So what spells SHOULDN'T be concentration?

[Hytheter]

In discussions about the concentration mechanic, even its supporters sometimes note that it was perhaps applied too liberally, devaluing certain spells. What are those spells?

[Greywander]

Spiderclimb. It's made almost completely obsolete by Fly. Making it not require concentration would actually give you a reason to prepare it instead of Fly.

[Witty Username]

Mordenkienen's sword. It might be the worst spell in the game, if it didn't need concentration it would still be excessively high level for its effect.

[DarknessEternal]

Smite spells. For something to last one attack, it shouldn't also take all of your concentration.

[Greywander]

To be fair regarding smite spells, some of them have longer duration effects, e.g. Wrathful Smite. Not having to concentrate on Wrathful Smite would be strong on any paladin, but it would be downright stupid on a Conquest paladin.

I think what I'd do is instead change smite spells to have a special casting time, where you cast then instantly on a hit, much like using a regular Divine Smite. This way, you don't have to concentrate on them until the effect has actually been applied to an enemy.

[heavyfuel]

Not specific spells, but some categories of spells

- Damaging spells that require a (bonus) action every round to use like Flaming Sphere, Spiritual Weapon, Minute Meteor, and Call Lightning.

- CC Spells that aren't "hard CC" and allow an automatic save every round. Slow is the only one that comes to mind.

- Spells whose only purpose is to reduce damage, like Resist Energy, Stoneskin, and Barkskin

- Cantrips meant to be used in combat, like True Strike and Create Bonfire (you can just limit players to 1 bonfire, much like Light)

- Spells that are "selfless" and encourage teamwork like Haste and Magic Weapon. This is tough because gishes would be selfish with them, so maybe they could have the target Concentrate on them, rather than the caster.

Additionally, I think some spells would be more used if they weren't Concentration, but had a much shorter duration - 3 rounds instead of 1 minute, and 1 minute instead of 1 hour. This is especially true for spells that can't be stacked, like buffs.

This includes spells I've already mentioned, like Slow, Barkskin and Stoneskin, but also Bless, Bane, Gust of Wind, Beacon of Hope and many others.

[Kane0]

Nobody has mentioned Tensers Transformation yet

[heavyfuel]

Nobody has mentioned Tensers Transformation yet

Give it a 1 hour duration while you're at it, this way you can maybe don the Heavy Armor you gain proficiency with.

You also need to give it a way to dismiss the spell. As an Action, maybe?

[sithlordnergal]

Spiderclimb, Mordenkienen's Sword, Hex/Hunter's Mark, Locate Object, Find the Path, Witch Bolt, Gaseous Form, Barkskin, Stoneskin, Friends, Danse Macabre, Blade of Disaster, Beast Bond, Beast Sense, Flame Blade, Skywrite, Magic Weapon, and Flame Arrows to name a few.

[Pex]

Any buff spell with the intent or implied intent to be used in melee combat - Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Flame Blade, Barkskin, Shield of Faith, etc. On a case by case basis a few other buff spells meant to protect you from damage or harmful effects such as Protection From Energy.

A spell I have to concede should remain concentration is Polymorph. I like the idea of Polymorphing yourself and waging into combat, but considering you can buff to Polymorph a party member or attack to Polymorph an enemy the spell is too diverse. Similar to how they created Summon spells for specific creature types with specific abilities, if they did the same thing as Transmute spells to transform yourself into specific creature types of specific abilities and only yourself those could be without concentration.

[Hael]

Any buff spell with the intent or implied intent to be used in melee combat - Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Flame Blade, Barkskin, Shield of Faith, etc. On a case by case basis a few other buff spells meant to protect you from damage or harmful effects such as Protection From Energy..

That we probably want to avoid, as it touches on 3.5 stacking problems. Especially since a lot of tables run only one or two combats a day.

You could imagine another mechanic being introduced so that you could have 1 (and only 1) buff active, but then your concentration was free’d up for other spells like hard cc.

[Hael]

Some good suggestions in this thread already. More generally, I think that a lot of spell defenses should be concentration free. Things like globe of invulnerability, resilient sphere and silence. And yea, soft CC environmental effects.

One interesting thing you could do is level lock concentration. So for instance a high lvl spellcaster might be able to concentrate on multiple 1st or 2nd lvl spells, but only concentrate on 1 high lvl spell. Perhaps certain subclasses could get some exceptions to their particular element or spell school (eg abjurers can concentrate on more abjuration school spells).

[Amnestic]

Danse Macabre,

This absolutely needs concentration. Ressing 5 zombies as an action, each attacking with +12 and doing 1d6+10 damage is pretty strong (+9 spell attack bonus, easily doable by the time you get 5th level spells), doing so for an hour without concentration is ridiculous.

[Sulicius]

Only spells that NEVER see use because they are far too weak for concentration to be worth it.

Anything that sees use, even in rare circumstances, should keep concentration. Especially stackable buffs and other damage additions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Paladin spell Divine Favor. The concentration requirement makes is kind of meh.
Paladin smite spells;
if I have to concentrate on it, then it works any time I hit.
Or, lose the concentration and have it go off on the next hit.

Magic Weapon.

But most concentration spells I am happy to leave as concentration spells.

Barkskin: lose the concentration.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Some good suggestions in this thread already. More generally, I think that a lot of spell defenses should be concentration free. Things like globe of invulnerability, resilient sphere and silence. And yea, soft CC environmental effects.

One interesting thing you could do is level lock concentration. So for instance a high lvl spellcaster might be able to concentrate on multiple 1st or 2nd lvl spells, but only concentrate on 1 high lvl spell. Perhaps certain subclasses could get some exceptions to their particular element or spell school (eg abjurers can concentrate on more abjuration school spells).

Thats a pretty high magic game there where newbs will need to learn how to prep quickly.

Also, what buffs woukd you like to give to nom magic users to keep their characters on the same level they currently are on?

[Burley]

I think it should be removed from Conjure/Summon spells. I've already ripped the devils from the circles of hell, why do I need to concentrate for them to stay? I'd rather it be "Concentration to maintain control" than "Concentration or the whole spell ends." Maybe you have to use your action to re-establish control, but it doesn't use a new spell slot.


Y'know, what if that's just how all concentration worked? If you get hit and fail the concentration check, your sustained effect is dropped, but can be regained by exerting effort to control it again. Conjured creatures become wild until recontroled. Enchanted creatures have a moment of lucidity before you reimpose your will. Illusions falter briefly until you resolidify the image, and maybe the enemies get another perception check to notice the veil.

I just hate that I can lose one of my three spell slots to a bad roll after I've been damage, when I already have to make good rolls for my conjured fey to hit. Its kind of punishing for a spellcaster, because we already have a hard limit to our effectiveness and taking damage doesn't make a Rogue lose Sneak Attack or a Barbarian lose Rage. When we're working with such limited resources, losing a spell with a ten minute duration after 6 seconds because the DM hard-targets you is just whack.

[KorvinStarmast]

Its kind of punishing for a spellcaster, because we already have a hard limit to our effectiveness and taking damage doesn't make a Rogue lose Sneak Attack or a Barbarian lose Rage. When we're working with such limited resources, losing a spell with a ten minute duration after 6 seconds because the DM hard-targets you is just whack.
This appeal won't go very far, given the consensus on these boards that spell casting classes get more toys than martial classes ...

[RogueJK]

Definitely Barkskin.

Without requiring Concentration, it'd be a mildly useful, hour-long, small AC buff for a single low AC ally. A potentially decent use of a 2nd level slot, but far from powerful or a "must cast".

But the way it currently stands, it's basically worthless. The minor benefit isn't worth sucking up your Concentration. You can't even upcast it for better AC/longer duration/more affected allies.



Perhaps some of the Concentration spells should include wording like Bestow Curse... If upcast to X level or above, it no longer requires Concentration. You're trading one resources (higher level slots) in exchange for freeing up another resource (Concentration).

That would be an easy addition for passive Concentration spells like Barkskin, Stoneskin, Spider Climb, etc. that don't get any other benefit from being upcast. If upcast in a slot 1 level / 2 levels above their spell level, they do not require Concentration.

[Amnestic]

I just hate that I can lose one of my three spell slots to a bad roll after I've been damage, when I already have to make good rolls for my conjured fey to hit. Its kind of punishing for a spellcaster, because we already have a hard limit to our effectiveness and taking damage doesn't make a Rogue lose Sneak Attack or a Barbarian lose Rage. When we're working with such limited resources, losing a spell with a ten minute duration after 6 seconds because the DM hard-targets you is just whack.

Pretty sure that until maybe 15th level (and obviously 20th) a Barbarian is way more likely to run out of resources before a (non-warlock) spellcaster is.

[Burley]

This appeal won't go very far, given the consensus on these boards that spell casting classes get more toys than martial classes ...

But, the martial classes don't lose any of their abilities when they take damage. Rage persists, Wild Shape persists, Aura of Protection and Smite persist. Rogues can still make Stealth checks, rangers can still dual-wield, monks can still flurry.


I'm not against concentration checks. I thematically like the idea of the wizard taking a club to the chest and losing their breath, thereby being unable to continue muttering the words to keep the barbarian's weapon enchanted. But, I think having to use another of my few spell slots to re-establish the buff is punishing. It's not like I'm getting Finger of Death back or a free Fireball. I just want my spell that I've already cast to continue to be effective, because everybody else in the party gets to continue to be effective. Just let me spend my action to get it back, rather than recast the spell and lose it again, making me effectively useless because my tank is obviously not doing her job of protecting me.


Pretty sure that until maybe 15th level (and obviously 20th) a Barbarian is way more likely to run out of resources before a (non-warlock) spellcaster is.

Okay, if they rage every fight, have 5 fights per day and never rest, ok, sure, they run out of that resource. But, their axes don't disappear. They can still Reckless attack, Extra attack, whatever their Primal path may allow them. They don't lose their resources because they take damage.

[Amnestic]

Rage persists,

...until you can't damage something and don't get damaged. It also lasts for a minute, not an hour, like Summon spells do.



Wild Shape persists,

Generally Wild Shape forms have few hit points, so yeah, it does break on damage, pretty easily. I'm not sure why this is even here when druids are full casters.



I'm not against concentration checks. I thematically like the idea of the wizard taking a club to the chest and losing their breath, thereby being unable to continue muttering the words to keep the barbarian's weapon enchanted. But, I think having to use another of my few spell slots to re-establish the buff is punishing. It's not like I'm getting Finger of Death back or a free Fireball. I just want my spell that I've already cast to continue to be effective, because everybody else in the party gets to continue to be effective. Just let me spend my action to get it back, rather than recast the spell and lose it again, making me effectively useless because my tank is obviously not doing her job of protecting me.

Generally current player impressions rarely seem to drain casters of all their slots in a day, hence the never ending cheering of gritty realism. What purpose is there to making it easier to save them from running on empty?

[bid]

Not SHOULDN'T, but upcast could cover for concentration.

[stoutstien]

Not SHOULDN'T, but upcast could cover for concentration.

Aye. Missed opportunity with that and trading duration for removing concentration. Bestow curse shows someone was thinking about it but it never say any real utilization.

[Burley]

...until you can't damage something and don't get damaged. It also lasts for a minute, not an hour, like Summon spells do.



Generally Wild Shape forms have few hit points, so yeah, it does break on damage, pretty easily. I'm not sure why this is even here when druids are full casters.



Generally current player impressions rarely seem to drain casters of all their slots in a day, hence the never ending cheering of gritty realism. What purpose is there to making it easier to save them from running on empty?

Okay, so, you picked two of my examples, which means I still have a lot of unrefuted martial characters who do not lose their abilities when damaged. HP is already a limited and diminishing resource for all characters. So, we look at the classes who have the least HP and say "When they lose HP, they also lose class abilities?"

Again, I don't want concentration gone entirely. I just want failing concentration to result in a temporary loss of the spell. The caster would still need to spend an action to regain the effect, they just don't need to burn the spell slot to do so. If they cast another spell that would require concentration, they would lose the connection to the first one, like normal.

[Abuzorg]

Hail of Thorns, Barkskin, Lightning Arrow, Flesh to Stone, Primordial Ward, Find the Path, Mordenkainen's Sword and Control Weather are all spells that don't use concentration in my home games.

We chose to keep the concentration on paladin smite spell but lose it on hail of thorns and lightning arrow essentially because we thought Paladins didn't need a buff to shine, while rangers got enough concentration spells as it is.

[Keltest]

Okay, so, you picked two of my examples, which means I still have a lot of unrefuted martial characters who do not lose their abilities when damaged. HP is already a limited and diminishing resource for all characters. So, we look at the classes who have the least HP and say "When they lose HP, they also lose class abilities?"

Again, I don't want concentration gone entirely. I just want failing concentration to result in a temporary loss of the spell. The caster would still need to spend an action to regain the effect, they just don't need to burn the spell slot to do so. If they cast another spell that would require concentration, they would lose the connection to the first one, like normal.

Risk of losing the spell or resource is part of the tradeoff for having the comparatively powerful effects of spells. A barbarian will never break action economy the way a summoner will, for example.

[Burley]

Risk of losing the spell or resource is part of the tradeoff for having the comparatively powerful effects of spells. A barbarian will never break action economy the way a summoner will, for example.

A 5th level wizard gets the first real summon spells, so, lets say Conjure Fey. The 5th level barbarian has nearly as much HP as the wizard and the summon combined. The Fey can make an attack and the wizard can cast a non-concentration spell. The Barbarian can attack twice, with Rage effects if they use their bonus action (and Berserker and Storm Herald allow for extra bonus action attacks). Action economy gaps may widen in the future, but "action economy" only became a reason for concentration after other arguments failed. Concentration isn't there to preserve action economy. It's to preserve verisimilitude. (Extra Attack is there to preserve action economy, and Barb doesn't have to concentrate on it.)
And, again, the barbarian isn't going to lose any abilities as its HP goes down, until it goes unconscious. And, y'know, if a wizard goes unconscious, I'll agree that its spell should end.


But, losing one resource (spell slots) because you lost another resource (HP) is a bad interaction that only effects the characters whose resources are most necessary to their functionality.

[Snails]

The idea of Concentration and Attunement to put some resource-like restrictions on stacks without adding fussy rules is excellent IMO. The implementation has a lot of rough edges, and many examples are simply "mis-priced". There are a number of spells and magic items that are hopelessly bad one the PC has to actually start making meaningful choices -- if the mechanic does not create an interesting choice, then the mechanic is partially failing IMHO.

It is possible to imagine that a spellcaster could have 2 or 3 Concentration slots. The default would be that they make a Concentration check for the highest level spell if damaged/distracted (randomly choose if there is a tie). Some powerful spells would be Always Check (e.g. if you have 2 Dominate Person spells active, you must roll the Concentration check for both if damaged).

Unfortunately, this would require a lot of rework and house ruling to maintain balance.

As for Smites, they could be Reaction spells that trigger on a hit, if you want to keep the mechanics consistent with the rest of 5e. I would just add this on, so the Paladin could use the Concentration path if they want to hold onto their Reaction.

[Keltest]

A 5th level wizard gets the first real summon spells, so, lets say Conjure Fey. The 5th level barbarian has nearly as much HP as the wizard and the summon combined. And, again, the barbarian isn't going to lose any abilities as its HP goes down, until it goes unconscious. And, y'know, if a wizard goes unconscious, I'll agree that its spell should end.


But, losing one resource (spell slots) because you lost another resource (HP) is a bad interaction that only effects the characters whose resources are most necessary to their functionality.

Sure, but the barbarian cant help but put himself at risk as part of his basic function. A wizard is not nearly so exposed unless the party has engaged pretty extremely poorly.

[Snails]

But, losing one resource (spell slots) because you lost another resource (HP) is a bad interaction that only effects the characters whose resources are most necessary to their functionality.

I would agree that it is not good that this is an absolute mechanic.

It is a very good thing that certain spells like Hold Person and Dominate Person can be disrupted by any party member by means other that specific magic (e.g. Dispel Magic).
It is a very good thing that the spell caster has a Concentration Slot resource to manage.

But those two good things does not mean that most interesting spells must be easily disrupted. I do not think that it is logically necessary that Spider Climb or Bless need be easily broken by inflicting damage; these two spells could require the Concentration slot yet not require a Concentration Check.

There are many ways to re-imagine how Concentration works, that will encourage more subtle decision making. If you are willing to live with more complicated mechanics, of course.

[Amnestic]

A 5th level wizard gets the first real summon spells, so, lets say Conjure Fey. The 5th level barbarian has nearly as much HP as the wizard and the summon combined.

The barbarian has 3 rages per long rest, and they last a minute. If there's more than 3 encounters in a single day, they're tapped out, regardless of what happens. That doesn't factor in the event that they can't maintain their rage during combat for instance, such as if they get hit by a spell that prevents them from doing so or if there's just no one in range. Take the dash action and no one choose to shoot you? Whoop, rage gone. RIP.

A wizard has 3 (including arcane recovery) 3rd level spell slots. If spent on Conjure Fey, they last an hour each. Leaving the wizard with all their 1sts and 2nds to play with, and being far more likely to be able to stretch one slot across multiple encounters.

From a pure resource perspective, the 5th level wizard's doing great, frankly, in comparison to the humble barbarian.

What purpose does being able to reassert concentration have other than stretching spell slots further than they already are, when they don't need to be? What's the "cost" if the spell has a duration of longer than 1 minute but isn't a summon that will go rampant? At that point the action is negligible. If it drops, you can just wait until the end of combat and re-up it. What about a debuff? If I drop a Hypnotic Pattern on a group and they all fail the save, but then another creature breaks my concentration, and then I re-up the concentration, do they all automatically fail the save again? What if they've moved since?

[Burley]

Sure, but the barbarian cant help but put himself at risk as part of his basic function. A wizard is not nearly so exposed unless the party has engaged pretty extremely poorly.

Or, an arrow happens, or a rogue, or an AoE effect. Wizards take damage and intelligent enemies will hard-target a Wizard as a high-value, low-risk target. I just don't think the argument of "It is that way, so that's why it is," is a good enough defense for a draconian and lopsided effect. Especially when I'm offering, in my opinion, an interesting adjustment to the rule, rather than removing it all together.

[Pex]

That we probably want to avoid, as it touches on 3.5 stacking problems. Especially since a lot of tables run only one or two combats a day.

You could imagine another mechanic being introduced so that you could have 1 (and only 1) buff active, but then your concentration was free’d up for other spells like hard cc.

Tremble before the druid who attacks you with Barkskin and Flameblade.

[Asisreo1]

The barbarian has 3 rages per long rest, and they last a minute. If there's more than 3 encounters in a single day, they're tapped out, regardless of what happens. That doesn't factor in the event that they can't maintain their rage during combat for instance, such as if they get hit by a spell that prevents them from doing so or if there's just no one in range. Take the dash action and no one choose to shoot you? Whoop, rage gone. RIP.

A wizard has 3 (including arcane recovery) 3rd level spell slots. If spent on Conjure Fey, they last an hour each. Leaving the wizard with all their 1sts and 2nds to play with, and being far more likely to be able to stretch one slot across multiple encounters.

From a pure resource perspective, the 5th level wizard's doing great, frankly, in comparison to the humble barbarian.

What purpose does being able to reassert concentration have other than stretching spell slots further than they already are, when they don't need to be? What's the "cost" if the spell has a duration of longer than 1 minute but isn't a summon that will go rampant? At that point the action is negligible. If it drops, you can just wait until the end of combat and re-up it. What about a debuff? If I drop a Hypnotic Pattern on a group and they all fail the save, but then another creature breaks my concentration, and then I re-up the concentration, do they all automatically fail the save again? What if they've moved since?
TBF, the barbarian which uses all 3 rages technically has an effective double the HP of the wizard and fey combined and, depending on if the wizard is expending resources, deals more damage than them as well.

[Snails]

Sure, but the barbarian cant help but put himself at risk as part of his basic function. A wizard is not nearly so exposed unless the party has engaged pretty extremely poorly.

A bit of a tangent...I think all editions of D&D do not really factor this in, very well. It is presumed that "sufficient" players will cheerfully play a frontliner who will soak up the hits and suffer more random deaths. Having higher AC and 50% more HP is not necessarily a meaningful boost if your class benefits require you to stand where you are going to get hit 50+% more often -- that "extra" AC and "extra" HP have just washed out.

That said, while I love the idea of Concentration checks, there is an aspect of "kicking the dog while its down" or a soft "death spiral" to losing a spell. Getting hammered by the enemy sorcerer's Fireball is its own reward. It is not necessary for there to be a significant chance of losing any your interesting non-blasty contribution to combat as part of the same event. I see both sides of the issue here, because allowing non-spellcasters to have means of disrupting spells is a good thing. I guess I think that some less powerful spells should not be Concentration or, if they are Concentration, they would not require Concentration checks for damage.

[Amnestic]

TBF, the barbarian which uses all 3 rages technically has an effective double the HP of the wizard and fey combined and, depending on if the wizard is expending resources, deals more damage than them as well.

Sure, if all the attacks are BPS and there's zero magic or poison getting thrown around.

Not sure his damage is better either. 22 (2d6+4*2) from the barb vs 13 (2d6+6 from fey) + 11 (2d10 firebolt) comes out marginally on top for the wizard. Now the barb's probably attacking recklessly, but the fey can attack with advantage as well (and doesn't get attacked with advantage in return). Ultimately, the damage difference doesn't look significant to me. Not notable enough to mention, at least.

If you start adding in feats and subclasses and stuff it gets more complex, obvs.

[Burley]

Sure, if all the attacks are BPS and there's zero magic or poison getting thrown around.

Not sure his damage is better either. 22 (2d6+4*2) from the barb vs 13 (2d6+6 from fey) + 11 (2d10 firebolt) comes out marginally on top for the wizard. Now the barb's probably attacking recklessly, but the fey can attack with advantage as well (and doesn't get attacked with advantage in return). Ultimately, the damage difference doesn't look significant to me. Not notable enough to mention, at least.



So... then you agree that the damage difference isn't significant enough to merit the wizard losing their spell slot to a failed concentration, while the barbarian can keep raging the whole time, regardless of the damage they take, thereby setting them ahead of the wizard in both damage output and HP when given the exact scenario we're discussing?


What purpose does being able to reassert concentration have other than stretching spell slots further than they already are, when they don't need to be? What's the "cost" if the spell has a duration of longer than 1 minute but isn't a summon that will go rampant? At that point the action is negligible. If it drops, you can just wait until the end of combat and re-up it. What about a debuff? If I drop a Hypnotic Pattern on a group and they all fail the save, but then another creature breaks my concentration, and then I re-up the concentration, do they all automatically fail the save again? What if they've moved since?

Most concentration debuffs allow saving throws every round, anyway? So, the target would get a chance (like they already would) to make the save again, and it happens on my turn and probably again at end of theirs, so, its advantageous to them, giving them more chances to shrug off the effects, even after them possibly had a turn without it while my concentration was down.

I'm happy to do some play-by-play examples of what this could look like at the table, if that help. I won't bore you with it unnecessarily, though.

[Keltest]

So... then you agree that the damage difference isn't significant enough to merit the wizard losing their spell slot to a failed concentration, while the barbarian can keep raging the whole time, regardless of the damage they take, thereby setting them ahead of the wizard in both damage output and HP when given the exact scenario we're discussing?

What, hypothetically, do you think the wizard is concentrating on here? Because it more than likely isnt just a blasting spell.

[Amnestic]

So... then you agree that the damage difference isn't significant enough to merit the wizard losing their spell slot to a failed concentration, while the barbarian can keep raging the whole time, regardless of the damage they take, thereby setting them ahead of the wizard in both damage output and HP when given the exact scenario we're discussing?

What? No, because the spirit lasts for an hour, and the rage lasts for a minute, and the wizard also has 4+3 1st+2nd slots to play with on top of everything else.

The wizard losing a spell slot due to concentration is required in order to give them some actual form of attrition during the day. In the existing 5e paradigm they're already not attritioned enough, arguably, which is what leads to people looking towards Gritty Realism. Your suggested change would give them more resource longevity. That suggestion is not one which people as a whole are looking for.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Aye. Missed opportunity with that and trading duration for removing concentration. Bestow curse shows someone was thinking about it but it never say any real utilization.

Is Bestow Curse the ONLY spell in the game with this feature? I have to admit I hadn't realized this.

[Burley]

What? No, because the spirit lasts for an hour, and the rage lasts for a minute, and the wizard also has 4+3 1st+2nd slots to play with on top of everything else.

The wizard losing a spell slot due to concentration is required in order to give them some actual form of attrition during the day. In the existing 5e paradigm they're already not attritioned enough, arguably, which is what leads to people looking towards Gritty Realism. Your suggested change would give them more resource longevity. That suggestion is not one which people as a whole are looking for.

What's being asked for here is all the spells that shouldn't have concentration at all. So, that suggestion is one which people are looking for.

Why is my idea of making concentration less punishing a worse idea than removing it all together?

[RogueJK]

Is Bestow Curse the ONLY spell in the game with this feature? I have to admit I hadn't realized this.

Major Image also removes Concentration when upcast into a 6th level or higher slot. But I can't think of any others besides those two.

However, there are some other example of "improved" higher level versions of spells that don't require Concentration, although that doesn't specifically involve upcasting. Like Suggestion (Level 2 single-target Concentration for 8 hours) and then Mass Suggestion (Level 6 multi-target non-Concentration for 24 hours).

But it'd be simple enough remove the Mass Suggestion spell in favor of adding upcasting benefits to Suggestion, with something like:
When upcast to a Level 3 slot or higher, you can target three additional creatures per spell level above 2nd. In a 5th or 6th level slot, the duration becomes 24 hours. In a 6th or higher level slot, it no longer requires Concentration. In a 7th or 8th level slot, the duration becomes a year and a day. In a 9th level slot, the duration becomes Permanent Until Dispelled.

[stoutstien]

Is Bestow Curse the ONLY spell in the game with this feature? I have to admit I hadn't realized this.

Yes sadly. I mean look at barkskin. It's bad but if upcasting removed concentration and increased duration at least it would have a niche. Flame blade, Grasping Vines, Hunger of Hadar, Hunters mark/hex/divine favor, and so on.
I'm a firm believer they don't need to add more spells as much as go back and fine tune what they have first. 10000 spells when 9000 are crap is just waste.

[KorvinStarmast]

But, the martial classes don't lose any of their abilities when they take damage. Rage persists, Wild Shape persists, Wild Shape is a Druid (caster) class ability of the Druid. It's not a spell like Polymorph. You are not comparing apples to apples, and losing a spell effect (maybe) if concentration fails is a cost of using magic: risk / reward.

But, I think having to use another of my few spell slots to re-establish the buff is punishing. Massive disagree. Not punishing. More of my bard's spells that she used from level 1-20 were concentration based. Because I don't like losing concentration, I took the resilient Con feat rather than something else. I was so obsessed with not losing concentration that I later took War Caster feat rather than an ASI.
But even when I lost concentration, I didn't feel punished: it was a reasonable counter to these very powerful spells I was trying to keep going, like Slow, Hold Person, Hold Monster, etc.

Blame the dice when you fail. :smallwink:
If we go back an edition or two, there were auto fizzle mechanics - if you got hit the spell fails - that this edition does not have.

They don't lose their resources because they take damage. Actually, they can lose Rage for a variety of reasons that are not damage; what if they fail a Hold Person save, and unable to attack? Rage gone. If they are Incapacitated by Hypnotic Pattern and thus can't act/attack? Rage gone.

It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your ast turn or taken damage since then.

There are more ways to lose rage than that - it's not as simple as you are presenting it.

[Burley]

Yes sadly. I mean look at barkskin. It's bad but if upcasting removed concentration and increased duration at least it would have a niche. Flame blade, Grasping Vines, Hunger of Hadar, Hunters mark/hex/divine favor, and so on.
I'm a firm believer they don't need to add more spells as much as go back and fine tune what they have first. 10000 spells when 9000 are crap is just waste.

So, what if Barkskin was concentration and the druid casts it on themselves and gets hit? Let's look at my way: Barkskin falters (instead of fails)? The other enemies get to attack the druid without dealing with the AC boost. Then, on the druid's next turn, they can use their action to reestablish the spell, putting it back into effect, without having to burn another spell slot to do so.

Same with Flame Blade? Instead of losing the spell entirely, you use a bonus action to get it back.

[Amnestic]

Why is my idea of making concentration less punishing a worse idea than removing it all together?

Because people are laser targeting certain spells to remove concentration from (like barkskin), and not talking about an across-the-board change to make concentration easier to maintain, especially when one of the examples you quoted (Summon Fey) is already a very good spell.

[Burley]

Because people are laser targeting certain spells to remove concentration from (like barkskin), and not talking about an across-the-board change to make concentration easier to maintain, especially when one of the examples you quoted (Summon Fey) is already a very good spell.

It's a good spell, until you lose concentration. Then its nothing. And, when that happens one round after you cast it, because the enemy seeks to disrupt the caster, it's a 3rd level spell slot that did 2d6+6, if the fey even hit. So, it's a very bad spell, when concentration comes into play.

And, like you said, that's only one example. Removing concentration from spells like Flame Blade and Barkskin would result in long lasting buffs which would make the caster far outshine the martial characters. Is a 3rd level 16AC, 3d6 fire damage druid (and can also still cast their 1st level spells) not more powerful than a 3rd level barbarian?

My idea of not removing concentration keeps a character from stacking long lasting buffs, continues to incentivize the caster to avoiding damage but doesn't turn a 10 minute spell into a 6 second spell. A longbow arrow shouldn't have the same effect as Dispel Magic. If I take a hit and [my summon doesn't respond to me until I spend my action to re-establish control] or [my AC drops 4 points until I re-establish my barkskin], the hit I took still had a meaningful consequence in combat but my caster isn't playing spell slot roulette. They can decide whether they want to re-concentrate or let the spell go and do something else.

[stoutstien]

So, what if Barkskin was concentration and the druid casts it on themselves and gets hit? Let's look at my way: Barkskin falters (instead of fails)? The other enemies get to attack the druid without dealing with the AC boost. Then, on the druid's next turn, they can use their action to reestablish the spell, putting it back into effect, without having to burn another spell slot to do so.

Same with Flame Blade? Instead of losing the spell entirely, you use a bonus action to get it back.

Generally concentration is what kills these types of spells before spell slots become an issue. Action economy is somewhere in the middle. Look at flame blade. It is a bonus action to activate, an action to use, and takes concentration. Reduction of duration and removal of concentration for upcasting it would at least bring it up to the point you might use it.

[JNAProductions]

It's a good spell, until you lose concentration. Then its nothing. And, when that happens one round after you cast it, because the enemy seeks to disrupt the caster, it's a 3rd level spell slot that did 2d6+6, if the fey even hit. So, it's a very bad spell, when concentration comes into play.

And, like you said, that's only one example. Removing concentration from spells like Flame Blade and Barkskin would result in long lasting buffs which would make the caster far outshine the martial characters. Is a 3rd level 16AC, 3d6 fire damage druid (and can also still cast their 1st level spells) not more powerful than a 3rd level barbarian?

My idea of not removing concentration keeps a character from stacking long lasting buffs, continues to incentivize the caster to avoiding damage but doesn't turn a 10 minute spell into a 6 second spell. A longbow arrow shouldn't have the same effect as Dispel Magic. If I take a hit and [my summon doesn't respond to me until I spend my action to re-establish control] or [my AC drops 4 points until I re-establish my barkskin], the hit I took still had a meaningful consequence in combat but my caster isn't playing spell slot roulette. They can decide whether they want to re-concentrate or let the spell go and do something else.

3d6 fire damage is less than 4d6+8 slashing damage.
16 AC is less than 17 AC.

That’s a half-plate and great sword Barbarian with 18 Str and 14 Dex. Not raging or anything.

[Chaos Jackal]

It's a good spell, until you lose concentration. Then its nothing. And, when that happens one round after you cast it, because the enemy seeks to disrupt the caster, it's a 3rd level spell slot that did 2d6+6, if the fey even hit. So, it's a very bad spell, when concentration comes into play.

Anything with concentration is "very bad" under that definition. Hypnotic pattern is very bad. Because, oh no, if you cast it and then get hit and lose concentration, you probably didn't waste a single enemy action. Except even the notion of hypnotic pattern being bad is ridiculous.

And this doesn't take into account the fact that it's far from easy to get to a smart wizard, much less hit them. And even if you do manage that, there's accessible and commonly picked ways for that concentration check to be very unlikely to fail. So no, just because a powerful effect has a not always relevant failsafe doesn't mean the effect is suddenly bad.

Most summoning spells are good. Summon fey is among the weak ones by virtue of being a TCE summon rather than the mass summoning brokenness of PHB conjurations, but among the TCE summons it's on the better side and not being conjure animals is a far cry from not being good at all. Concentration-less summons with half-decent statblocks just aren't a good idea.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's a good spell, until you lose concentration.
1. Use the dodge action
2. Roll > 1/2 damage if you do get hit.
3. Curse the does if you fail.
4. Profit!

Always have a + mod to Con if you are a spell caster - or does that go without saying?

[Kane0]

Guardian of Nature.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Other than spells that just suck generally, the only one I can think of really is barkskin. And that only if cast on self. Or maybe "while wildshaped, you don't need to concentrate on this".

But in general, I think that concentration should be easier to break than it is. It's too easy to jack your concentration saves through the roof. Something like a stacking (per spell) penalty for each time you get hit. Like the DC goes up by X every time you get hit. Get hit for 1? Next concentration save is minimum DC 10 + X. Get hit again and keep the spell? Next one is DC 10 + 2X. Etc.

[stoutstien]

Other than spells that just suck generally, the only one I can think of really is barkskin. And that only if cast on self. Or maybe "while wildshaped, you don't need to concentrate on this".

But in general, I think that concentration should be easier to break than it is. It's too easy to jack your concentration saves through the roof. Something like a stacking (per spell) penalty for each time you get hit. Like the DC goes up by X every time you get hit. Get hit for 1? Next concentration save is minimum DC 10 + X. Get hit again and keep the spell? Next one is DC 10 + 2X. Etc.

I think both are needed. Concentration itself is too easy to bullet proof and should be reworked to prevent being unbreakable. On the flip side upcasting in it's current form is unengaging and lackluster. Could address both problems in one swoop.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think both are needed. Concentration itself is too easy to bullet proof and should be reworked to prevent being unbreakable. On the flip side upcasting in it's current form is unengaging and lackluster. Could address both problems in one swoop.

Upcasting is decent for blasting spells. Or for some that scale via targets. I absolutely do not think that removing concentration is a good idea on upcasting. Period. Full stop. And casters are already too powerful and getting more so with every book. And they're first in line for all the QoL "fixes". It's time they sit down and shut up and let other people have the spotlight.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

But, the martial classes don't lose any of their abilities when they take damage. Rage persists, Wild Shape persists, Aura of Protection and Smite persist. Rogues can still make Stealth checks, rangers can still dual-wield, monks can still flurry.


I'm not against concentration checks. I thematically like the idea of the wizard taking a club to the chest and losing their breath, thereby being unable to continue muttering the words to keep the barbarian's weapon enchanted. But, I think having to use another of my few spell slots to re-establish the buff is punishing. It's not like I'm getting Finger of Death back or a free Fireball. I just want my spell that I've already cast to continue to be effective, because everybody else in the party gets to continue to be effective. Just let me spend my action to get it back, rather than recast the spell and lose it again, making me effectively useless because my tank is obviously not doing her job of protecting me.



Okay, if they rage every fight, have 5 fights per day and never rest, ok, sure, they run out of that resource. But, their axes don't disappear. They can still Reckless attack, Extra attack, whatever their Primal path may allow them. They don't lose their resources because they take damage.

All the classes just aren't the same.

[stoutstien]

Upcasting is decent for blasting spells. Or for some that scale via targets. I absolutely do not think that removing concentration is a good idea on upcasting. Period. Full stop. And casters are already too powerful and getting more so with every book. And they're first in line for all the QoL "fixes". It's time they sit down and shut up and let other people have the spotlight.

Personally I'd say spell casting need a ground up rework but that's a lot of work. They shot themselves in the foot before they got past the PHB in that regard.
They could just stop printing new spellcasting options and I still don't think they will reach a good balance before they dump edition and reset.

[Asisreo1]

Sure, if all the attacks are BPS and there's zero magic or poison getting thrown around.
I don't think that's unreasonable to assume most of the time. Even at the highest levels, most creature's main form of damage is BPS.



Not sure his damage is better either. 22 (2d6+4*2) from the barb vs 13 (2d6+6 from fey) + 11 (2d10 firebolt) comes out marginally on top for the wizard. Now the barb's probably attacking recklessly, but the fey can attack with advantage as well (and doesn't get attacked with advantage in return). Ultimately, the damage difference doesn't look significant to me. Not notable enough to mention, at least.

If you start adding in feats and subclasses and stuff it gets more complex, obvs.
Even without feats, the barbarian actually gets (2d6+6)*2 = 26 so the barbarian does still eek out more damage.

While the wizard can technically hang back and be *less* threatened by damage than the barbarian, they are still threatened by distant attackers like bandits, goblins, or gnolls who might be incentivized to shoot at the one that summoned a magical creature rather than the buff angry guy that, quite frankly, isn't going down anytime soon.

[Azuresun]

Even without feats, the barbarian actually gets (2d6+6)*2 = 26 so the barbarian does still eek out more damage.

Now add in the 2d10 (minimum) potential from Fire Bolt, assuming the spellcaster doesn't just spend slots and drop an 8d6 Fireball on everyone.

[Composer99]

Mucking around with concentration at its root is fraught with peril for the player characters.

The big winner would not be player character spellcasters but NPCs and monsters, who don't need the help (since they usually don't have to pace their spell slot use).

(I don't find changing some awful spells so that they don't require concentration, or removing concentration on select spells via upcasting to be mucking with concentration - more like tinkering around the margins.)

[Kane0]

From my personal list of houseruled spells

Hail of thorns
Zephyr strike
Barkskin
Flame blade
Flame arrows
Lightning arrow
Elemental bane
Guardian of nature
Stoneskin
Tensers transformation

I would add a few more like mord's sword but I change them in different ways.

[Asisreo1]

Now add in the 2d10 (minimum) potential from Fire Bolt, assuming the spellcaster doesn't just spend slots and drop an 8d6 Fireball on everyone.
We did.

The comment I replied to specified that the wizard did 13 from the summon and 11 from fireball.

That's 24, which is 2 less damage than 26. Fireball is nice, but it directly prevents another cast of Conjure Fey.

[heavyfuel]

Only spells that NEVER see use because they are far too weak for concentration to be worth it.

Anything that sees use, even in rare circumstances, should keep concentration. Especially stackable buffs and other damage additions.

Then every spell should remain the same. Someone, somewhere, will pick crappy spells because they don't know any better. True Strike+Witchbolt looks like a decent combo if you have little to no grasp about game mechanics, but I think most people who do grasp mechanics consider both these spells to be among the worst spells in the game, if not THE worst spells.


And casters are already too powerful and getting more so with every book. And they're first in line for all the QoL "fixes". It's time they sit down and shut up and let other people have the spotlight.

See, the thing is that every time someone tries to come up with a fix for martial characters by giving them more versatility and mechanical depth, some other people come along and complain about it being either too videogamey, too wuxia, or both.

WotC have shown that they have no interest in making martials mechanically complex, so I'm not going to shut up about QoL fixes for casters because there's a small chance I get to play a character with dozens of buttons to push in 5e (which - whether I like it or not - is the most famous TTRPG system out there)

[Jervis]

Any buff spell with the intent or implied intent to be used in melee combat - Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Flame Blade, Barkskin, Shield of Faith, etc. On a case by case basis a few other buff spells meant to protect you from damage or harmful effects such as Protection From Energy..

Most of those buffs are better used on people other than the caster. Plus the reason they’re concentration is to stop stacking, most concentration spells are that way just so you can’t have them up with other concentration spells.

But yes for my money Tenser’s Transformation has no right being as bad as it is with lost concentration,

[Kane0]

Yeah buffs that the caster can apply to others should largely remain with concentration. The ones they use on themselves for the purposes of getting attacked, and hit, more frequently probably shouldnt rely on concentration

Edit: maybe you could split the concentration mechanic into offense and defense, or major and minor. One of each at a time, the DC would be the same for both but you would need to make the saves in different circumstances, or one can be re-established and the other cannot.

[Keltest]

Yeah buffs that the caster can apply to others should largely remain with concentration. The ones they use on themselves for the purposes of getting attacked, and hit, more frequently probably shouldnt rely on concentration

I think I disagree. A wizard should not be able to perfectly emulate wearing armor and having good weapon proficiencies and stats right out of the gate. Thats what fighters are for. There needs to be some sort of weakness.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think I disagree. A wizard should not be able to perfectly emulate wearing armor and having good weapon proficiencies and stats right out of the gate. Thats what fighters are for. There needs to be some sort of weakness.

Right. I'd say that if you want to wield weapons and armor as a wizard, you should have to pay a subclass and only be as good at it as an EK is at casting spells. Fair is fair, after all.

[Kane0]

I think I disagree. A wizard should not be able to perfectly emulate wearing armor and having good weapon proficiencies and stats right out of the gate. Thats what fighters are for. There needs to be some sort of weakness.

Except that isnt what I said. Look at mirror image versus tensers, and notice that neither are replacing fighters.

[Keltest]

Except that isnt what I said. Look at mirror image versus tensers, and notice that neither are replacing fighters.

Not on their own, sure, but if a wizard could stack buffs on themselves, they could do a pretty passable imitation even if they have something like an illusion specialization. Concentration is the restriction feature that keeps them in their niche.

[Kane0]

Not on their own, sure, but if a wizard could stack buffs on themselves, they could do a pretty passable imitation even if they have something like an illusion specialization. Concentration is the restriction feature that keeps them in their niche.

Okay, so from my list above a wizard could stack Mage Armor, Mirror Image, Stoneskin and Tensers Plus their choice of concentration spell prior to tensers like magic weapon, enlarge/reduce or shadow blade. Thats a 6th, 4th, 1st and two 2nd level spell slots to be a pretty good warrior for 1-10 minutes minus casting times.

But it sounds like the problem wouldnt be the wizard doing that but rather a bladelock or swords bard or bladesinger, gishes that dont need that little boost

[JohnDaBarr]

Okay, so from my list above a wizard could stack Mage Armor, Mirror Image, Stoneskin and Tensers Plus their choice of concentration spell prior to tensers like magic weapon, enlarge/reduce or shadow blade. Thats a 6th, 4th, 1st and two 2nd level spell slots to be a pretty good warrior for 1-10 minutes minus casting times.

But it sounds like the problem wouldnt be the wizard doing that but rather a bladelock or swords bard or bladesinger, gishes that dont need that little boost

The thing is by the time you spend 3-4 rounds buffing yourself the encounter is either over or almost over and you spend most of it doing nothing just so you could go and hit something really strong for a round or two.

Sorcadin might be able to pull something crazy if burning all spellpoints on quickened for just one encounter but other than that the basics of action economy don't really work in favor of buffing yourself as a reliable tactics.

[Kane0]

Aye, which favors longer duration buffs like Mage Armor and Aid.