. It doesn't want a group of powerful adventurers to get their butt kicked because they forgot to bring a cold iron weapon. It's a power fantasy. Which I guess is fine if that's what you're looking for.

Bringing this back to concentration, if you had a broader set of spells that each had different effects, but only worked under specific conditions, it would give you a reason to vary which spells you're casting, since that really good spell doesn't really apply in this particular situation. Maybe Hold Person/Monster works by conjuring iron shackles to hold the target in place, so while it's an okay spell against a lot of monsters, fey might get disadvantage on the save due to the iron (or, perhaps, anything that isn't fey simply gets advantage on the roll). This allows the spell to still be useful in other situations, but it's really tailored toward a specific situation.

[Psyren]

I think 5e is afraid to enter this territory. It wants magic weapons to work against everything. It wants a good spell to always be a good spell. It doesn't want a group of powerful adventurers to get their butt kicked because they forgot to bring a cold iron weapon. It's a power fantasy. Which I guess is fine if that's what you're looking for.


Most people are, especially the less experienced TTRPG newcomers that 5e is looking to attract/be a primary gateway for. If more experienced groups like yours want magic buffs to be much more situational/fiddly/require researching targets and aligning specific effects against them, that's quite doable, requiring only a line or two added per spell. But such "Advanced D&D" shouldn't be a core assumption of the game. The groups who want that have the tools they need to make it themselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think 5e is afraid to enter this territory.
Given that it is explicitly contrary to design goals, afraid is hardly the term I'd use.
What you ask for leads into the kind of system mastery that creates a barrier to entry for new players, particularly for lower level spells. It is far better to not clutter up spells with alignment restrictions, for starters. (And the spell list is already plenty bloated).

[JellyPooga]

Given that it is explicitly contrary to design goals, afraid is hardly the term I'd use.
What you ask for leads into the kind of system mastery that creates a barrier to entry for new players, particularly for lower level spells. It is far better to not clutter up spells with alignment restrictions, for starters. (And the spell list is already plenty bloated).

I think "afraid" is exactly the term that applies here. Afraid of losing profit at the cost of integrety is something, as a chef, I'm very familiar with. Appealing to a wider audience is almost never something that improves qualiity and in this particular case, patching for ease certainly doesn't necessarily equate to being objectively better.

[Psyren]

I find "they won't design spellcasting the way I want them to, therefore they lack integrity" to be a pretty amusing take.

[Amnestic]

patching for ease certainly doesn't necessarily equate to being objectively better.

But there is no 'objectively better' since it's analysis of a game's systems and people's impressions of them, so I don't know why you even mention "objectively better" as a concept here.

Subjectively, one can say it's better. Subjectively, one can say it's worse. I think Concentration works fine for what they intended. I think there are some (barkskin) problems with individual spells, but that the core is good, and frankly I approve of them not budging from the "one concentration per creature" rule at all so far. The closest we really got was Chronurgist with their pocket spell they could hand off to another creature, and generally optimisation people seem to view that as a feature anywhere between "good" and "really really really good", if that gives any indication.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think "afraid" is exactly the term that applies here. Afraid of losing profit at the cost of integrety is something, as a chef, I'm very familiar with. Appealing to a wider audience is almost never something that improves qualiity and in this particular case, patching for ease certainly doesn't necessarily equate to being objectively better.
Gatekeeping attitude noted. It is objectively better that more people participate in a fun game. That's the whole point of designing in newbie friendly features and structures. See also bounded accuracy as a design principle.
I find "they won't design spellcasting the way I want them to, therefore they lack integrity" to be a pretty amusing take. Amusing isn't the word that came to mind, but close enough. :smallcool:

[Unoriginal]

The only way "WotC got Concentration backward" is a consistant statement is if your thesis is "WotC should have made spells weaker so that casters can have many of them ongoing at the same time without issue,".

Otherwise it's not "WotC got Concentration backward", it's "WotC got Concentration wrong", and given OP's various posts in this thread it's clear there is a "because casters should be more powerful than what they are" addendum here.

Especially in the light of saying that WotC somehow lacks integrity because, of all things, they didn't perpetuate the "casters blow everyone else out of water when they can maintain 15 spells at once" status quo of 3.X.

[Greywander]

I think "afraid" is exactly the term that applies here. Afraid of losing profit at the cost of integrety is something, as a chef, I'm very familiar with. Appealing to a wider audience is almost never something that improves qualiity and in this particular case, patching for ease certainly doesn't necessarily equate to being objectively better.
While I don't entirely disagree with you (insofar as appealing to a wider audience often leads to degradation of a product), I think it's fair to say that there are people out there who like it as it is. Would I like to see some of this additional complexity in the game, to make it more interesting? Sure. But there are other people who would rather not deal with such things. And that's fair. 5e has been like this since it first came out, and while I can opine how I wish they had done things, I can't deny that I'm asking for a fundamentally different product. This is actually one of my objections with the current direction 5e id headed: it feels like the dev team has been completely replaced by different people who don't understand the original vision of the game and are taking it someplace it was never meant to go.

Appealing to a broader audience typically results in watering down a product. The unique traits that made it interesting but niche get excised, and the end result is something bland that feels pretty similar to the competing products out there. But, one of the beautiful things about capitalism is that as long as there are people willing to pay for it, someone will make it. We might bemoan the degradation of something we liked in the past for its uniqueness, but it seems there are people who like the new version as well (though we'll see how long this lasts*). If you want something different, grab your wallet and be prepared to spend some money on something more to your liking. Otherwise, you won't be able to find the product you want if you aren't willing to pay for it.

*5e was very popular early on, but I've been hearing a lot of dissatisfaction about the current direction they're going. It's hard to say how it will end up, but my suspicion is that 5e is entering a decline. I kind of expect 6e to take the foundation of 5e and go in the opposite direction from the upcoming "5.5e", not for any political reasons, but simply due to falling sales as they make more and more changes to 5e. But who can say for sure what will happen? Sooner or later, I'll probably find a different system better suited for what I want and stop caring about D&D.


Gatekeeping attitude noted. It is objectively better that more people participate in a fun game. That's the whole point of designing in newbie friendly features and structures. See also bounded accuracy as a design principle.
We only call it "gatekeeping" when someone else does it. When we do it, we call it "maintaining a safe and inclusive space". Seriously. There is no one who doesn't support gatekeeping, they just use a different word that sounds more appealing when they're the ones doing it. Different people also have different ideas of who should be gatekept out; I'm sure there are people you'd never want to interact with in this space, too.

I'm all for bringing in new people to enjoy a hobby, but this should never be done at the expense of the existing audience. You can't please everybody, of course, but a company should either (a) appeal to both a new audience and the overwhelming majority of their existing audience, or (b) release a brand new product that doesn't already have an existing audience in order to target a new audience. This way, if you fail to attract a new audience, you still have your old audience to back you up, rather than chasing them away in the hopes that maybe you'll bring in new people to replace those you've chased out. It's just good business sense. Heck, appealing to a new audience at the expense of the existing audience is also a form of gatekeeping, as it's closing the gates on the existing audience.

If the new audience is pushing the old audience out, that's when it's time to close the gates. Either way, somebody's getting gatekept, so if your opinion is that all gatekeeping is bad then it's time to choose the lesser of two evils. You would never, for example, chase off a long-time friend to appease a stranger you just met in the hopes they might become your friend. And to be honest, if I was that stranger I'd be less inclined to want to be friends with you after seeing how you treated your old friend. That is chasing profits at the cost of integrity. If I've never really been interested in a product before, seeing that product's company treat their audience/customers poorly makes me even less inclined to want their product, while seeing them treat their audience well might make me interested enough to at least check them out.

Just one example of a place gatekeeping might be appropriate: You wouldn't want WotC to add rules to the new 5.5e PHB for engaging in lewd acts without consent. I'm sure there are people out there who'd like an entire chapter on that subject, perhaps even a new class built around such things. If that's what someone is into, then there are other TTRPGs out there that are for that, but that's not what D&D is supposed to be. I would hope that all of us can agree that such people should be gatekept out. So gatekeeping isn't automatically bad, but it does require some judiciousness.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm all for bringing in new people to enjoy a hobby, but this should never be done at the expense of the existing audience. If the OP wants to keep playing 3.5e, then do so. They are asking for a power level higher than designed for in the structure of this game. And yet again, until I treated 5e as its own game I didn't enjoy it as much as I do now. I had to let go of my previous edition assumptions.

That the OP is taking a position that seeks to reach back into 3.5 styles of caster power imbalance tells me that this is the core problem with the position taken.

And no, WoTC, did not get concentration backwards.

[Unoriginal]

*5e was very popular early on, but I've been hearing a lot of dissatisfaction about the current direction they're going. It's hard to say how it will end up, but my suspicion is that 5e is entering a decline. I kind of expect 6e to take the foundation of 5e and go in the opposite direction from the upcoming "5.5e", not for any political reasons, but simply due to falling sales as they make more and more changes to 5e.

5e does not have failing sales, and it is certainly not in decline in term of popularity. It's more popular now than it ever was, and it has kept increasing in popularity since the early days.

Sure there is dissatisfaction on where they're going with 5.5, don't get me wrong, but the dissatisfied ones are *not* the main audience.

And I'm saying that as someone among those who are dissatisfied by some of the directions this edition is taking.

Seriously, today I've learned that the official Dark Souls ttrpg that's going to be released this year uses 5e as a basis. I don't *like* that, but it shows that the business people still dare betting money on this edition.

That plus the fact 5.5 is announced and upcoming is enough to guarantee the system has at least a decade of full life ahead of itself.

[KorvinStarmast]

5e does not have failing sales, and it is certainly not in decline in term of popularity. It's more popular now than it ever was, and it has kept increasing in popularity since the early days. It will eventually reach a saturation point, I suspect.

[Amnestic]

I'm all for bringing in new people to enjoy a hobby, but this should never be done at the expense of the existing audience.

And who is to say they are? I've been engaging with DnD products since 2e, and I find 5e, faults and all, the most enjoyable one yet - which includes its form of Concentration, which as noted I am a fan of.



Seriously, today I've learned that the official Dark Souls ttrpg that's going to be released this year uses 5e as a basis. I don't *like* that, but it shows that the business people still dare betting money on this edition.


Just a note on this: an official Dark Souls TTRPG based on 5e is on its way. There's already another one (https://blogofarcanesecrets.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/my-experience-with-the-dark-souls-tabletop-rpg/) though so far as I know it's not received an English translation/release (physical or digital), Japanese only. It'd be nice if interest in the 5e version brings a translation of the other version, because it sounds pretty neat.

[JellyPooga]

The only way "WotC got Concentration backward" is a consistant statement is if your thesis is "WotC should have made spells weaker so that casters can have many of them ongoing at the same time without issue,".

Otherwise it's not "WotC got Concentration backward", it's "WotC got Concentration wrong", and given OP's various posts in this thread it's clear there is a "because casters should be more powerful than what they are" addendum here.

Especially in the light of saying that WotC somehow lacks integrity because, of all things, they didn't perpetuate the "casters blow everyone else out of water when they can maintain 15 spells at once" status quo of 3.X.

Wow. I mean, really I'm honestly astonished that this is the take-away from the mere suggestion that a spellcaster might, possibly, with restriction, be able to maintain more than one spell at a time.

I mean...that's all I'm saying here. I've explicitly said that I'm not looking to improve spellcasters, in a very literal sense (you can quote me saying as much). I haven't, you can check me on this, made any solid suggestion on any alternative to the ability to concentrate on a single spell at a given time. I've mentioned the possibility of tying concentration to attunement but no more, yet I've had push-back against even that ephemaral concept.

Is the notion of spellcasters being able to maintain only a single spell of an arbitrary type so godlike a concept that literally any alternative is inherently inferior? That's what my detractors are suggesting here, after all; that the very concept that concentrating on more than one spell is somehow the worst evil of game design. I'm asking for discussion on the subject and getting "nope; multi-spell is always bad" in response. Please point me to the specific rule suggestion I'm making that is so abhorrent. Quote me the bit about "spellcasters can maintain several spells" that is so terrible while excusing the spells that can be maintained without that same limitation.

Give me some gods-damned consistency or get out of my discussion on the subject. I've literally stated in no uncertain terms that my intention is not to make casters more powerful, but am instead looking for an alternative system that might even offer greater sanction on what casters are able to achieve, but all I'm facing is "omg, you just want to buff casters". Gonna say it again. I'm not looking for an improvement to spellcasters. I want there to be a limit on ongoing effects, I just don't think "one per spellcaster, arbitrarily assigned" is a valid metric, let alone a valid measure of power level.

Still waiting for an answer to "what does single spell concentration actually achieve in play?" as well as "why is it bad for one character to maintain multiple spells, but good for multiple characters to achieve the same result, despite the former being objectively less powerful and therefore not problematic for it to be a possibility?".

@Whoever it concerns; Single concentration is not and cannot be a primary balancing measure of spell power because it does not apply to all spells. By definition and context, a primary measure must apply to all cases of the example. Concentration not only fails to apply to all spells, but also fails to apply to all spells of ongoing duration (under the current rules). As a metric of power limitation it fails on several levels. It's a secondary balancing factor at best.

That being the case, what makes single-concentration so sacrosanct? Further, why is my suggestion of limiting spell effects by number of effects less valid?

[KorvinStarmast]

Just a note on this: an official Dark Souls TTRPG based on 5e is on its way. Is this being produced by the IP owner of Dark Souls?

[Amnestic]

Is this being produced by the IP owner of Dark Souls?

Licensed, it's being created by Steamforged Games. They previously did the Dark Souls board game and card game, and they've apparently had a foray into 5e-compatible material with "Epic Encounters", though I'm not familiar with that myself.

[JackPhoenix]

Is the notion of spellcasters being able to maintain only a single spell of an arbitrary type so godlike a concept that literally any alternative is inherently inferior?

An alternative you haven't even bothered to present is, indeed, inherently inferior to anything actually written. Unless you actually write what you want the rule to look like, you can't be surprised at people expecting their worst case scenario.


Give me some gods-damned consistency or get out of my discussion on the subject. I've literally stated in no uncertain terms that my intention is not to make casters more powerful, but am instead looking for an alternative system that might even offer greater sanction on what casters are able to achieve, but all I'm facing is "omg, you just want to buff casters". Gonna say it again. I'm not looking for an improvement to spellcasters. I want there to be a limit on ongoing effects, I just don't think "one per spellcaster, arbitrarily assigned" is a valid metric, let alone a valid measure of power level.

And yet, so far you've only provided suggestions that would improve spellcasters.


Still waiting for an answer to "what does single spell concentration actually achieve in play?" as well as "why is it bad for one character to maintain multiple spells, but good for multiple characters to achieve the same result, despite the former being objectively less powerful and therefore not problematic for it to be a possibility?".

Multiple people have given the answer already in this thread, you just don't like those answers.


@Whoever it concerns; Single concentration is not and cannot be a primary balancing measure of spell power because it does not apply to all spells. By definition and context, a primary measure must apply to all cases of the example. Concentration not only fails to apply to all spells, but also fails to apply to all spells of ongoing duration (under the current rules). As a metric of power limitation it fails on several levels. It's a secondary balancing factor at best.

Have you considered the idea that the fact concentration does not apply to some spells is a balancing factor in itself?


Further, why is my suggestion of limiting spell effects by number of effects less valid?

It's less valid because you haven't actually provided any proper suggestion, as you've yourself mentioned.

[Hael]

I dont understand the replies in this thread that claim concentration is a tactical axis or provides choice to the player. Its the opposite.. Its a restriction in the degrees of freedom of a combat simulator, full stop.

Combat in this edition is incredibly watered down relative to past editions, and one of the things thats most striking to me, is the loss of interesting spell interactions and combos.

Its long been a staple of crpgs to provide as much of that as possible. And while some go overboard (see for instance divinity 2 and the flaming inferno effect) generally speaking more is better.

Of course, we get many of the desired interactions when we have a party full of spellcasters (which surprise surprise tend to produce the most interesting combat experiences in 5e) and the immediate design question is why don’t you allow more, not less of this and allow it when there are only individual casters in a party.

As for balance. Sure it would be OP to just drop concentration as it stands and yes spells would need to be rebalanced. But generally speaking there are much better ways to balance casters than what we have in 5e (where it has manifestly failed as a balancing tool).

As for summons/buffs. You could easily imagine a scenario where you kept concentration for buffs or summons (to avoid the stacking buff problem or too much minionmancy) but removed the concentration requirement on cc spells and for environmental effects (spells like wind gust and the like). Again I would want new checks on caster power to be reintroduced (like opportunity attacks and spell failure).

[Greywander]

If the OP wants to keep playing 3.5e, then do so. They are asking for a power level higher than designed for in the structure of this game. And yet again, until I treated 5e as its own game I didn't enjoy it as much as I do now. I had to let go of my previous edition assumptions.

And who is to say they are? I've been engaging with DnD products since 2e, and I find 5e, faults and all, the most enjoyable one yet - which includes its form of Concentration, which as noted I am a fan of.
Yeah, as far as concentration goes, this is true. 5e is its own game, distinct from 3.x. There was an understanding from the beginning that it would be different.

At the same time, 5e is still D&D. And from what I can tell, they actually did make an effort to appeal to the longtime fans of D&D, with 5e pulling in some of the aspects from a variety of older editions and streamlining them. 5e as it originally released actually did a very good job of appealing to both the longtime fans and a new audience, though obviously there would always be people who weren't happy with some of the changes.

My references to appealing to a new audience not being at the expense of the existing audience is more related to their more recent changes, but that's a discussion for another time (and I'm not sure that there's anything more to say that hasn't been said, until WotC releases something new for us to scrutinize).


5e does not have failing sales, and it is certainly not in decline in term of popularity. It's more popular now than it ever was, and it has kept increasing in popularity since the early days.
This is why I said it was entering a decline. I'm not making a statement about the present, I'm attempting to predict the future. We saw this with the Disney Star Wars trilogy: The Force Awakens was generally pretty well received, being lightly criticized for rehashing the original trilogy but given a pass under the assumption that it's setting up the rest of the trilogy. The Last Jedi seemed to get very mixed reactions, with some pretty severe backlash, but still did well in the box office. The Rise of Skywalker did... not as well, making a little over half what The Force Awakens made, and getting far more critical reviews. I think 5e is at about the same point in the cycle as The Last Jedi, though that might correlate better to the upcoming release of the updated PHB. That's the point in the cycle where the money is still coming in but there's a lot of criticism. The actual decline doesn't happen until it hits The Rise of Skywalker part of the cycle.

But hey, that's just a theory. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Nnz4GlbzQ)

It will be several years before we get to see if I'm right or wrong. And for myself, I have to admit that I kind of exist in a tangential space to the core D&D audience. I've been interested in TTRPGs for a while, and 5e was the first one I got to play more than a couple times. So I do enjoy it, but I've honestly never liked D&D as a whole. I once listed out several of the main aspects of 5e I didn't care for, and someone noted that those were almost all things that are specific to D&D that few other TTRPGs do.

I think it's a testament to the design of 5e that I enjoy it as much as I do, in spite of the aspects of D&D I don't care for, but sooner or later I should find a system better suited to what I want from a TTRPG. It has got me thinking, though; I used to think I hated class-based systems, preferring more open skill-based systems, but I do enjoy the puzzle aspect of finding interesting builds that is only really possible in a class based system. So now I'm thinking what I really want is some kind of hybrid system. I've long wanted to look into Fudge, but it just doesn't seem to be very popular, and the system itself is only half-built, expecting you to flesh it out with your own mechanics (which is actually kind of cool, particularly given my affinity for writing homebrew, but it does make it difficult to get into in the first place).

[Unoriginal]

I mean...that's all I'm saying here.

We have have three pages of discussions where you notably states that the way the Concentration rules are written is a sign of WotC forgoing integrity for the sake of appealing to a wider audience, so excuse me, but you're saying significantly more than that.


Quote me the bit about "spellcasters can maintain several spells" that is so terrible while excusing the spells that can be maintained without that same limitation.

Most Concentration spells are about messing with the action economy. Summoning spells do so in an obvious manner, but AoE ones and buff/debuff ones also do so the large majority of cases.

Spells without Concentration tend to not do that. They improve or hinder a specific feature for a time, or do a burst of damage/specific effect and are done, but they do not let a character do more/less than normal with their turn.

Compare Heroes' Feast or Foresight with the comparatively humble Haste. HF and Foresight are big power boosts, no question about it, but a PC affected by them cannot do anything new compared as before the boost. Meanwhile, Haste let the PC do more than their typical action economy. Spiritual Weapon essentially give the character one more attack. Spirit Guardian gives the character one more "inflict damage" moment in the turn. Mirror Image makes the target harder to hit, while Invisibility makes the target harder to hit AND let them do DEX (Stealth) checks wherever they are. Hold Person screw with an enemy's whole action economy for as long as it's active. Same with spells like Polymorph: not only your character's HPs are safe, but the Beast statblock quite often let you do more of [at least one thing] compared to your typical charsheet.

Granted it's not perfectly applying. Pass Without a Trace is a DEX (Stealth) boost without affecting action economy, while Forcecage is like a longer-lasting Wall of Force without Concentration for some reasons. But it's still pretty consistent overall.



Still waiting for an answer to "what does single spell concentration actually achieve in play?"

This has already been answered, several times. Single spell concentration limits the individual caster (specifically in their action economy), achieving better balances between the classes than if the individual caster was capable of generating ongoing effects augmenting action economy.



as well as "why is it bad for one character to maintain multiple spells, but good for multiple characters to achieve the same result, despite the former being objectively less powerful and therefore not problematic for it to be a possibility?".

How is one character doing what multiple characters do "objectively less powerful"? If one character is capable of doing something that would require multiple characters under the usual conditions, then the one character is objectively more powerful.

"This one does the work of 10 men" or "this one has the strength of 10 men" are common ways to express the power/efficiency of someone for a reason.


Single concentration is not and cannot be a primary balancing measure of spell power because it does not apply to all spells.

Indeed, it does not apply to all spells. But it does apply to all casters, because it is a primary balancing measure for *individual caster* power.



By definition and context, a primary measure must apply to all cases of the example.

And it applies to all casters, therefore it is a primary measure applying to all cases of the example by definition and context.



Concentration not only fails to apply to all spells, but also fails to apply to all spells of ongoing duration (under the current rules).

It is irrelevant if it applies or not to all spells, so long as it applies to all casters.


As a metric of power limitation it fails on several levels. It's a secondary balancing factor at best.

As a metric of *individual Player Character power limitation*, it succeeds, and is in fact a primary balancing factor.



That being the case, what makes single-concentration so sacrosanct?

It is not sacro-saint, and several other systems have other approaches that work just as well. However, limiting action economy is a fundamental principle of the 5e design, and basically all Concentration spells allow one character to do *more* with their turn on top of their usual action economy.



Further, why is my suggestion of limiting spell effects by number of effects less valid?

Because your suggestion a) does not work with the fundamental design principle of limiting action economy b) limits the *person affected by the spells*, not the caster c) places the burden of bookkeeping on the affected characters, which is a problem for several reasons.

[Pex]

One thing to note: making things more powerful doesn't, in general, improve the number of choices you have in actuality. Instead, all it does is reinforce the dominated game. The strong options get stronger faster than the weak ones do.

In this case, adding one more concentration slot only means that instead of casting polymorph OR haste (picked at random) and ignoring a bunch of other spells, now you cast polymorph AND haste. And as long as you're not adding enough concentration slots that you can have all the strong spells up simultaneously plus some, you'll still never cast those weaker concentration spells.

The inherent problem here is that some spells are just too strong. Any change that doesn't address that fact by fixing that imbalance (ie nerfing them) won't actually increase the number of choices you have. It'll just make those even stronger.

You can't get to balance by buffs alone. If the new buffed spells aren't better than the old standbys, they'll still get ignored. If they are better, then you just have a different imbalance. And equality isn't an option unless everything's homogeneous.

----

As a side note, if there are always 2-3 spells that are the best for every occasion you run into, your DM is doing a lousy job of creating diverse encounters. And this, I think, is at the core. People are doing 1-2 fights per long rest, mostly against 1-3 large monsters, in mostly white-room-like environments. Which skews the calculus tremendously. And not in a good way.

What makes a spell "too strong"? Accepting a particular effect (even if not currently a spell) is objectively too powerful, the lower you go eventually you reach subjective territory. Just because you think a spell is too powerful doesn't make it so. To others a spell being of a given power is a feature, something a PC is permitted to do as part of the fun of playing the game. You say Polymorph and Haste is too powerful, but that effect can already happen by having two spellcasters. You may argue that's the point, but then I can just as easily say I don't agree with you that Polymorph or Haste are too powerful. They are perfectly acceptable power effects a PC can do as a matter of playing the game. I do have an issue with Haste, but not with the power effect itself.

The underlying question remains. Is it too powerful for one spellcaster to provide for Polymorph and Haste after two rounds? 5E says yes since it can't happen by the rules. That the official line. Fine. Others disagree, those who are ok with a spellcaster concentrating on more than one spell. Hence the thread.

[Kane0]

Would it not have been more intuitive and streamlined to limit not the number of spells a caster can maintain, but the number of magical effects a character can endure/have active on them?

Because that doesnt work for spells that dont buff creatures, like debuffs, summons and area control/damage zones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What makes a spell "too strong"? Accepting a particular effect (even if not currently a spell) is objectively too powerful, the lower you go eventually you reach subjective territory. Just because you think a spell is too powerful doesn't make it so. To others a spell being of a given power is a feature, something a PC is permitted to do as part of the fun of playing the game. You say Polymorph and Haste is too powerful, but that effect can already happen by having two spellcasters. You may argue that's the point, but then I can just as easily say I don't agree with you that Polymorph or Haste are too powerful. They are perfectly acceptable power effects a PC can do as a matter of playing the game. I do have an issue with Haste, but not with the power effect itself.

The underlying question remains. Is it too powerful for one spellcaster to provide for Polymorph and Haste after two rounds? 5E says yes since it can't happen by the rules. That the official line. Fine. Others disagree, those who are ok with a spellcaster concentrating on more than one spell. Hence the thread.

That's not what I meant, really.

What I was responding to was the idea that having only one slot means that there are a lot of spells that don't get cast because there are "better" (by whatever metric you want to use) spells that also cost concentration. As long as the number of "good in most circumstances" spells is larger than the number of slots (which it almost always is), those lesser, situational spells won't get cast. No matter what number of slots you have. Instead of casting must_have_spell_1, you now cast must_have_spell_1 AND must_have_spell_2, instead of having to choose between them. That doesn't make any other spell any more used. It makes the strong spells (again, by whatever metric you want) better without helping the weak spells. The haves have more, the have nots don't change. It increases the dominated-game issue, so relatively, you have fewer meaningful choices.

The solution is to make sure there aren't any must have spells. Make every spell situational. So it's always a choice among spells that do different things, not between direct comparables. One way to do that is to remove (or nerf) any of the multi-use spells. For balance by choice to work, you have to actually have a choice and opportunity cost. If one spell can do job 1 and job 2, but a different spell can only do job 2...the other spell won't get cast.

Basically, my statement was that changing the concentration limit wouldn't do what was wanted (ie make the less-used spells more used). Instead, it'd only make you now able to use both of the powerful ones instead of just one. You'd still never choose a weak one when you had a powerful one.

And there are long-duration buffs and summons, where being able to use multiple means you have them both on turn 1. Any conjure spell, hex, hunter's mark, etc. Now you get to have your cake and eat it too.

And all of this makes anyone who doesn't cast spells look even worse by comparison.

No, concentration limits are, if anything, too generous IMO.

[JellyPooga]

An alternative you haven't even bothered to present is, indeed, inherently inferior to anything actually written. Unless you actually write what you want the rule to look like, you can't be surprised at people expecting their worst case scenario.It's less a case of "bothering" to present a case; I've somehow failed to persuade my detractors that having a second spell active is something less than game-breaking, let alone get as far as considering an actual alternative. Don't forget that in my OP I state quite clearly that this is an idea I haven't thought through yet and am looking for discussion on. That's still the case because I'm still trying to get past the basic premise of "what if spellcasters could cast more than one spell at a time?", the answer to which I'm getting has literally been "nope, it's just too powerful" despite evidence to the contrary.


And yet, so far you've only provided suggestions that would improve spellcasters. My only suggestion has been the possibility of concentrating on more than one spell with an explicit ideal of having a limitation on it other than the arbitrary single limit on certain spells thay currently exists. I'll say it again; I haven't made a suggestion yet and it's somehow being shot down nonetheless. Do you see how I might be confused that my "not yet an idea" can be subjected to such resistance? I'm being told my aeroplane design cannot possibly fly and all I've done is suggest the possibility of a flying machine.


Multiple people have given the answer already in this thread, you just don't like those answersNo. Multiple people have stated their opinion that concentrating on multiple spells is too powerful without actually giving any evidence that it's the case. Multiple people have assumed, despite statements to the contrary, that my intent is to buff spellcasters by removing limits without imposing more, multiple people have grabbed the wrong end of the stick and assumed I was talking about removing concentration as a mechanic entirely despite never actually saying that was my intent, multiple people have failed to address the contention that maintaining multiple spells is already a thing and that stacking effects is already a thing, preferring instead to focus on the apparent abomination that is one caster having the potential to cast both Haste and Bless simultaneously, ignoring or dismissing the sanctions for doing so as sufficient.


Have you considered the idea that the fact concentration does not apply to some spells is a balancing factor in itself?Yes and I find it largely arbitrary in the face of spells and effects otherwise stacking without limit or sanction.



We have have three pages of discussion......about the notion of having more than one spell active being shot down before it gets off the ground. I've barely mentioned integrety or popular opinion and I've only made mention of such in my most recent posts. Please don't misrepresent my position or statements.


Most Concentration spells are about messing with the action economy. Summoning spells do so in an obvious manner, but AoE ones and buff/debuff ones also do so the large majority of cases.This is a gross generalisation, in my opinion and you mention yourself that it doesn't apply perfectly. I suggest it doesn't really apply at all as a consistent rule. That it happens to apply to a select few doesn't make the application (or lack of) anything less than arbitrary.


This has already been answered, several times. Single spell concentration limits the individual caster (specifically in their action economy), achieving better balances between the classes than if the individual caster was capable of generating ongoing effects augmenting action economy. It has no effect on a single casters action economy. It still takes a caster multiple turns to cast multiple spells. Limiting their ability to maintain multiple spells has zero effect on that. Only in the case of summon/conjure spells or specific spells such as Haste is action economy affected, but that's the nature of those spell effects and little to do with the general application of the rule.


How is one character doing what multiple characters do "objectively less powerful"? If one character is capable of doing something that would require multiple characters under the usual conditions, then the one character is objectively more powerful.Something something carts and horses. A single caster casting two spells is less powerful than two caster casting two spells. Not only does it take the single caster two turns to achieve what two casters can do in one, but if we're maintaining concentration rules regarding spell disruption, it's also easier to disrupt both spells on the single caster than two. That's less powerful, not more.


Indeed, it does not apply to all spells. But it does apply to all casters, because it is a primary balancing measure for *individual caster* power. It only applies to casters using those spells. A caster that only uses instantaneous effects is unaffected entirely by the rule and as such that rule cannot be a primary balancing factor in the same way that spell level or casting time are, both of which apply to all spells and all casters. Concentration might apply to all casters, but it doesn't apply to all spells, therefore it's a seconsary check/balance, not a primary one.


Because your suggestion a) does not work with the fundamental design principle of limiting action economy b) limits the *person affected by the spells*, not the caster c) places the burden of bookkeeping on the affected characters, which is a problem for several reasons.

(a) My suggestion has little to impact action economy.
(b) Is a problem because...? As with magic item attunement, it's not the person that makes the item that is limited, but the beneficiary. Why should spellcasting be any different?
(c) Isn't necessarily the case in the first place but even if it were, why is that a problem?

[TotallyNotEvil]

No, concentration limits are, if anything, too generous IMO.

I get what you are saying, even if I think having some wiggle room in the concentration department would at the very least open the door for the less used spells. "Ok, I already Hasted the fighter, time to do my Ome Weird Trick"- that sort of scenario.

And above all, for me, there's the hope it'd allow one to treat it like a puzzle, combining too weaker effects into a greater whole than two generically strong ones that don't symergize particularly well beyond "being strong".

Also, on the quoted bit: it's already literally one spell ever, what other restriction would you put on it? You can't move? Any damage at all breaks it?

From your other posts, you seem to terribly dislike any spellcasting at all.

[Pex]

That's not what I meant, really.

What I was responding to was the idea that having only one slot means that there are a lot of spells that don't get cast because there are "better" (by whatever metric you want to use) spells that also cost concentration. As long as the number of "good in most circumstances" spells is larger than the number of slots (which it almost always is), those lesser, situational spells won't get cast. No matter what number of slots you have. Instead of casting must_have_spell_1, you now cast must_have_spell_1 AND must_have_spell_2, instead of having to choose between them. That doesn't make any other spell any more used. It makes the strong spells (again, by whatever metric you want) better without helping the weak spells. The haves have more, the have nots don't change. It increases the dominated-game issue, so relatively, you have fewer meaningful choices.

The solution is to make sure there aren't any must have spells. Make every spell situational. So it's always a choice among spells that do different things, not between direct comparables. One way to do that is to remove (or nerf) any of the multi-use spells. For balance by choice to work, you have to actually have a choice and opportunity cost. If one spell can do job 1 and job 2, but a different spell can only do job 2...the other spell won't get cast.

Basically, my statement was that changing the concentration limit wouldn't do what was wanted (ie make the less-used spells more used). Instead, it'd only make you now able to use both of the powerful ones instead of just one. You'd still never choose a weak one when you had a powerful one.

And there are long-duration buffs and summons, where being able to use multiple means you have them both on turn 1. Any conjure spell, hex, hunter's mark, etc. Now you get to have your cake and eat it too.

And all of this makes anyone who doesn't cast spells look even worse by comparison.

No, concentration limits are, if anything, too generous IMO.

That is true regardless of Concentration. Sorcerers have a hard time choosing spells known. Warlocks have a hard time choosing what spell to cast for their few slots not knowing when a short rest will happen. I'm playing an Artificer in a game. I have more infusions known than I can use, and I hate not being able to use them all. However, similar with the issue of warriors and spellcasters, the solution is not always lower the power of the good spells but raise the power of the bad spells. Rituals are a good start, to enable utility spells to get use without competing with a player's not wrong concern about combat spell use. However, the problem is not Magic Missile or Chromatic Orb is too good. The problem is Witch Bolt sucks.

There's also the matter of one's own personal taste. One person's garbage spell is another person's awesome spell. For example, in Treantmonk's (in)famous spell review videos, he continuously bad mouths spells that are save negates. He firmly believes a spell to be bad when the monster makes its saving throw nothing happens. He considers that a wasted turn. I disagree. Sure it sucks when the monster makes its save, but it can also fail the save. It is worth the try to cast the spell. I find value in the attempt. Therefore while Player A may always cast one spell and not another, Player B might do the reverse. If there's a spell no one ever casts, so be it. The designers made an error, and the game does not fall apart because a spell is never used. If there's a spell that's always used, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Almost every wizard and sorcerer will take Fireball. I can agree Fireball is objectively an awesome spell, and I've heard a few times it was purposely designed to be a bit overpowered because it's iconic. Still, I have no objection that everyone casts it when able. It's not a big deal to me to go angsty nuts the game is ruined over it. Other 3rd level spells get cast, Concentration or not, and Fireball is not always the answer even when the bad guys are not resistant or immune to fire damage.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Also, on the quoted bit: it's already literally one spell ever, what other restriction would you put on it? You can't move? Any damage at all breaks it?

A popular idea is to have casters provoke attack of opportunity when they cast, either make it work identically to prior editions and have a chance for any spell to fail or have it potentially break a concentration spell while it's cast.

As far as why it would currently be too generous, I can only assume that there are some spells or spell like abilities that don't take concentration when they reasonably should. The ways that concentration can be broken or how easy it can be to maintain also make it possible for particularly built characters to effectively ignore this limitation.


From your other posts, you seem to terribly dislike any spellcasting at all.
I wouldn't say that's an entirely fair conclusion. PhoenixPhyre has said in the past that they've got a pretty involved home setting and if I'm remembering information correctly the restrictions on spellcasting are narrative focused much more than mechanically focused.

My personal opinion is that spellcasting could do with a trimming or martials should be given something unique to help them keep up. Trimming caster power and spell options is probably a better option for longevity because, as has been stated a few times, spell bloat is only going to widen this gap.

[jojo]

No, Concentration isn't "backwards" it's just... "dumb and, misguided."

What should have happened is that WoTC should have imposed a "threshold" on concentration to encourage player agency. By which, I mean that they should have made players choose between concentrating on "more spells with fewer targets" vs. "fewer spells with more targets" based on casting stat-bonuses. That way, if a character with WIS +3 wanted to provide 3 different buffs to 3 different allies as appropriate or, 3 different buffs to the same ally (again, as appropriate) they would be free to do so vs. providing the same buff to 3 different allies.

Going beyond this (2 spells or, 1 spell to more than the requisite number of allies) should have imposed disadvantage to maintain concentration.

Based on how things were actually done though (and, it's important to understand that this was sheer laziness) Concentration got conflated to Action Economy and, it also essentially "GIMPED EVERYTHING" in the entire game. Unfortunately though, it's actually not much of a "gimp" because various feats, etc, ensure that checks to maintain CON will be passed. Thus, rendering the whole exercise arbitrary and, pointless.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, on the quoted bit: it's already literally one spell ever, what other restriction would you put on it? You can't move? Any damage at all breaks it?

From your other posts, you seem to terribly dislike any spellcasting at all.

I wouldn't put any other restriction--I just wouldn't allow it. Period. Because it's totally unnecessary. It "solves" a problem by making dozens other ones worse. And doesn't solve the problem specified. It doesn't increase the possibilities, it just makes it easier to cheese things with wombo-combos. Which isn't fun for anyone but the munchkins.

Casters are in a decent place. They absolutely don't need more power, however. Sure, there might be a couple spells that could use concentration removed, but in general, most spells are either ok or need to be chopped down. Not because they're strong, but because they have absolutely no thematic resonance or meaning other than "I have lots of power and can do a bunch of unthematic things."

I dislike D&D spell-casting, mostly from a thematic point of view. Because it has very little resonance or fictional traction. It's pure power that makes coherent settings hard to put together.

Were it up to me, I'd make every spell-casting class much more along the lines of the sorcerer in breadth of options. No generalists. Everybody specializes. I'd also move most of the "utility" spells out of spellcasting entirely, letting anyone do them (given the right levels and finding the rituals and spending the time and effort). And I'd trade about 50% of all the spells for actual class features. The wizard is the worst, having no base class features other than "I cast more spells."



I wouldn't say that's an entirely fair conclusion. PhoenixPhyre has said in the past that they've got a pretty involved home setting and if I'm remembering information correctly the restrictions on spellcasting are narrative focused much more than mechanically focused.

My personal opinion is that spellcasting could do with a trimming or martials should be given something unique to help them keep up. Trimming caster power and spell options is probably a better option for longevity because, as has been stated a few times, spell bloat is only going to widen this gap.

Right. Although I don't actually, in play, restrict casters all that much. For all I say, I tend to play pretty close to the books, mainly out of laziness. I just don't go out of my way to grant casters extra power that they don't already have and enforce the rules that already exist. Because fundamentally from a mechanical point of view, it's mostly ok unless people go out of their way to break things. I just don't like the setup from an aesthetic and design point of view.

Personally, I wish they'd leaned into 4e's "everyone's magic, like it or not" point of view a bit harder. Remove the idea that any PC is just an ordinary joe (not that that jibes well with the design of the game). But at the same time, trim back some of the gonzo at the higher end. Instead of "Action Hero -> knock-off demigod", I'd prefer a "action hero -> mid-level superhero" scope. Where everyone gets to do cool things, but everyone's on the Captain America/Hawkeye range at most, not the Dr Strange/Superman range. Mainly because high-power supers settings are fundamentally incoherent--you can't write a coherent one with those kinds of power disparities. And, based on how things are currently, it's the casters that would need to be reined in. They certainly don't need buffs.

That last sentence is especially true--it's inherently easier to write new spells than anything else. Which means that spells, of all things, need to be carefully watched. Because otherwise simply the march of publication will produce terminal imbalance. And I've firmly come to believe that both nerfs and buffs are necessary to maintain balance. Buffs alone cause spirals and don't actually solve the problem--they just make it worse. Especially because they help produce an atmosphere of meta-chasing.



Based on how things were actually done though (and, it's important to understand that this was sheer laziness) Concentration got conflated to Action Economy and, it also essentially "GIMPED EVERYTHING" in the entire game. Unfortunately though, it's actually not much of a "gimp" because various feats, etc, ensure that checks to maintain CON will be passed. Thus, rendering the whole exercise arbitrary and, pointless.

"GIMPED EVERYTHING"...if everything is the power of wizards and clerics to win everything just by picking the class. Yes, concentration is too easy to maintain due to feats and multiclassing. Then the appropriate thing to do is to not allow that to happen (one way or another). Not say "ok, that means we can relax it further." We've seen that in every edition--the restrictions on casters get eased and eased...and the game falls apart as a result. Concentration does exactly what it sets out to do. Discourage one person from doing it all. Not just buff stacking. Not just debuff stacking. Not just summoning. All of those, together. Now you have to choose. Do I debuff? Do I buff? Do I summon? Do I manipulate the battlefield? Instead of just answering "Yes". Restrictions promote agency, when used within reason. Because without restrictions, there's no consequences for choice. And consequences are necessary for agency. Without opportunity cost, the only option is "who can pump out more, faster, wins." And settings and games disintegrate under the weight.

[Ortho]

A popular idea is to have casters provoke attack of opportunity when they cast, either make it work identically to prior editions and have a chance for any spell to fail or have it potentially break a concentration spell while it's cast.

Have you ever wanted the Mage Slayer feat with none of the investment? Have you ever wanted to cast Counterspell at will? Then try this new GitP-recommended method: standing five feet from them!

[Tanarii]

However, similar with the issue of warriors and spellcasters, the solution is not always lower the power of the good spells but raise the power of the bad spells. Some could be raised up, others should be nerfed down. Raising the power of all spells just powers up spellcasters.

For example, not everything should be raised to the power of Polymorph. That one could stand to be powered down quite a bit.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Have you ever wanted the Mage Slayer feat with none of the investment? Have you ever wanted to cast Counterspell at will? Then try this new GitP-recommended method: standing five feet from them!
First note - this is just adapting rules from previous editions, and casters were still very strong with this because you always had the option of not standing within 5ft of them. It's even easier for a spellcaster to keep distance from a melee in 5e as well.

Second, If it was free you might actually see it used, it's a bad feat.

Let's not pretend that all feats are worth their investment.

[Kane0]

First note - this is just adapting rules from previous editions, and casters were still very strong with this because you always had the option of not standing within 5ft of them. It's even easier for a spellcaster to keep distance from a melee in 5e as well.

Second, If it was free you might actually see it used, it's a bad feat.

Let's not pretend that all feats are worth their investment.

Could start with reaction attacks interrupting the trigger, so you dont whif thin air when a mage misty steps away.

[Hael]

Could start with reaction attacks interrupting the trigger, so you dont whif thin air when a mage misty steps away.

Our table house rules that a mage casting BAs does not trigger the reaction. Only actions do. If you use your action for a teleport like effect, the reaction goes off first however, and if that reaction has CC attached to it then it could in principle cause the action to fail (for instance if you were stunned).

This mage slayer feat for everyone (monsters included) was the very first thing we did to the game and definitely improves things somewhat (and really should be an optional rule in 5.5) and does help to balance some of the caster craziness.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, as far as concentration goes, this is true. 5e is its own game, distinct from 3.x. There was an understanding from the beginning that it would be different. Which rather renders the OP moot. (The post not the poster)

At the same time, 5e is still D&D.
Right. You are a magic user, you have a 1d4 Hit Die, roll to see how many HP you have at level 1. Also, roll for four spells from this table {shows table} and that's what starts in your book. You have to hunt for the rest. When you get to level 11 we will acknowledge your achievement by calling you a wizard.
That's D&D also.

5e as it originally released actually did a very good job of appealing to both the longtime fans and a new audience, though obviously there would always be people who weren't happy with some of the changes. True, it brought me back, but I guess 3.x fans are missing some of their favorite featues.


My references to appealing to a new audience not being at the expense of the existing audience is more related to their more recent changes, but that's a discussion for another time Watch out, the mods may be listening! :smallbiggrin:

This is why I said it was entering a decline. I'm not making a statement about the present, I'm attempting to predict the future. We saw this with the Disney Star Wars trilogy: The Force Awakens was generally pretty well received, being lightly criticized for rehashing the original trilogy but given a pass under the assumption that it's setting up the rest of the trilogy. The Last Jedi seemed to get very mixed reactions, with some pretty severe backlash, but still did well in the box office. The Rise of Skywalker did... not as well, making a little over half what The Force Awakens made, and getting far more critical reviews. I liked Rogue One better than any of the above. Tastes will differ.

The actual decline doesn't happen until it hits The Rise of Skywalker part of the cycle.
The Rise of Jar Jar Binks? (Who was a blatant ripoff of a cartoon character in the Dragon Magazine cartoon Snarfquest!)

And above all, for me, there's the hope it'd allow one to treat it like a puzzle, combining too weaker effects into a greater whole than two generically strong ones that don't synergize particularly well beyond "being strong". Bane and blindness, for example? :smallwink:

From your other posts, you seem to terribly dislike any spellcasting at all. I played in his campaign for over a year, and we are in another one now with new PCs. I have never seen "I dislike spell casting" manifested at the table. Some limitations:
1. We did agree that Wish/Sim cheese was right out. I did have a sim who came in handy in the late game.
2. I also didn't get to true polymorph a bunch of inanimate objects (Object to Creature) into a young silver dragons, but we did find a narratively valid way, that fit his world building, to find a soul that would be happy to be a silver dragon, so I got to do it once. :smallsmile: She's off flying around now, being a young silver dragon. My bard was trying to hook her up with a young bronze dragon (matchmaker!) we had met back in our single digit level days when the campaign wrapped up ...

A popular idea is to have casters provoke attack of opportunity In this edition, they are called opportunity attacks. (Pet pedantic thing with me).

I wouldn't say that's an entirely fair conclusion. PhoenixPhyre has said in the past that they've got a pretty involved home setting and if I'm remembering information correctly the restrictions on spellcasting are narrative focused much more than mechanically focused. Yes. I played a full caster from 1 to 20. No hate for spell casting. His less than loving approach to the War Caster/Resilient Con/Concentration combo platter, though, may be informed somewhat by my obsession to do all I could to keep Con up, since most of my spells used concentration.

My personal opinion is that spellcasting could do with a trimming or martials should be given something unique to help them keep up. Trimming caster power and spell options is probably a better option for longevity because, as has been stated a few times, spell bloat is only going to widen this gap. Yes.

No, Concentration isn't "backwards" it's just... "dumb and, misguided."
No it isn't dumb and misguided. It puts the PC in a position where they need to make a choice if they want powerful buff or debuff effects in most cases. "You want power you pay a price" isn't a bad design theme. TANSTAAFL.

Have you ever wanted the Mage Slayer feat with none of the investment? Have you ever wanted to cast Counterspell at will? Then try this new GitP-recommended method: standing five feet from them! No comment. :smallsmile: Yes giggle.

This mage slayer feat for everyone (monsters included) was the very first thing we did to the game and definitely improves things somewhat (and really should be an optional rule in 5.5) and does help to balance some of the caster craziness. Interesting choice.

[Greywander]

If you give everyone, monsters included, Mage Slayer by default, then it feels like there should be a way to restore the original behavior. Tacking it on to Warcaster seems like a fitting option. Also, touch spells or spells with a melee range should probably bypass it anyway. It would be a little ridiculous if a cleric casting Word of Radiance provoked an attack from everyone around them.

[Willie the Duck]

The Rise of Jar Jar Binks? (Who was a blatant ripoff of a cartoon character in the Dragon Magazine cartoon Snarfquest!)

Cartoon charatacter? I've met the zeetvah myself, and he's animated to be sure, but definitely flesh and blood. Now excuse me, my bowl is calling. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Cartoon charatacter? I've met the zeetvah myself, and he's animated to be sure, but definitely flesh and blood. Now excuse me, my bowl is calling. :smallbiggrin:
Comic book character I still have some of the old issues with those comics in them. :smalltongue:

[Pex]

"GIMPED EVERYTHING"...if everything is the power of wizards and clerics to win everything just by picking the class. Yes, concentration is too easy to maintain due to feats and multiclassing. Then the appropriate thing to do is to not allow that to happen (one way or another). Not say "ok, that means we can relax it further." We've seen that in every edition--the restrictions on casters get eased and eased...and the game falls apart as a result. Concentration does exactly what it sets out to do. Discourage one person from doing it all. Not just buff stacking. Not just debuff stacking. Not just summoning. All of those, together. Now you have to choose. Do I debuff? Do I buff? Do I summon? Do I manipulate the battlefield? Instead of just answering "Yes". Restrictions promote agency, when used within reason. Because without restrictions, there's no consequences for choice. And consequences are necessary for agency. Without opportunity cost, the only option is "who can pump out more, faster, wins." And settings and games disintegrate under the weight.

I have no issue with this argument. Yes, I wouldn't mind if spellcasters could concentrate on more than one spell, eventually, but I agree they don't need it. They aren't being "punished", in my biased view of that matter. It's a restriction, especially compared to previous editions, but they're definitely not made useless by it to go by extreme language. This is why I like the scaling Cantrip damage spells. It gives spellcasters something to do that feels like being a spellcaster while concentrating on a spell. They're not spending turns doing nothing but concentrating by default. Sometimes, though, that is a good voluntary strategy. Sometimes a concentration spell might be Absolutely Crucial for the party to have going, so casting the spell, get as far away from the combat area as possible, and Dodge, Dodge, Dodge forever just might be the best thing to do. I've done it. I've seen it done. It was the best move. My quibble is particular spells shouldn't have been Concentration limited.


Some could be raised up, others should be nerfed down. Raising the power of all spells just powers up spellcasters.

For example, not everything should be raised to the power of Polymorph. That one could stand to be powered down quite a bit.

I find most spells are only subjectively too powerful or too weak. I can agree a spell is powerful but find it an appropriate thing for a player to do for the fun of playing the game. Polymorph is one of them. People have different tolerance levels of PC power. Mine is higher than many people who complain about D&D magic. For those who have low tolerance they may complain about D&D magic because of it, but D&D is not wrong about it and does not need to change to their tolerance preference.

[Ortho]

First note - this is just adapting rules from previous editions, and casters were still very strong with this because you always had the option of not standing within 5ft of them. It's even easier for a spellcaster to keep distance from a melee in 5e as well.

Second, If it was free you might actually see it used, it's a bad feat.

Let's not pretend that all feats are worth their investment.

See, that's the bit I don't understand. Mage Slayer is weak enough that you don't want to pick it up as a feat...but you want it badly enough that you're giving it to everyone for free? :smallconfused:

Something's not adding up here.

[Kane0]

My quibble is particular spells shouldn't have been Concentration limited.


Seconded. For example I love having Intellect Fortress on my Gith sorcerer for the flavor, but i'll be damned if I can ever justify using it over Slow, Haste, Fly, Fear, Sleet Storm, etc and we're currently hunting down servants of a Mind Flayer god!

[Hytheter]

See, that's the bit I don't understand. Mage Slayer is weak enough that you don't want to pick it up as a feat...but you want it badly enough that you're giving it to everyone for free? :smallconfused:

Something's not adding up here.

One character taking Mage Slayer is not the universal caster debuff that giving it to everybody would be. It's about the mage, not the slayer.

[ProsecutorGodot]

See, that's the bit I don't understand. Mage Slayer is weak enough that you don't want to pick it up as a feat...but you want it badly enough that you're giving it to everyone for free? :smallconfused:

Something's not adding up here.

I think a feat should be something that shapes a characters gameplay approach, Mage Slayer doesn't do that well enough to warrant picking it over an ASI or a different feat.

However, if it were available as a default option (in a similar vein to charger) there will be instances where it does shape a characters approach to combat. I'm reasonably confident that even if everyone had the option to OA a Mage within 5ft they would still have to choose whether that's the best use of their reaction and whether being within this close a distance is worth the risk.

And to clear up why potential misunderstanding, I'm only advocating for the first bullet point as a default rule. Given an appropriate replacement the feat could remain as a worthwhile option. That or increase the range of it's effects when you choose it as a feat so a reach or ranged weapon could benefit. It's a situational enough benefit that it could use some tuning.

One character taking Mage Slayer is not the universal caster debuff that giving it to everybody would be. It's about the mage, not the slayer.
Exactly, the primary goal is to give martials an incentive to engage directly with mages by giving the mages a clear weakness.

[Unoriginal]

Exactly, the primary goal is to give martials an incentive to engage directly with mages by giving the mages a clear weakness.

But you said that a caster can just chose to not be within 5ft, and that it's even easier to do it in 5e.

It's not a weakness if the characters can just choose to ignore it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But you said that a caster can just chose to not be within 5ft, and that it's even easier to do it in 5e.

It's not a weakness if the characters can just choose to ignore it.

When I said that it was in reference to the fact that they had any number of movement spells that they could cast and be outside of range to take the OA, effectively getting off free.

If every martial had the ability to punish a character they successfully advanced on rather than helplessly swinging in empty space as they teleport away, then things would be less easy for the mage, right?

Side note, in a lot of cases the current interaction will be getting worse off for martials, enemy casters are going to know more utility based spells (misty step is important in this instance) and will instead have a special spell like action so they will ignore the only current penalty they'd have in being restricted to a cantrip for their action. Mage Slayer is only becoming less useful with time and it's already a poor enough choice

[georgie_leech]

Now, if Mage Slayer, say, forced a Concentration check to avoid losing the spell altogether a la Roy's Spellsplinter Maneuver, that'd be something...

[kazaryu]

36 damage per round after 3 rounds of setting it up and 3 spells plus two uses of another limited resource (Wild Shape)? At level 10?

An pretty average level 5 Fighter with PAM and GWM is dealing what? 2d10+1d4+30+(3xStr mod) multiplied by a (generous) 60% hit rate for 31 damage per round. No resources spent. No set-up. Colour me unimpressed by your level 10 Druid and all those rounds and resources spent for less than what someone half their level can do faster and more efficiently. None of the rest of your post is really relevant because two Wizards can still do all of it! Effect stacking simply isn't the problem that single-Concentration is solving.

a 60% hit rate....at lvl 5 with a +1 to hit? (+3 starting stat (can't get higher, you spent all your ASI's on feats), +3 prof, -5GWM) so...you're assuming an AC of 13? strange. people really, really need to remember how significant the to-hit debuff is on GWM. particularly for low accuracy characters. unless you're also just assuming that a lvl 5 fighter can pull advantage out of his ass without spending a resource?

edit: i wanna point out that my point here isn't neccesarily that your overall point was wrong (i.e. your point being that 36dpr with 3 rounds of setup isn't really that broken) just that the example you used was horrendous, and removes credibility from your overall argument.

another edit: for a 60% hit rate with a +1 to-hit the AC would actually have to be 9, not 12.


Is it a problem if the party puts all their proverbial spellcasting eggs in one basket? Wouldn't a prudent party spread their buffs and debuffs out anyway?. no, for the most part buffs stack quadratically, not linearly. they're more effective on someone that is already buff. similarly a buff is more efficient when its cast on a character of a higher level. the reason for that that is that most buffs do similar things to what level ups do.
edit: the exception to this is accuracy buffs, those tend to benefit low accuracy target more than high accuracy targets. but messing with accuracy is also more complicated than just 'buff the low accuracy ally' since you also need to factor in the damage associated with that accuracy




I'm not comparing it to what came before. I'm comparing it to the alternative of "not having a limit of one spell". I'm suggesting an alternative in which you can still disrupt spells using mundane means; forcing concentration checks to maintain spell effects, only you can concentrate on multiple effects simultaneously. Is there some glaring issue with this that I'm not seeing?
i mean...from a game design standpoint, casters are still top tier, even with how limited their spell slots are and how limiting the concentration mechanic is. removing the concentration mechanic is just a straight buff to casters...the whole point is to limit casters.


What about team Wizard and his Barbarian Friends? They don't have the option of spreading out their buffs and debuffs, let alone if they want area control or summons in the mix. Is "pick one and love it" the message? oh no...those poor players, having to make tactical decisions based on a given situation

here's the thing: in theory unbinding concentration means you can have more unique combinations of magic...that is true. the reality is that it will tend to lead to players consistently doing the same thing over and over again. concentration (as it stands) encourages changing up your spells as the situation demands...now, obviously there are several generically good spells that are just...way too good. bless for example. but that isn't a problem with concentration, its a problem with how the spells are designed.




It's not telling at all, it just means I had a wider point to address. Do I want more minionmancy? Yes. Do I want more buffs and debuffs? Yes. Do I want more area control? Yes. I want spellcasters to be spellcasters and that means allowing them the freedom to cast their spells. Do I think they should be able to do it without limit? Of course not, that's why I'm exploring this idea. You'll note that I've not outlined anything resembling a solid rule yet; I'm looking for the specific purpose and effect that "single concentration" has and whether it is, in and of itself, of value compared to the alternative and what, if any, the limitations should or could be. Your pointing out a bunch of spells without explaining why they'd be problematic if "unbound", doesn't actually help the conversation, because unbased opinions aren't very informative.

.
you claim that that is what you're doing. but the way your arguments are coming across it seems more like you're simply dismissing the existing mechanic as bad. and when anyone accurately answers your question, you dismiss those answers too. Im sure thats not your intent, but that is how i was reading it, at least.


concentration, as it exists does all of the things you claim it doesn't, and does it fairly well. and most importantly, it does it in a fairly simple way with little bookkeeping. you could obviously accomplish the same thing in a variety of ways: but the method suggested isn't simple, and adds significant bookkeeping. of course the rules themselves *could* be more robust, all of 5e could ahve a more robust ruleset...it could be 3e all over again. Its deliberately designed to not be. and the concentration mechanic is, IMO, one of the more elegant simplifications.

[ProsecutorGodot]

a 60% hit rate....at lvl 5 with a +1 to hit? (+3 starting stat (can't get higher, you spent all your ASI's on feats), +3 prof, -5GWM) so...you're assuming an AC of 13? strange. people really, really need to remember how significant the to-hit debuff is on GWM. particularly for low accuracy characters. unless you're also just assuming that a lvl 5 fighter can pull advantage out of his ass without spending a resource?

It depends on how your table does stat generation, if stats are rolled you can start with an 18-20 main stat.

[kazaryu]

It depends on how your table does stat generation, if stats are rolled you can start with an 18-20 main stat.

well obviously, but thats not typically whats used in these types of discussions, since its so rare...that being said, actually i got my numbers wrong. a 60% hit rate would mean you ned to roll an 8 to hit. which would be a 9AC. so even with a 20 in main stat it would still need an assumed 11AC to have a 60% hit rate. which is insane.

[Willie the Duck]

well obviously, but thats not typically whats used in these types of discussions, since its so rare...

Rolled stats are rare or starting with an 18-20 when rolling for stats is rare? In either case, I find that hard to believe. PB or array are convenience for discussion because they are a shared baseline power threshhold, but beyond that no they aren't an assumed form of play.

[Silly Name]

Rolled stats are rare or starting with an 18-20 when rolling for stats is rare?

Both. I find that not a lot of 5e players do rolled stats (some do, I do it on occasion depending on party and DM consensus and it's not a dealbreaker for me either way). Anedoctal evidence, sure, but it's a general sentiment I've seen expressed both in real life and on multiple discussion boards.

Statistically, generating the extreme results with rolled stats is less likely than generating median results, so starting with a 18 or even a 20 is still rare even if you do rolled stats.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is why I like the scaling Cantrip damage spells. It gives spellcasters something to do that feels like being a spellcaster while concentrating on a spell. They're not spending turns doing nothing but concentrating by default.
True enough, although my early experiences with Sacred Flame (while I was concentrating on bless) was entirely negative: I named it Suck Red Flame due to how often our enemies made their dex saves at lower levels ...

Sometimes a concentration spell might be Absolutely Crucial for the party to have going, so casting the spell, get as far away from the combat area as possible, and Dodge, Dodge, Dodge forever just might be the best thing to do. I've done it. Likewise.

My quibble is particular spells shouldn't have been Concentration limited. Shield of faith, particularly on a paladin, and Divine favor as Conc spells for a character in melee seem to me a bad fit.

Seconded. For example I love having Intellect Fortress on my Gith sorcerer for the flavor, but i'll be damned if I can ever justify using it over Slow, Haste, Fly, Fear, Sleet Storm, etc and we're currently hunting down servants of a Mind Flayer god! Maybe boost it up to level 4 and treat it like Freedom of Movement? Lasts an hour but no conc?

concentration (as it stands) encourages changing up your spells as the situation demands...now, obviously there are several generically good spells that are just...way too good. bless for example. but that isn't a problem with concentration, its a problem with how the spells are designed. This is what I have found as a support caster.


it seems more like you're simply dismissing the existing mechanic as bad. and when anyone accurately answers your question, you dismiss those answers too. Im sure thats not your intent, but that is how i was reading it, at least. Came across to me that way as well.

concentration, as it exists does all of the things you claim it doesn't, and does it fairly well. and most importantly, it does it in a fairly simple way with little bookkeeping. It took me a while to get a feel for this (easy to forget to make that con check during play until you teach/train your table to be aware of them) but now I appreciate it more than I initially did.

PB or array are convenience for discussion because they are a shared baseline power threshhold, but beyond that no they aren't an assumed form of play.
Except in AL.

[CMCC]

As someone who literally recreated fictional characters into D&D builds, I can say that the way concentration works in 5e strongly aligns with what you’d see in a movie or comic book. Even today I was thinking this very thing.

Should that the be the only consideration for design? Of course not. But I think it’s a strong consideration.

[AdAstra]

"One active at a time"? Are you thinking a character could have something long term like Pass Without Trace up, then cast something with a short term concentration, then go back to Pass Without Trace? That seems like an interesting mechanic that would help out some of the 1/2 casters with limited slots and access to things like Hunter's Mark and the previously mentioned PWT. Though again, I suppose it represents power creep for the full casters who probably don't need it.

More generally to this thread I do think there are some casters, notably Rangers and Druids, who just don't seem to have enough non-concentration spells at some levels. I think rather than a complete overhaul there should be a few more non-concentration options for those classes.

Though your idea is also interesting, what I meant was just splitting up the two effects of Concentration. So you would have one tag for spells where you can only have one active at once, and a separate tag for spells where getting hurt can cause the spell to fizzle. Spells would be able to have both properties, but wouldn't always have both.

The main things this would affect to my knowledge would be both a lot of the weak buff/debuff spells, which are rarely worth your concentration but would likely be too powerful (and equally importantly, have less interesting counterplay) if they couldn't be removed by whacking the caster, and self buffs, which tend to be pretty limited by the fact that getting hit risks losing the effect, but shouldn't be something you can just stack forever. Things like summons on the other hand are definitely deserving of both. This allows for making certain spells more viable to use, as well as reducing the power of others without ruining them.

With regards to the Attack Of Opportunity stuff, that's room for more properties along similar lines. You could have a tag for spells that trigger opportunity attacks and can fizzle that way (or a tag for the spells that don't trigger them along with a general rule about it, which would also work). I personally like the idea of being able to prevent spellcasting by keeping the caster off balance, but there are certainly spells that just don't work if that's a universal rule. Extending it to ranged characters that Ready an attack might also be good, but it might need just a bit more limitation than that.

[JellyPooga]

...but the way your arguments are coming across it seems more like you're simply dismissing the existing mechanic as bad. and when anyone accurately answers your question, you dismiss those answers too. Im sure thats not your intent, but that is how i was reading it, at least.

It's absolutely not my intent and for that I apologise, as well as for losing it a little in some of my more recent posts in this thread. Allow me to rephrase and start over...

I like concentration. In many regards:
- The limitation it puts on rampant spellcasting taking over the game, with particular regard to stacking spell effects.
- The ability for it to be more easily disrupted (compared to older editions) by mundane means, including methods other than damage.
- Yes, even the encouragement to use teamwork and lessen the impact of 5-min workdays.
All these (among others) are valid points in favour of it that have been brought up by multiple people on this topic. All of these points are ones that, when I first picked up the 5e PHB many moons ago, I looked at immediately saw the benefit of; coming from years of 3.5/PF it was a refreshing step backward from the dazzling magical lights of that era.

However...after years of playing and discussing 5e and the expanding material being released for it, I'm starting to see that the concentration mechanic isn't actually achieving what I, personally, thought it would.
- Spellcasting still dominates the game, particularly at higher levels.
- Disrupting spellcasting beyond Tier 1 play is either too late (the spell has been cast and used), too hard (concentration saves are remarkably easy in many cases) or simply a happy by-product of a more action/resource efficient action that also happens to disrupt the spell (like Fireballing the room from orbit...it's the only way to be sure).
- 5-minute adventuring days are still very much a thing and outside of a select few features, there's really very little to encourage teamwork in spellcasting, just limited choice.

It made me question the mechanic as a whole and what, precisely, it does. Yes, to take one of those points, to an extent it encourages teamwork by forcing characters to rely on allies for stacked effects, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that without concentration (or more specifically the single spell concentration) that same teamwork cannot or will not be encouraged by whatever rule replaces it (also bearing in mind that from the start this thread has been about replacing the concentration limitation, not removing it).

Now I don't think there's any easy fix for spellcasting being a significant influence on the late game; the very existence of iconic spells like Wish and Forcecage in the D&D canon means that to redress that balance involves pulling those without them up to that level rather than limiting spellcasters down. That's not what this discussion is about though. Where I perceived a flaw is in one aspect of the concentration mechanic; the single spell limit.

Why do I think it flawed?

Simply put, it doesn't apply. There are many spells that have ongoing duration and aren't limited by concentration. This renders the whole notion of limiting stacking, encouraging teamwork and reducing the impact of the 5-minute workday entirely nonsensical. All you have to do is know the right spells and you can cast long duration spells, stack them, burn through them all in a single combat and do it all by yourself with no outside assistance, to your hearts content. The single-concentration spell limit, with this in mind, begins to feel very arbitrary. Why can't I cast Conjure Animals alongside Dancing Lights, but I can Conjure me up a whole pack of wolves with a Light spell active no problem (assuming I have access to all those spells)? It also cannot be an issue of balance. As I've mentioned previously, if game balance were the issue then there'd be some rule preventing two spellcasters from both casting Conjure Animals in the same place simultaneously.

This isn't, to my mind, so much a problem of individual spells, but the limit itself. Should some spells have the ability to run alongside others and/or without risk of disruption? Sure, I can go with that. I want there to be spells that run "incognito" in the background and many spells, like Mage Armour or Armour of Agathys are predicated on being in a situation that almost guarantees they'll fail if subject to Concentration Saves.

So there's two aspects to the nature of the single-spell limit; its magnitude and where it applies. Currently the magnitude is 1 and where it applies is to the spellcaster casting the spell. At first blush this seems ok, but (assuming you follow my reasoning) that isn't working, so either or both of those elements needs to change.
- There have been responses in this thread suggesting to simply increase the limit, potentially using Proficiency as a guide. I don't think that works either; it doesn't address any of the problems that plague the single-spell limit and only serves to increase the power/versatility of spellcasters in general. That's not what I'm looking for.
- There's also been the suggestion of reintroducing Opportunity Attacks for casting spells. I dislike this too because it's very easy to circumnavigate with "silly" tactics, would likely mean adding another rule for spells that don't provoke them (because they'd be daft otherwise; looking at the likes of GFB and Shocking Grasp) and it still doesn't address the issues at hand.
- Most recently a kind of one-on-one-off type of system has been suggested and that has some merit, but it's still just a variation on a limit of 1. It fails to improve on any of the problem aspects.

My solution then, is to put the magnitude of the limit aside for a moment and look at the other aspect; i.e where the limit applies. Putting it on the spellcaster themselves, no matter the nature or size of the limit, doesn't seem to address the problem. So where else might it apply? As stated in my OP, lets look at the target of the spells instead of the caster. Now I concede that buffs and debuffs are not the sum total of spells with ongoing effects, but it's a starting point. What might be the benefit of applying a limit to the number of effects affecting a character, instead of the number of spells a caster can maintain? Let's take a look...

- Effect stacking. It absolutely addresses this. Might even be the primary focus, but that aside the most obvious effect of placing the limit on the target is to actually limit spell effects (or effects in general, but more on that later) from stacking too much to make crazy combinations. This is something that the single-concentration spell limit simply does not do. At all.

- Unified rules for effect limits. As I mention in my OP, it allows us to integrate the rule into something like the attunement rules for magic items and even extend it into the number of effects that can affect a character as a whole. What does this, itself achieve? For one, it simplifies. There are many effects in the game (as I've mentioned previously) and not all of them are spell effects. Tracking all of them is a lot of book-keeping. With a limit to the number of effects on a given character, the headache of tracking all the spells, features, items, etc is reduced. Without a single-concentration limit, you might be able to buff someone with a dozen spells, but if the limit of the number of effects on them is limited to 5 because they're a Tier 2 character (to throw out an arbitrary number for the sake of the example) and they're already Wild Shaped and benefiting from Bardic Inspiration and Heroes Feast and they have a Staff of the Woodlands attuned...you're only actually able to give them the benefit of 1 spell. This is where the tactical choices start coming in of what effects you want or need active on you at any given time (and where I might see the benefit of the suggested one-on-one-off style rule too; suppressing effects temporarily to benefit from others could certainly be a thing).

- Teamwork. With a limit greater than 1 that applies to the target rather than the caster, the caster is encouraged to be less selfish with their spells. They're not going to reserve their one concentration slot for the spell that helps themselves the most because they have the option of casting that and another spell that helps someone else. If we open the limit to all effects then the teamwork aspect of pooling and using all the teams resources in the most efficient way becomes part of the game. Under the current rules it's all just a game of what the individual can do and how often, but if the game-state changes to one where the effect limits apply across the board then when the Bard uses their Bardic Inspiration and when the Wizard casts Haste becomes a tactical concern greater than it is currently because the most valuable target for both might not be able to sustain both simultaneously. The same might also apply to magic item distribution; is it more valuable to give all the items to one guy that never needs buffing, or does everyone share them out and keep a slot open for that critical game-changing buff?

There's probably some other benefits I'm not thinking of right now and I'm sure there's some downfalls too, but that's why I opened this thread (and I've got to go do the shopping, otherwise I could sit here all day exploring the idea!).

Oh, just quickly (because, you know, shopping), non-buff/debuff spells (Walls, Conjures, area controls, etc.) could be considered active on the spellcaster themselves for the purpose of regulating their limit and further, this might open the possibility of spellcasters having greater limits for just such a purpose, allowing greater scope of archetypes (e.g. A Bard College that gets additional "effect slot/s" that can only be used for Illusions or a Druid Circle that offers an additional slot for Conurations). Food for thought.

[Pex]

Though your idea is also interesting, what I meant was just splitting up the two effects of Concentration. So you would have one tag for spells where you can only have one active at once, and a separate tag for spells where getting hurt can cause the spell to fizzle. Spells would be able to have both properties, but wouldn't always have both.

The main things this would affect to my knowledge would be both a lot of the weak buff/debuff spells, which are rarely worth your concentration but would likely be too powerful (and equally importantly, have less interesting counterplay) if they couldn't be removed by whacking the caster, and self buffs, which tend to be pretty limited by the fact that getting hit risks losing the effect, but shouldn't be something you can just stack forever. Things like summons on the other hand are definitely deserving of both. This allows for making certain spells more viable to use, as well as reducing the power of others without ruining them.



I like this idea. It solves my issue with Concentration as is while acknowledging the risk of everyone having everything. The fighter can have the wizard's Magic Weapon spell buff and go to town against the monster and the DM need not worry about Magic Weapon being cast on all PC weapons to maintain expected difficulty. The player gets to benefit from a small buff like Shield of Faith or Flameblade without worry he loses it before he gets to benefit. Devil in the details of which spell goes with which effect, but the idea works for me.

[Kane0]

However...after years of playing and discussing 5e and the expanding material being released for it, I'm starting to see that the concentration mechanic isn't actually achieving what I, personally, thought it would.
- Spellcasting still dominates the game, particularly at higher levels.
- Disrupting spellcasting beyond Tier 1 play is either too late (the spell has been cast and used), too hard (concentration saves are remarkably easy in many cases) or simply a happy by-product of a more action/resource efficient action that also happens to disrupt the spell (like Fireballing the room from orbit...it's the only way to be sure).
- 5-minute adventuring days are still very much a thing and outside of a select few features, there's really very little to encourage teamwork in spellcasting, just limited choice.


Im not convinced that this is the fault of concentration, or at least concentration alone.

For example the gradual shift away from short rest abilities into more long rest ones when it comes to 5-min adventure days, and the fact that the vast majority of magical or supernatural powers available to PCs takes the form of spells.

[JellyPooga]

Im not convinced that this is the fault of concentration, or at least concentration alone.

For example the gradual shift away from short rest abilities into more long rest ones when it comes to 5-min adventure days, and the fact that the vast majority of magical or supernatural powers available to PCs takes the form of spells.

I agree that it's not single-spell concentration that's the sole problem, but I think it is part of the problem. A shift away from it to a more cohesive rule on the subject may help to alleviate some of the symptoms and even regulate powet creep to an extent.

[KorvinStarmast]

A shift away from it to a more cohesive rule on the subject may help to alleviate some of the symptoms and even regulate power creep to an extent. That's as firm as Jell-o. Platitudes don't help.
What specific recommendation do you have to handle this? In this case, the old adage about "if you are gonna complain about it make sure to include your solution" seems to apply given how integral to the system concentration is.

[Ionathus]

I appreciate your insights but largely think this is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist...or, if it does, is incorrectly attributed to Concentration.


However...after years of playing and discussing 5e and the expanding material being released for it, I'm starting to see that the concentration mechanic isn't actually achieving what I, personally, thought it would.
- Spellcasting still dominates the game, particularly at higher levels.
- Disrupting spellcasting beyond Tier 1 play is either too late (the spell has been cast and used), too hard (concentration saves are remarkably easy in many cases) or simply a happy by-product of a more action/resource efficient action that also happens to disrupt the spell (like Fireballing the room from orbit...it's the only way to be sure).
- 5-minute adventuring days are still very much a thing and outside of a select few features, there's really very little to encourage teamwork in spellcasting, just limited choice.

Points 1 and 3 are the same thing here, and not specific to Concentration - they are general problems with 5e that this Concentration homebrew would not solve. The advice to "actually do half a dozen encounters in 1 adventuring day" gets a lot of scorn but I've always found it works painlessly for my games. My group's spellcasters always have to choose whether to use a spell to circumvent an obstacle (narrative or physical) or save it for the next combat in half an hour. Spellcasting is a resource management game and it works. It's not about pre-buffing or multiple sustained spells: it's about giving them more than one thing to spend resources on before the boss battle.

Point 2 has never caused problems for me. My (level 11) PCs break concentration on enemy spellcasters pretty reliably, and are constantly worried about their own concentration. Piling damage on the archmage is a tactic for them, because they know that a big damage burst can break concentration. Sure, if you have a PC tailor their build to never fail CON saves it can throw this off balance. But the player invested resources to do that! They gave up other character creation choices to make this character who's good at CON saves. Let it be worth that investment!


Simply put, it doesn't apply. There are many spells that have ongoing duration and aren't limited by concentration. This renders the whole notion of limiting stacking, encouraging teamwork and reducing the impact of the 5-minute workday entirely nonsensical. All you have to do is know the right spells and you can cast long duration spells, stack them, burn through them all in a single combat and do it all by yourself with no outside assistance, to your hearts content...<snip>...As I've mentioned previously, if game balance were the issue then there'd be some rule preventing two spellcasters from both casting Conjure Animals in the same place simultaneously.

Yeah, and I think those ongoing buffs that don't require concentration are useful but ultimately not game-breaking. Again, I think you're not accounting for the cost of choices.

Sure, I (the Champion Fighter) could have my caster party pre-cast Aid, Death Ward, Foresight, Freedom of Movement, Longstrider, Regenerate, and True Seeing on me, all without using their Concentration slots. I would absolutely be much more powerful with these buffs. But I'd still just be a single person who's really good at hitting things with a metal stick, and my casters would have spent a big chunk of their most powerful resources, which they could have likely used to much greater effect in the fight itself (I count 33 spell levels' worth, including a level 9 slot. Ouch).

Also, the game doesn't need a rule that prevents multiple Conjure Animals castings, because it already discourages that through the Concentration mechanic. There's nothing stopping two spellcasters from casting Conjure Animals and summoning 16 wolves...but if either one of them wants to cast any other Concentration spell (or needs to pivot in the middle of the battle, because no plan survives first contact with the enemy), then one of them will probably pick something else - both for the tactical advantages of variety, as well as the aesthetic fun of doing something different.


- Effect stacking. It absolutely addresses this. Might even be the primary focus, but that aside the most obvious effect of placing the limit on the target is to actually limit spell effects (or effects in general, but more on that later) from stacking too much to make crazy combinations. This is something that the single-concentration spell limit simply does not do. At all.

Emphasis mine: The current rules absolutely do limit buff stacking. The limit is simply implied rather than stated.

If you have 2 martials and 3 casters, then you only have 3 concentration buffs to split between the 2 martials. Even a party specifically built for this kind of abuse - say, a single Champion Fighter and 5 buffing casters - can only achieve 5 concentration buffs total. You could certainly stack the deck on those 5 buffs, but you'd be hard-pressed to show me 5 Concentration spells that can render that Champion Fighter completely unkillable...and once they drop unconscious (because all the monsters attack the glowing, flying, flaming, speedy avatar of death, go figure), that's all 5 buffs wasted until they're back on their feet.

Would it be interesting? Yes. Do I want to run that fight? Absolutely. But it would not be OP or broken or unbalanced. The players would be expending multiple high-value resources and giving up on other uses for their Concentration slot to achieve the desired effect. The problem you're perceiving here doesn't exist.


- Unified rules for effect limits.

- Teamwork.

I make all of my homebrew decisions based on "will this make the game more fun to play, or less?" and having all players simultaneously track all their buffs - or worse yet, make the fighter who already can't do magic give up their cool flaming sword so that the wizard can cast Fly on them because the party really needs the fighter to fly right now - sounds like a far greater headache than anything Concentration does.

The onus should be on the person casting the spell. It's their spell, they're in charge of it, and they decide who gets it. Maybe that encourages selfish play a little bit...but I've never noticed such a thing. My paladin loves casting Shield of Faith on other people. I use Enhance Ability on others all the time when I'm a PC. My wizard just Hasted the barbarian last session, and it was sick as hell. The entire table loved it.


There's probably some other benefits I'm not thinking of right now and I'm sure there's some downfalls too, but that's why I opened this thread (and I've got to go do the shopping, otherwise I could sit here all day exploring the idea!).

Oh, just quickly (because, you know, shopping), non-buff/debuff spells (Walls, Conjures, area controls, etc.) could be considered active on the spellcaster themselves for the purpose of regulating their limit and further, this might open the possibility of spellcasters having greater limits for just such a purpose, allowing greater scope of archetypes (e.g. A Bard College that gets additional "effect slot/s" that can only be used for Illusions or a Druid Circle that offers an additional slot for Conurations). Food for thought.

I hope this doesn't sound mean-spirited because I intend for it to be lighthearted snark, but something about your phrasing here is reminding me more and more of this XKCD comic (https://xkcd.com/793/). As I see it, you've essentially stated that you believe the current system is clunky and inelegant, and then offered a new elegant, intuitive approach...which immediately spawned a bunch of questions, which immediately required a truckload of clarification rules.

So instead of powerful sustained spells being Concentration to prevent stacking and abuse, which I do consider quite elegant, we have new rules to prevent abuse:

Some spell types being tracked by the buffed PC
Different spell types being tracked by the caster
Extra rules for conjuration to prevent multiple tandem summonings
New rules that factor attunement and non-concentration spells into the mix
Eliminated or less intuitive rules for breaking a caster's concentration

I don't see the benefits, honestly. I think all of the problems you've listed aren't Concentration problems. If your players are pathologically selfish with their buffs, or if (as you mentioned earlier) they aren't paying attention to the buffs that others are giving them, I don't think you'll solve those problems with homebrew changes. Those are out-of-game issues, and if they're hurting the game, you'll need to find an out-of-game fix for them.

[JellyPooga]

Some spell types being tracked by the buffed PC
Different spell types being tracked by the caster
Extra rules for conjuration to prevent multiple tandem summonings
New rules that factor attunement and non-concentration spells into the mix
Eliminated or less intuitive rules for breaking a caster's concentration


I really appreciate the constructive feedback.

That said, maybe it's the way I've presented things, but the above list (quoted)? None of that is what I'm suggesting.

1/2) The spellcaster can/would still have the onus of tracking the duration and effect of their own spells. Just whether or not a given target is valid and whether the target wants to be a target has changed.

3) I'm not proposing changing the specifics of any spells, let alone conjurations and including whether or not they're designated "Concentration" or not. I was saying that because there aren't rule adjudicating that particular case, the current single-concentration rule cannot claim to be controlling the abuse of such (or similar).

4) No new rules, only changed ones. Attunement extends to include all temporary effects, whether they're a spell, item or class feature (specifics of which not yet discussed). Concentration changes to remove the "only one concentration spell" limitation. As I've mentioned, limiting all effects, concentration or otherwise, spell or otherwise, means less effects in play and therefore less book-keeping. Less tracking, not more.

5) What's less intuitive about removing the single concentration element? I've also explicitly said I have no intention of removing the disruption element. Again, an element not yet discussed is how disruption will function with multiple effects in play; will it be "one save to lose them all" or "one save per effect"? I've made no mention of having non-concentration spells be subject to spell disruption.

[Kane0]

I agree that it's not single-spell concentration that's the sole problem, but I think it is part of the problem. A shift away from it to a more cohesive rule on the subject may help to alleviate some of the symptoms and even regulate powet creep to an extent.

Hmm. See, i'd prefer going the other way, giving more characters uses for concentration (especially martials) and spreading around magical effects into other things that arent spells. Couple that with tweaking some buffs to use attunement instead of concentration and add/remove concentration to some edge case spells where its required and that might work more smoothly, especially in the face of power creep.
That and bring back a balance between short and long rest resources for all races and classes, so everyone has incentive to do both beyond just spending/recovering hit dice.

[Pex]

Hmm. See, i'd prefer going the other way, giving more characters uses for concentration (especially martials) and spreading around magical effects into other things that arent spells. Couple that with tweaking some buffs to use attunement instead of concentration and add/remove concentration to some edge case spells where its required and that might work more smoothly, especially in the face of power creep.
That and bring back a balance between short and long rest resources for all races and classes, so everyone has incentive to do both beyond just spending/recovering hit dice.

Mixing it with attunement slots causes trouble. That's handicapping players, not adding versatility.

[Kane0]

Mixing it with attunement slots causes trouble. That's handicapping players, not adding versatility.

If used for most cases yes. But i could see it as appropriate for say Divine Favor, Magic Weapon and Shadow Blade as they are low level spells and take the place of having a magic weapon that might eat up that attunement anyways.

[Ionathus]

If used for most cases yes. But i could see it as appropriate for say Divine Favor, Magic Weapon and Shadow Blade as they are low level spells and take the place of having a magic weapon that might eat up that attunement anyways.

Makes me think of Artificer, honestly. The low-level infusions that also come with attunement: kinda a mix of spells and magic weapon mechanics. More reliable than hoping the DM will give you the loot you want.

[Pex]

If used for most cases yes. But i could see it as appropriate for say Divine Favor, Magic Weapon and Shadow Blade as they are low level spells and take the place of having a magic weapon that might eat up that attunement anyways.

The better solution is not have those spells be concentration limited.

[AdAstra]

More uses for Concentration outside of magic is good.

With regards to trivializing Concentration saves with sufficient bonuses, you could have something like the following:

A roll of 1 or lower on a Concentration saving throw is always a failure. This number increases by 1 for each subsequent Concentration saving throw you make on a turn (yours or others'). A creature hit three separate times in a turn would automatically fail their Concentration saving throws on a roll of 1 or less, 2 or less, and 3 or less respectively.

Basically always ensures that you can lose the spell, increases the value of multiple hits (and particularly Multiattack, since it has to be the same turn) when affecting Concentration, and slightly privileges War Caster since Advantage is more impactful on an effect like this, while not making Concentration meaningfully more difficult for characters that don't pump up their CON save. By the time someone with a normal +2 CON and no proficiency gets hit enough that their chances of failure increase at all, they've been hit so many times they've almost certainly failed already, but someone with a +9 to their CON save still has something to worry about on even the first hit.

[JNAProductions]

More uses for Concentration outside of magic is good.

With regards to trivializing Concentration saves with sufficient bonuses, you could have something like the following:

A roll of 1 or lower on a Concentration saving throw is always a failure. This number increases by 1 for each subsequent Concentration saving throw you make on a turn (yours or others'). A creature hit three separate times in a turn would automatically fail their Concentration saving throws on a roll of 1 or less, 2 or less, and 3 or less respectively.

Basically always ensures that you can lose the spell, increases the value of multiple hits (and particularly Multiattack, since it has to be the same turn) when affecting Concentration, and slightly privileges War Caster since Advantage is more impactful on an effect like this, while not making Concentration meaningfully more difficult for characters that don't pump up their CON save. By the time someone with a normal +2 CON and no proficiency gets hit enough that their chances of failure increase at all, they've been hit so many times they've almost certainly failed already, but someone with a +9 to their CON save still has something to worry about on even the first hit.

If you feel Concentration is too easy to maintain, or too cheap to get good at maintaining, that seems like a good solution.

I don't mind players being boss at Concentration saves, but I do like that fix for those who feel different. The only change I'd make is make it so you CAN auto-pass the first save a turn. So first save fails on a nat 0 (doesn't happen), second one on a nat 1, third on a nat 2, so on and so forth.

[Schadenfreuda]

I have a system I've been playing around with for a while that I feel would add more nuance to Concentration. While I appreciate as a limiting factor for casters, I've always felt it was clunky and arbitrary in the details of its application, and inconsistent in terms of which spells required it and how powerful they were or were not. Why for example is Light not Concentration when Dancing Lights is? Why is Concentrating on a single Dancing Lights Cantrip exactly as demanding for Vecna as a Drow commoner (Con. saves notwithstanding)? That cantrips and 9th-level spells share the same precious resource and that the concentration resource is exactly the same from 1st level to 20th has never sat well with me, and felt especially onerous when playing a Ranger and dealing with Hunter's Mark.

So, the system I've tentatively imagined is as such: split Concentration in three.

1) Maintenance: Spells which require maintenance are those which involve an ongoing connection with the caster. A caster can maintain any number of spells. Taking damage risks the loss of this ongoing effect (with the same Con. save as present); when a caster fails their Saving Throw, they may choose which spell to let go. If damage or any other effect causes them to lose consciousness, they automatically lose one Maintained spell per round they are unconscious, starting from the highest-level to the lowest; a player may choose which is lost if multiple spells are of the same level. All spells are lost automatically upon death.

This level of investment is primarily intended for Cantrips and class features that are not spells, abilities which are not really powerful enough to warrant someone's one precious Concentration slot, but which should still not be wholly free.


2) Direct Focus: Independently of Maintenance, a spell which requires Direct Focus demands the direct attention of a caster. A caster may Focus on only one spell at a time. If a spell is tagged both [Maintenance] and [Direct Focus], then Maintaining any other spells of 1st-level or higher imposes a penalty against saving throws triggered by damage (-1 or -2 for each additional spell, maybe? I haven't playtested this, so I'm not sure of the details). Spells that are both Focus and Maintenance are always lost first when a concentration saving throw is failed, regardless of whether a higher-level spell is being Maintained.

This is designed for spells which are powerful, but largely cast-and-forget such as the ever-divisive Polymorph. One should not have to choose between Dancing Lights and Polymorph, but neither should a caster be able to use both Polymorph and Wall of Flame at the same time.


3) Finally, Concentration: Concentration spells require the full and undivided attention of a caster. While Concentrating on a spell, a caster cannot Focus on another spell or maintain any other spell of higher than first level, though cantrips are unaffected. A Concentration spell is always lost first when a concentration saving throw is failed.

Spells that demand total concentration are those which produce dynamic and novel effects round-after-round, notably Bigby's Hand, Telekinesis, Animate Objects, and so on. Summoned monsters require Concentration to control.


Spells may have different requirements depending on the conditions of casting. A spell might for example be Direct Focus when cast one oneself, but add a Maintenance requirement when cast on another subject; this would allow for Shield of Faith and the like to serve as decent melee buffs while used by their casters, but make wading into melee risky for a Cleric who just cast it as a buff for their tank.


I'm not so sure about whether Concentration and Focus should be combined or really any of the other details such as what spells should be what tier, but adding in some kind of half-concentration tier for spells that are too weak to be worth the cost of Concentration would nonetheless be an improvement.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a system I've been playing around with for a while that I feel would add more nuance to Concentration. While I appreciate as a limiting factor for casters, I've always felt it was clunky and arbitrary in the details of its application, and inconsistent in terms of which spells required it and how powerful they were or were not. Why for example is Light not Concentration when Dancing Lights is? Why is Concentrating on a single Dancing Lights Cantrip exactly as demanding for Vecna as a Drow commoner (Con. saves notwithstanding)? That cantrips and 9th-level spells share the same precious resource and that the concentration resource is exactly the same from 1st level to 20th has never sat well with me, and felt especially onerous when playing a Ranger and dealing with Hunter's Mark.


One key difference between light and dancing lights--you can manipulate dancing lights after casting it. You can't do so with light. Conceptually, that separates them--dancing lights has some ongoing connection to you. Light doesn't really have nearly as much.

My headcanon model of spell-casting is that casting a spell involves feeding energy (the spell slot) through a mental/soul pattern (which involves things like words, gestures, and material components, providing the need for those components). Non-concentration spells are one-and-done--the pattern forms, has energy fed through it, creates the effect, and goes away. Concentration spells have an active link with your soul--you're drip-feeding energy in continuously. And that has high fixed costs and bottlenecks--the amount of energy (spell slot level) and complexity of pattern (spell level) just don't have that big an effect. It's a limit on the soul.

As for hunter's mark, I'd just make it a class feature, not a spell. And strip the concentration from it entirely. Just scale the number of uses with ranger level and have a fixed duration.

[Schadenfreuda]

One key difference between light and dancing lights--you can manipulate dancing lights after casting it. You can't do so with light. Conceptually, that separates them--dancing lights has some ongoing connection to you. Light doesn't really have nearly as much.

My headcanon model of spell-casting is that casting a spell involves feeding energy (the spell slot) through a mental/soul pattern (which involves things like words, gestures, and material components, providing the need for those components). Non-concentration spells are one-and-done--the pattern forms, has energy fed through it, creates the effect, and goes away. Concentration spells have an active link with your soul--you're drip-feeding energy in continuously. And that has high fixed costs and bottlenecks--the amount of energy (spell slot level) and complexity of pattern (spell level) just don't have that big an effect. It's a limit on the soul.

Agreed on all points. Your concept for Concentration concept makes sense.

Still, I have a hard time imagining that a 20th-level caster who has mastered their craft to the very limits of what mortals can achieve is physically incapable of maintaining both Dancing Lights and Friends at the same time, or that Detect Magic and True Polymorph take equal effort to keep up. There should be a middle category for spells that are not powerful enough to warrant full-on Concentration but which still have some kind of active input.

Moreover, I'm of a mind that Concentration and other proposed effects should have at least some underlying logic to them. What criteria make a spell Concentration or not right now is wholly arbitrary. There's no apparent relationship between Concentration and non-Concentration spells, no consistency among spells so-tagged. Many that are passive buffs (Haste, Polymorph, Foresight, et c.) are not concentration, while many with dynamic effects (Mage Hand, Unseen Servant) are not. This kind of arbitrary game design is dissatisfying; a player should have a fairly good idea of why a spell has the features it does based on its effects. Having a more nuanced meaning of Concentration and a category in between Concentration and not would go a long way towards ameliorating that arbitrariness.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Agreed on all points. Your concept for Concentration concept makes sense.

Still, I have a hard time imagining that a 20th-level caster who has mastered their craft to the very limits of what mortals can achieve is physically incapable of maintaining both Dancing Lights and Friends at the same time, or that Detect Magic and True Polymorph take equal effort to keep up. There should be a middle category for spells that are not powerful enough to warrant full-on Concentration but which still have some kind of active input.

Moreover, I'm of a mind that Concentration and other proposed effects should have at least some underlying logic to them. What criteria make a spell Concentration or not right now is wholly arbitrary. There's no apparent relationship between Concentration and non-Concentration spells, no consistency among spells so-tagged. Many that are passive buffs (Haste, Polymorph, Foresight, et c.) are not concentration, while many with dynamic effects (Mage Hand, Unseen Servant) are not. This kind of arbitrary game design is dissatisfying; a player should have a fairly good idea of why a spell has the features it does based on its effects. Having a more nuanced meaning of Concentration and a category in between Concentration and not would go a long way towards ameliorating that arbitrariness.

Perhaps concentration isn't entirely a limitation on the caster, it could be that active and constant manipulation of the weave isn't possible to do beyond a single instance. For instantaneous spells, you only pick at the weave for a moment and the ripples after cause your spells effect. For concentration spells, you're having to constantly pick and move aspects of the weave to maintain the spell, undesirable ripples in the weave caused by a lapse in concentration are enough to end a spell if you can't reign it in with a successful concentration check. It could just be too difficult to find multiple parts that are pliable in the way you need them to be and won't cause interference with each other in the areas of the weave you can manipulate in a given space.

That's at least one way of rationalizing it narratively.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Perhaps concentration isn't entirely a limitation on the caster, it could be that active and constant manipulation of the weave isn't possible to do beyond a single instance. For instantaneous spells, you only pick at the weave for a moment and the ripples after cause your spells effect. For concentration spells, you're having to constantly pick and move aspects of the weave to maintain the spell, undesirable ripples in the weave caused by a lapse in concentration are enough to end a spell if you can't reign it in with a successful concentration check. It could just be too difficult to find multiple parts that are pliable in the way you need them to be and won't cause interference with each other in the areas of the weave you can manipulate in a given space.

That's at least one way of rationalizing it narratively.
Right. Some form of interference effect physically present as a law of nature. Just like being good at running doesn't let you ignore physics, being good at manipulating the weave doesn't let your ignore its rules.

[Schadenfreuda]

Right. Some form of interference effect physically present as a law of nature. Just like being good at running doesn't let you ignore physics, being good at manipulating the weave doesn't let your ignore its rules.

In this vein one might create other rules related to the density of Weave manipulations- perhaps two casters concentrating on spells next to each other could create interference and force saves even without damage. Perhaps an item that interferes with Weave connections could be used to force higher Concentration save DCs. That kind thing

[ProsecutorGodot]

Perhaps an item that interferes with Weave connections could be used to force higher Concentration save DCs. That kind thing

We've toyed a bit with this idea in our home campaign, strong altered gravity or magnetic effects can sometimes affect the weave. I have a magic shield that I can use to activate an aura around my character that forces a check to successfully cast a spell in the area.

[Schadenfreuda]

We've toyed a bit with this idea in our home campaign, strong altered gravity or magnetic effects can sometimes affect the weave. I have a magic shield that I can use to activate an aura around my character that forces a check to successfully cast a spell in the area.

I had a short urban campaign a few years back where EM interference was a staple effect of magic, and all computers had to be shielded behind lead wherever magic was common. Powerful but ill-handled magic could also produce bursts of ionising radiation, so back-alley magic shops tend to produce a lot of medical issues for customers, workers, and neighbours alike

[CMCC]

I had a short urban campaign a few years back where EM interference was the staple of magic, and all computers had to be shielded behind lead wherever magic was common. Powerful but ill-handled magic could also produce bursts of ionising radiation, so back-alley magic shops tend to produce a lot of medical issues for customers, workers, and neighbours alike

Sounds pretty interesting

[Schadenfreuda]

Sounds pretty interesting

It was. I never imagined before that campaign that D&D rules would support a pseudo-cyberpunk setting as well they did. We had all sorts of interesting little rules to make them magic and technology work together (or force them not to), such as keeping medieval melee weapons and bows and arrows around by ruling that guns fire their projectiles too quickly for magical effects to catch before they leave the barrel, that kind of thing.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I mean I just want to chip in here and remind everyone that conjuration wizard can mitigate concentration checks from damage (the main source of needing to take those), for their summons, so if it were just a flat giving a buff/debuff cap, then watch my summoner summon basically everything, making summoners (already not a bad pick) even better. Of course this can be changed with rule editing, but honestly I'm in favour of concentration, I think it's a neat and flavourful design mechanic.

Also if you're looking for something to cast multiple spells, IIRC there's a critical role feat that allows you to maintain dual concentration with a few caveats, if you want to look into that?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I happen to agree with you. The problem was death stacks of buffs. But I disagree with the majority, who sadly seem to enjoy a dumbed down mechanic and use this as a check on the power level of casters.

I would argue that it does not do a good job of that, and ends up simply removing interesting spell combinations and combat tactics. Worse, the net effect of this ‘nerf’ was to be used as a justification for removing other caster checks that were much more interesting and important for game play.

I continue to think that 1 action free casting in the middle of a horde, with no negative repurcusions (fizzles, opportunity attacks, etc) is one of the silliest things in 5e, and basically enabled the current state of affairs (eg counterspell wars, 1 lvl tank mage dips that all but guarentee free casting and permanent concentration etc).

I disagree on Concentration but do agree on Counterspell wars if anyone is keeping tabs for 6e.

Also I wouldn't mind slightly lower armor classes for Wizards, Warlocks and Sorcerers. Casting a spell generating an Opportunity Attack would be interesting.