Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 crimfan07 Mar 11, 2015 19:54:31	Lots of spells seem to have the Concentration mechanic, although quite a number don't. I understand why it's there but I guess I'm not enamored of it as a general spellcaster balance factor. Have any of you pondered alternatives to it?
#2 arnwolf666 Mar 11, 2015 20:04:16	You have a mantle of how many spells you can have going at one time.  The mantle is equal to your proficiency bonus.  Thus you could have the Armor spell and cast a magic missile.  If you had Blur and Armor going and then cast magic missile you would lose the highest level spell on your mantle.  If you have more than one spell of the highest level then you determine randomly which one is lost.  That is just an idea I have been pondering.
#3 Capn_Charlie Mar 11, 2015 20:10:42	I have considered giving spellcasters the ability to concentrate on an additional spell at levels where fighter gets an additional attack.    That being said, I don't feel like casters need any help, every time a fireball goes off I feel like I want to ban spellcasting entirely.  (hyperbole)
#4 DM_HEEGZ Mar 11, 2015 20:21:38	I have considered dropping the concentration check, but keeping the limit of one concentration spell at a time. I thought about allowing concentration on more than one spell at a time, but there are always consumable options with potions and scrolls which has dissuaded me from this second route. So far it's not been a major issue, a bit of an annoyance, but overall I still like how spellcasting works.
#5 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 11, 2015 20:46:26	My artificer, being a class focused on magical team support, was a natural place to play around with concentration. I originally had an ability on one of the subclasses that lifted the concentration mechanic from a few specific spells important to the subclass, but in testing that proved problematic (it now increases effective spell level instead, but since the class in question is not a full caster, all it really does is put him on par with the full casters.) The main class' 20th-level capstone doesn't actually remove concentration, per se, but it allows artificer spells to be cast without disrupting concentration, and concentrating on one artificer spell maintains all of them. This still allows a buffstack to be taken down with a botched check, but it also allows for multiple buffs (something 5e is very careful about), and it's specifically limited to spells from the class' (very support-based) list to prevent cheesing (since he can bring about effects from other lists).   For general gameplay, though, I really like the concentration mechanic and wouldn't remove it. It might be worth thinking of it under a different name if that's bothering you.   A general guideline for if the spell requires concentration is "The duration is longer than 1 round, and it's intended to be used in combat." There are probably a few spells that break this mold, but that honestly does seem to cover most of them. (Personally, I'd like to see some instantaneous concentration-based spells, probably on the ranger or paladin, and ideally designed to power up if they're cast while you're concentrating on another spell - probably flavored as the instant spell consuming the magic of your first spell to fuel itself, though it would work to a weaker extent without such a sacrifice).   arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #5) arnwolf666	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #3) crimfan07	Capn_Charlie wrote:
#8 Mechatarrasque Mar 12, 2015 7:58:54	You could just say you can only summoned one critter at a time and only have one buff spell up at a time.  That covers a lot of concentration spells and gives the gish classes/subclasses a little boost.  You would need something to trigger the conjure fey/elementals turning on the caster if he/she fails a con check--maybe if the conjured critter takes psych damage or is hit with a dispell magic spell.....
#9 Mephi1234 Mar 12, 2015 8:11:30	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#10 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 12, 2015 9:40:09	Mephi1234 wrote:
(Reply to #2) crimfan07	arnwolf666 wrote:
#12 crimfan07 Mar 13, 2015 20:51:15	I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine tonight, that helped clarify my issue with it: It feels very homogeneous and it's being used for multiple purposes. Concentration has been used as a balancer to prevent too many buffs from being on at once, or multiple spells. In some circumstances, it makes sense. For instance, I buy it with Hex or Hunter's Mark, though there might have been other ways to make those work without it. However, it was used for other purposes, too, often very broadly. For instance, why is Web a Concentration spell? There's an easy counter for it (just light it on fire, everyone in it takes a bit of damage) so it's not like it's the end of the world if it just has a regular duration.      I've started to notice some other spells that are kind of pointlessly redundant, such as Mirror Image, which has a convoluted mechanic and no Concentration, vs. Blur, which has a very straightforward and generally "5E" mechanic, but Concentration.    I think a bit of cleanup is in order, at least in my game.
(Reply to #10) crimfan07	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #12) arnwolf666	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #14) crimfan07	arnwolf666 wrote:
#16 Mephi1234 Mar 14, 2015 8:28:11	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #16) crimfan07	Mephi1234 wrote:
#18 Mephi1234 Mar 14, 2015 14:19:40	Well, for me, its noticing that there's a large assumption that you have to get Con bonus to saves and Warcaster, pretty much required, if you want to pull something off.   And I do think that the Pact of the Blade and Hunter subclasses need those spells as part of their class.   There's a lot of hole plugging with spells so far, it feels like.     For me, I just don't like the idea of requiring Warcaster and Con saves for spellcasters or gishes to work well.    You want to do a Concentration heavy caster from the backrow?   Okay, you're out of the way of most combat, plus you tend to have shield spells and similar.    If you have someone that is naturally a front line character, and they have signature magic (paladins and smites), then you shouldn't need to make all those checks for your signature magic.
(Reply to #2) Reius	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #18) crimfan07	Mephi1234 wrote:
#21 MechaPilot Mar 14, 2015 19:55:46	Cast the spell in a higher level slot.  Concentration is about balance, but so is resource usage.  Using a more valuable resource (a higher level slot) often lets you cast amplified spells (more damage, more targets, etc.), so it's reasonable to allow you to cast an unamplified spell but with less restrictions.   Alternately, you could cast the spell in the same level slot but require the expenditure of another slot (perhaps just a first level slot) to ignore the concentration requirement.
(Reply to #20) AaronOfBarbaria	crimfan07 wrote:
#23 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 14, 2015 21:31:55	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#24 arnwolf666 Mar 14, 2015 23:12:15	Personally I been thinking concentration belongs to psionics.  Wizardry is about manipulating components.  Knowing the word, signs and gestures, and alchemy (material components).  I think the concentraiton is way over done.  I'm a 2E player, I found it easy to just remove the mechanic and alter a couple spells here and there.  No Biggie for me.  Most of my players are familiar with earlier editions and it seems to be no big problem for them.
#25 FrogReaver Mar 14, 2015 23:23:29	I like that spell casters don't get unlimited long lasting buff and debuff spells.   That said I feel the limit of 1 at a time may be a little much for high level wizards.  I could see it being upped to 2 or 3 at various spell levels.  I could even possibly see it being somewhat based on the spell levels being cast compared to half your caster level.   This would allow lots of small buffs to be runing at once but few higher level buffs and no high level buffs / debuffs to be used together.  But a high level buff / debuff could be used with a lower level 1
#26 Mephi1234 Mar 15, 2015 5:42:01	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #26) AaronOfBarbaria	Mephi1234 wrote:
#28 Mephi1234 Mar 15, 2015 7:23:20	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #28) AaronOfBarbaria	Mephi1234 wrote:
(Reply to #23) crimfan07	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#31 Mephi1234 Mar 16, 2015 7:38:20	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#32 Mephi1234 Mar 16, 2015 7:52:40	Okay, back on topic.   crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #25) crimfan07	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #32) crimfan07	Mephi1234 wrote:
#35 arnwolf666 Mar 16, 2015 11:13:39	I like 1E initiative and casting time as a balance, but that's just me.
#36 Orethalion Mar 16, 2015 11:19:52	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #34) feartheminotaur	crimfan07 wrote:
#38 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 16, 2015 12:21:43	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #36) crimfan07	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #38) crimfan07	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #37) crimfan07	feartheminotaur wrote:
#42 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 16, 2015 13:33:57	crimfan07 wrote:
#43 DarkSphinx Mar 16, 2015 13:41:40	One fairly simple option: Allow additional concentration spells, but increase the DC of saves to maintain concentration based on the number (or spell level).   Another couple of flavorful options: 1.  Allow multiple concentration spells as long as they are of different schools (transmutation, divination, etc.). 2. a.  Allow multiple concentration spells as long as they are of the same school (transmutation, divination, etc.). 2. b.  For wizard traditions, allow multiple concentration spells as long as they are of the wizard's arcane tradition school (transmutation, divination, etc.).   Mix either of these with the above (increased DC save) option for interesting variations.   BTW, I agree that requiring concentration (or channeling even) on web spell is heinous...  UNLESS!... concentration allows the web to increase in strength and/or size while concentrating!     -DS
(Reply to #36) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
#45 DarkSphinx Mar 16, 2015 14:17:54	arnwolf666 wrote:
#46 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 16, 2015 14:39:48	DarkSphinx wrote:
#47 Orethalion Mar 16, 2015 14:58:15	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #46) DarkSphinx	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #47) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #38) Reius	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#51 Orethalion Mar 16, 2015 18:32:50	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #51) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
#53 Orethalion Mar 16, 2015 19:22:12	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #50) crimfan07	Reius wrote:
(Reply to #51) crimfan07	[quote="Orethalion"] I just looked in the 1e PHB and the use of weapon factors, including speed factors, is not listed as optional.  The 1e DMG similarly says, that they are used to determine initiative and first strikes, with no mention of them as optional rules.  In fact, the example for weapon speed factors is a broadsword vs. a fireball spell.  You guys house ruled the speed factors out.
#56 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 16, 2015 20:38:54	DarkSphinx wrote:
(Reply to #42) crimfan07	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #56) AaronOfBarbaria	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#59 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 16, 2015 21:01:06	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #58) crimfan07	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #59) crimfan07	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#62 Orethalion Mar 16, 2015 22:13:43	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #55) arnwolf666	[quote="crimfan07"] Orethalion wrote:
#64 Orethalion Mar 17, 2015 7:43:04	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #56) DarkSphinx	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
(Reply to #64) crimfan07	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #59) feartheminotaur	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#68 arnwolf666 Mar 17, 2015 12:29:30	I just loved segments for casting time.
(Reply to #64) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
#70 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 17, 2015 12:54:01	DarkSphinx wrote:
(Reply to #67) crimfan07	feartheminotaur wrote:
(Reply to #70) crimfan07	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#73 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 17, 2015 15:26:42	I forgot to mention: My assumption is that this doesn't impact your actions. No one used concentration-based spells in 3e if they could avoid it for this very reason. Certain 4e powers have the sustain ability, true, but 4e powers usually are simpler and of smaller scale than the 5e counterparts, and 4e's action economy was designed from the ground up with this in mind, while 5e's wasn't.
#74 Orethalion Mar 17, 2015 16:36:27	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #74) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #70) DarkSphinx	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#77 MonsterEnvy Mar 18, 2015 2:11:11	I think removing or changing concetration as it is now. I just a terrible idea. It works well with balancing casters.    I belive you shoud always see how it works in game first before thinking of changing somthing (Unless it clearly will not work.)
(Reply to #77) arnwolf666	MonsterEnvy wrote:
(Reply to #71) feartheminotaur	crimfan07 wrote:
#80 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 18, 2015 10:59:34	I forgot to mention: If you want a cautionary tale about ditching concentration outright, and one of the reasons why I don't recommend doing it, just do a quick search for "twin buff" sorcerers. There's no single slang for this strategy yet, but it always involves using Twin Spell to multitarget a buff (like, say, Twin Haste). On the surface, this looks like it just conserves spell slots... but it also allows you to maintain just two buffs with your existing concentration slot, which is twice as many simultaneous buffs as the system was designed to handle. Ditching concentration means that everyone will be able to do this, or be able to maintain four buffs (albeit at a higher slot cost - though Twin Spell will still remain useful for slot conservation there.) The buffs themselves assume only one buff per caster, and that buff competes for space with offensive duration-based spells. Twin allows you to break that in some circumstances (and lends itself particularly well to buffs), and it gives you a sense of how the game strains under the load already.     If you want a simpler way to use the "each spell has a cost" thing, add drawbacks to the individual problem spells. For instance, let's adopt the "channelling" terminology. You can channel as many spells as you want (or with some other, smaller, limit), but only one at a time if you want to do it "safely". Problematic spells have an "Overchannel" penalty which kicks in if you're channelling more than one spell. (For instance, Bless might have "Overchannel: When an ally rolls their d4, you take that much radiant damage." That wouldn't kick in if Bless was your only channelled spell, but if you toss up Bless and Haste...)   Again, I do not recommend this at all. But I'm tossing it out there nonetheless.
#81 feartheminotaur Mar 18, 2015 11:27:17	Oh, I'm aware of the twinned dilemma (a phrase that brings unpleasant episodes past to mind *shudder*).   I'm in two, soon to be three, games with Sorcerers (and I play one).    Twinned spells are great, but metamagic does have a cost, so it's not like there isn't a limiting mechanic on it.   But you are right, removing concentration all together has a game-wide butterfly effect.   I, personally, wouldn't ditch concentration without introducing some other cost (and it could even be an increase in SP needed for Twinning).
#82 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 18, 2015 13:13:31	feartheminotaur wrote:
#83 MonsterEnvy Mar 18, 2015 13:18:53	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #82) feartheminotaur	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#85 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 18, 2015 15:11:15	feartheminotaur wrote: