Long term pre4E players who overall like 5E. Our homebrew game (not hobbyshop game) really hated this mechanic. Are we alone on this. We are long term 2E players. We tweaked a couple spells and the game plays fine without it. Anyone else doing this?
Concentration, in my opinion, is a necessary but overused mechanic.
There are a lot of concentration spells that don't need to be, and it's a pain and a bit of an issue at times. On the other hand, I do agree that it's valuable to have a mechanic to prevent a character from stacking buff after buff on themselves and just being invulnerable.
So personally, I'd be more likely to tweak a few spells and keep it than I am to tweak a few spells and remove it.
Not a bad concept, could have been better executed as some spells don't need it and being able to interrupt them via damage is a bit silly.
What I think I would do as a DM, if a player expressed your concern, is allow a way to mentally stretch your concentration to 2 spells at once. I could create the ability as a feat, or an ioun stone magic item, or something like that. I would, however, also make you take disadvantage to your Constitution saves (because I don't like to give anything for free 
).
*edit* Actually, that might be too harsh. I would probably make you roll saves for each spell and treat them individually. It is costing you a feat or a magic item attunement, after all.
Hate is an irrationally strong response to a game mechanic. Seeing as you and your group reacts irrationally and hatefully towards this rule I am unsure what you hope to accomplish by posting on a public discussion forum. It is not like anything anyone here says will change your mind. I wish I could, but I know I wont.
Yes, concentrate on your hate, distill it, focus on it... it will bring you to the darkside.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Nope. I'm a massive fan of concentration and consider it an essential part of balancing, as well as something that is incredibly sound logically. There are a few issues I have with it (i.e. not being able to hold a cantrip as a reaction without it taking concentration and ruining your buff) but overall most spells that should be concentration ARE concentration and most spells that shouldn't be are not. What's more, if you actually take CON proficiency and warcaster, dropping it from damage should be a pretty rare occurence. My eldritch knight has yet to drop concentration on ANYTHING, despite being on the front line of almost every fight.
Plus there are few things quite as funny as someone forgetting that Fly takes concentration and casting another concentration spell.
Concentration is one of the best mechanics to come out of 5E in my opinion. It gets away from the half a dozen active spells problem that Pathfinder has, especially at higher levels.
Ditto it being one of the best mechanics of the edition.
Not only does it prevent the silly overbuffing (and subsequent dispel magic meta that 3e involved), it also makes casters pick their role, since most of the debuffs and crowd control also use the mechanic.
There are probably some spells where it's not necessary, but then again, it's a very thin line. Pick the spell that you won't cast due to to concentration and remove it. Is it now basically an always-cast spell? Then yes, it deserved concentration in the first place.
In my opinion concentration works well for many classes.
But the Ranger and Warlock are a bit problimatic, the hunters mark and hex spells seem such a important part in the design of these classes.
And with the long duration on those concentraition spels it is cleat the intent is for you to keep them up all the time.
So basicly all other concentration spells on the spell lists for those classes are just padding for the spell list, as you can't raly use them without dropping your class damage mecanic.
And in my opinion hunters mark and hex should have been class abilities to start with.
I think it is one of the best mechanics in the game...
edwin_su wrote:
As someone who routinely had 4 persistant 24-hour buffs on simultatneously in 3.5, i get why someone would hate the new concentration mechanic at first because it feels like a nerf when you're used to freely stacking everything to the sky. That said, i like that it forces me to think tactically about what i want cast, when i want it instead of just casually stacking everything.
The release of the aaracokra kinda opened a door too... now you can fly all day while having another concentration spell.
I like the idea that you can only maintain one concentration spell at the time, but I'm not a big fan of the interrupting part...
Delazar78 wrote:
Qzoo wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Concentration is a mechanic that has been around for a long time. The only problem with it during the 3rd edition era was that it was too easy to increase your Concentration skill.
Concentration makes perfect sense because the caster is having to concentrate and hold a spell.
I don't have a problem with the mechanic, myself. Nor do the players in my group, so far.
Can you give us some reasons for your dislike of the mechanic, because I'm not understanding why Concentration seems to be so maligned.
ankiyavon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Dancing lights doesn't need it and every other low level cleric buff spell that is not bless doesn't need it.
arnwolf666 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
To be honest I am quite surprised that is so well loved when I see so many other solutions to the problems people have, like spell duration and casting times to name just two.
ankiyavon wrote:
I shouldn't be surprised really. I am used to powerful spellcasters even thought Fighter and Barbarian are my favorite classes. I am after all playing a 2E game with modified 5E rules. Changing the magic rules too much would completely ruin my homebrew setting.
Concentration is a interesting mecanic.
Not only is it there to prevend stacking of buffs, but becouse it does that it also heps with the 5 minute workday.
With the fast combats and the concentration mechanic it is now very hard to go trough all your spell slots in a single combat.
So if one would remove the concentration mechanic one should be aware it does efect pacing for certain classes.
Ofcourse this is not a issue if yout intent was to change that pasing,
But then again some non s[e;casting classes might start lagging behind.
I actually think it helps those who have the 5MWD problem the most. I never had a 5MWD problem, I just avoided going Nova most of the time and never whined when I did. Old School Wands helped alot also. I like combining spells. I think it brings out alot of creativity for the players. But you must be very careful with spell creation when you do this. I have rewritten a few spells for my homebrew game.
I am playing a 10th level wizard currentyly in ROT and enjoying it alot. It's a hobby shop game so it is RAW. I help the party out more with Arcane Eye then anything in my opinion. I found polymorph a waste of a spell slot as every time I cast it I take damage and the spell is over. I've never made a successful hit with the spell the three times I have used it. I have found the wall spells useful for controlling the flow of the fight. Legendary Resistances change the tone of BBEG fights dramatically. Not sure if I really mind that or not really as a 2E player most BBEG passed saves anyway and had high MR. Counterspell is the best thing that ever happened to wizards in this edition IMHO.
FrogReaver wrote:
CCS wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I will also admit that I love watching inexperienced players go Nova at the wrong time and be screwed later because they don't know how to judge how many spells to use in an encounter.
Yeah, it is probably one of the worst mechanics in the game, next to attunement and magical item creation.
I can understand why it was introduced but it is trying to solve a problem that I never had.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Rains wrote:
Concentration is one of the major elements brought in the game to prevent spellcasters from totally dominating the game at higher levels. It's also one of the major tools to avoid DM headaches at higher levels, about all the buffs that the PCs and the NPCs might have running at one time. If only for these reasons, I think it is very important to keep it. Everyone is entitled to tinker with their implementation of tyhe mechanic in their own game, but I realy think that it's a good thig to have it in the RAW.
Now, there will always be players whining because they think that their characters is not as powerful as it used to be (or could be if some "silly" rules were not in place), usually spellcasters players, and acutally usually wizards/sorcerers who were major abusers under 3(.5). After 35+ years of playing the game, I am fairly hardskinned about this kind of complaint. :p
I think concentration is basically fine, but would allow a feat along the following lines for casters who feel it's a bit boring:
Versatile Caster: You may have one active concentration spell per target, or alternatively you may maintain two concentration spells on a single target. If you take damage, make separate concentration checks for each spell.
i prefer the 4e version, where you have to spend your bonus action to sustain.
though some spells, like hold person, should be interuptable.
Ilse wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
danyc wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Look on the bright side of concentration : Spellcasters no longer need to burn spell slots to spam buffs during the same fight.
It is better on the spell slot management side that way I think, unless, of course, you want to burn your spell slots on offensive spells but that would be unwise in a game that promote cooperative gameplay. Your friends are there to help too !
For my part, I like concentration, exept I wouldn't have included spells like detect magic in the list.
We use a house rule to make a compromise between people like me (who love concentration and the end of 230 buff stacks) and players who like to have many spells:
The rules for concentration on spells are somewhat liberalized, as follows:
§ Spellcasters can concentrate on one additional spell per five caster levels, with a maximum total spell levels not exceeding caster level. Readying an action does not count against this limit.
§ Spellcasters use their primary statistic for their concentration checks
§ Concentration checks have an additional +1 to their DC per concentration spell maintained past the first.
§ A spellcaster may not have more than one concentration spell active on a single target other than themselves, or more than one overlapping area, at a time. If he casts a concentration spell targeting a creature (or area) on which he is already maintaining a concentration spell, the previous spell ends.
The PCs in the next 5e one-shot I run will be 11th level, so we will playtest to see if the rule will work out. So far in lower level games a villainous NPC cleric had spirit guardians on and then cast suggestion on another player nearby. Didn't break the game yet. We shall see though!
Primary stat for concentration to make checks not get too much harder as the DC goes up, helps at low levels.
Rule prevents overlapping area effect spells or stacking attacks on a single target for multiple saves per round from one caster.
Increased DC for mutiple spells, not sure if +1 is enough, perhaps +2?
Anyhow, testing this weekend some more. 
danyc wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I wrote a thread on concentration about some ideas on how I would change it. As for legendary resistances, I believe a boss should take damage if it uses that feature so as least the spell did something.
http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4206186
For spells concentration requirement is hit and miss. Because of earlier versions of DnD, concentration is a great mechanic for limiting how many spells are active at one time.
- There are simply some mistakes in the PH such as suggestion requires concentration and mass suggestion doesn’t.
- The buff spells such as blur requires concentration. Blink doesn’t not require concentration. Both spells should require concentration as they are both one minute buff spells. Mirror image don’t require concentration but probably should (1 minute buff).
- All short term buff/utility spells of likely 10 minute duration or less should likely require concentration.
- For hour duration spells, it is hard to say if they should require concentration or not?
- Long term buff spells like Aid or Foresight that last for 8 hours it makes sense they don’t require concentration.
For spell durations: I like the concept of [encounter] [short rest] or [long rest]. The whole 1 minute, 10 minute, 1 hour, 8 hours, seems a bit more complex than it needs to be.
- [encounter] duration spells being a few minutes enough time to handle one fight and perhaps a fight that goes immediately into another fight.
- [short rest] duration spells end after an hour or a short rest is taken.
- [long rest] duration spells end after a long rest has been taken. These spells likely actually last longer than 8 hours.
Instead of concentration you could simply have one spell of each type active at any one time.
UPDATED: suggestion for concentration:
1. Keep concentration for offensive spells with a continuous effect. This allows villains or heroes to break out of a nasty on-going effect by targeting the caster.
2. All other spells with a duration should not require concentration but there should be a total limit as to how many can be active based on level. This may not apply to cantrips and doesn't apply to a duration of 1 round.
At lower levels: Only one of each spell duration active at once. Example:
1. Encounter duration spell: Bless or hold person.
2. Short duration spell: Protection from energy (1 hour)
3. Long duration spell: Aid (8 hours)
At medium levels: Here you might add multiple long duration spells.
1. Encounter duration spells: Mirror image or wall of fire.
2. Medium duration : Stone skin or polymorph.
3. Long duration spells: Mage armor plus animate dead.
At higher levels: More multiple long duration spells. Probably keep shorter duration spells limited to one. Wizards might get a bonus on long duration spells as it's part of their main feature.
1. Encounter duration spells: Mirror image or wall of fire
2. Medium duration : Stone skin or polymorph.
3. Long duration spells: Mage armor, animate dead, simulacrum, contingency.
arnwolf666 wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
May be a bit late to the party to sound off here but I have had no problems at all with concentration. I think it's one of the best things to come of out 5e and if there are a few "rough spots" with how it affects certain spells, I'd rather have those few rough spots rather than the power creep, stacking, out of control craziness we saw with prior versions of the game.
An optimized fighter in 3.5 could easily do hundreds of damage per round at higher levels. Charge builds or trip builds with combat reflexes could really push out the high numbers. Fighters were low on the tier system because all a fighter could do was damage and didn't have good skills or other ways to solve problems out of combat.
I agree though that a 3.X full caster could total break the game at level 10+. Spells like scry, buff, teleport, etc.. Just to name a few problems. A wizard could double the fighters damage output and greatly increase their defenses too.
Jared711 wrote:
Karnos wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
"Hate concentration" sounds like a Star Wars Sith power.
ModusPonens wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I'm not sure what concentrated hate is. But if it's anything like concentrated evil, don't touch it or you'll explode.
I actually think concentration would be a great mechanic for psionics. Any in many ways it wouldn't be too bad if it was you can have just one concentration spell going at a time and not losing the spell everytime you take damge (for me any ways). NPCs are already making a save every round to break duration effects on them for most spells. But it doesn't feel like magic to me. I like planning spells out and stacking their effects. I think it seems more wizard in my opinion (purely my opinion and an aesthetic thing). And it works for me.
I am just honestly shocked how well it is liked. But to each their own. Play the game you like the way you like it. After all I am just playing a modified 1E/2E/5E game in my homebrew setting for people that are flexible with rules and have been playing the game a very long time.
But I still need to master the rules for the hobby shop game.
ModusPonens wrote:
I don't mind someone having stoneskin, haste, protection from energy, false life,and mirror image on them. Doesn't ruin the game for me one bit, Burn through your spell slots. Go nova, and get watch the combat be over while you are buffing all those spells.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
They already did a pretty good job at making high level spellcasters not dominate the game. Also they got rid of almost every numerical bonus, so there is no more stacking of armor class buffs, to-hit penalties or stat stacking. They did it by only giving them 1 spell of each high level slot. Also by nerfing almost every strong high level spell. But they left room for free infinitely chained simulacrums and Wishes, so I guess there is that.
Stoneskin, fog cloud, and cantrips that create light are examples of the level of pure heavyhandedness they went with for concentration. Between 1/3 and 1/2 half of the spells in the book require concentration. The vast majority of those spells aren't even strong spells, and they have short durations anyways(1 minute or less).
They still didn't stop the problem of 'Haste is the best spell in the game'. But they did succeed in making Stoneskin THE most pointless spell in the game.....4th level spell that stops half the damage from 1 physical attack, for hundreds of gold pieces, then its gone because concentration...but the fighter can drink potions of stoneskin all day without using concentration...Even if he did have to, he is NATURALLY better at concentrating on magic spells than actual spell casters.
Byakugan01 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I can't believe anyone finds stoneskin a problem in this edition. It is quite the joke, especially at higher levels when most monster attacks bypass it, and even when it works you still take half damage. I've never ran an premade adventure that I never had to tweak until 5E because I was trying to do it by the book at the hobby shop. And their seems to be a stigma with changing adventures and encounters with players these days. They get the adventures, read them online, and feel cheated when DMs change things.
It really seems to me that it is okay for spellcasters to have their spells negated, but woah if a Sword or monster bite gets negated it is the end of the world and the spellcaster is way too powerful. Stoneskin is such a joke in this edition that they actually made it a Ranger spell.
M'thinks, perhaps, thou art playing the wrong system/edition.
(Not a ding. As there is nothing wrong with that...)
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Jared711 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Jared711 wrote:
i dislike the concentration spells that give enemies "Saves" every turn
my concentration should cancel out any potential for a save after i've asserted my will against your initial save
arnwolf666 wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
randl wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ilse wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I kind of feel that they way most spells were redone and with the fewer slots that the concentration mechanic is not needed. Who cares if someone has stoneskin, protection from evil, haste, and a summoning spell going all at once.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I think concentration is one of the best things they added in this edition, and I usually play a wizard. Not only does it make spellcasters and non-spellcasters more balanced, it also adds an element of strategy to the game that wasn't there before. It also encourages teamwork. Devastating combos like wall of force + cloudkill are still possible, but now you need two people to do it. If you get dominated by an enemy spellcaster, you're not just SOL because nobody else in the party can dispel magic. The fighter can now "dispel" it by beating up the enemy spellcaster. Magic now feels like high risk, high reward, as I think it should.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Jared711 wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
I will add that for me the concentraiton mechanic does not work. It throws out a playstyle I have been comfortable using in many old settings that I have used for decades. I would rather tweak my spells then use the concentration mechanic. But I will say 5E has brought many good things that have made the game more enjoyable. I like Bounded accuracy, the skill system, the way feats work, the best Bard and Rogue class ever, the best counterspell system ever, I love how reactions work. Overall a very good edtion with very good innovations in my opinion.
I will add that for the martial characters and warlocks, I have been building my game around a 5 minute short rest.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Ilse wrote:
I played a lot of 1e and 2e. Concentration actually turns me away from 90% of the spells I would otherwise choose. It's so bad I've actually avoided some classes, and multiclassed in other places where I wouldn't have. People say we are supposed to depend on each other as a group, so thats why all these spell casters have concentration, instead of duration independent spells, but that's not how the game actually plays out. I've requested numerous spell effects, and so have other people, but they don't. The other players don't, and I don't blame them. They are all busy with their current concentration spells, or they realize the concentration spell modifiers are so low they would be wasting their action.
Who wants to throw away 30 damage per round to give a +3/round to an ally? Who wants to not heal a wounded party member from near death just so they can maintain a tiny pecking bird doing 1d4 damage? Concentration gutted D&D Buffing magic. People still stack, but they stack effects, items, and class abilities that don't have concentration. Balance wasn't maintained, it was merely shifted, while irritating players.
When the Psionicist comes out, I hope they finally introduce a character with multiple concentration effects operating simultaneously. Please don't stick us in situations where we have to choose between Flesh Armor for our Armor Class, Body Weapon for our Attack, and Mind Blank to protect our minds.
arnwolf666 wrote:
shintashi wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
There are far better RPG systems out there to emulate playing in a Harry Potter setting than D&D could ever hope to be. Just sayin'...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I recommend you give Google a try.
No, that's not snark. Seriously. Just Google: "Harry Potter tabletop RPG".
Heck, there's even a guy that released a free rules PDF for it that he made.
Enjoy!
Shasarak wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
shintashi wrote:
I do not think that "cinematic" is what DnD should be aiming for. A TRPG is significantly different to a Movie so just because Gandalf could only cast Light and Aragorns DM only gave him a broken magical sword does not mean to say that I want DnD is be based on what ever a Hollywood director thinks looks good on the screen.
Macv12 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Ilse wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Jared711 wrote:
buffing. its a car, or its a piece of a car. You cant drive to Seattle with a hubcap. Concentration has turned an auto factory into a bike shop.
why are people so obsessed with weak characters? I never got that. The enjoyment of spending 3-4 hours making a character to get hopelessly slaughtered by encounters? Seriously? Why? Seems like every edition the parity of level vs. monster challenge rating lowers. Used to be a 20th level 1st edition barbarian could kill Tiamat solo. An 18th level 2e wizard could solo the Tarrasque. Then it took a party of 4 to take out an "encounter". Then the "encounter" became legendary. Then the party of four is required to take out one monster. Now you guys have like 100 spells that aren't even allowed to partially overlap.
I can imagine it now...
10th Edition D&D... Enjoy the Epic Adventures as your FTR rolls 5d3+5 hit points, and join the Ultraquest Raid style battle against LOTHAR, the CR5 Ogre, who is 200 feet tall, has 5d10,000 +100,000 hp, and breaths nuclear blasts. But don't worry, your FTR is buffed by 378,000 Multiclass WIZ/CLR levels 2/3 and 3/2 each logged in through their Smartphones, and they are all casting different versions of the Errata buffs versions 3.029 through 10.732-X11, to avoid overlapping the same spell and canceling out the benefit. With your team work, each providing you with a +1 damage, or +1 hit point, you are able to brave the battle against LOTHAR, Destroyer of EDO! With his CR of 5, he's worth an astouding 10 experience points, which you can use to buy one Ultimate Epic Super Ultra Everything is Awesome Boon. You choose "Massively Godlike hit points!!!11", which gives you a semi-permanent bonus of +1hp on Tuesdays, under the light of the full moon. You Rush to your astrological iwatch Ap, and plot your battle against NEEMOR the TERRIBLE, a CR6 Troll! 500,000 TwiXR messages fly out across cyberspace... Stay Tuned
shintashi wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Ilse wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
It seems to me like there are people here who may be like square pegs trying to fit in round holes. I mean, who goes to a WoD forum and complains about rolling a lot of d10s? Or to a GURPS forum complaining about point-buy systems? Or to an AD&D 2e forum complaining that it's not more like 5th edition? To me, 5th edition does things for 5th editions sake. And all combined make up the game 5th edition. Cutting away or replacing big, integral parts of it means not having it be 5th edition anymore. And what's the point in that? Now I'm not talking about the modules, optional rules, dials, or stuff like that that are part of the flexibility of 5th edition. But I mean core of what the design is based around and intrinsic balance aspects. Without those key features, what have you got left? A different edition or system you'd like more? Why aren't you playing that instead in the first place? Or if you feel getting where you want to go requires starting with 5th edition, but once you get there it isn't that anymore, why are you here telling people who are here to discuss 5th edition and not whatever frankenstein's monster you've created out of its broken bones?
LordCorwin wrote:
Yeah, nah concentration is not core to 5e.
Cutting it out would be a good modular option, IMNSHO.
I believe the writers of 5th edition would disagree. But YMMV, one supposes. I will say that it looks like more people in this thread have said it *is* integral vs. those who said not.
arnwolf666 wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Dude. When they talk about variant rules, they have specifically called it out. Several times. The writers DO clearly think Concentration is a key, core mechanic to the edition. They have said, again several times, that it is one of the few mechanics that they do not recomend changing. And they're, ultimately, the ones who decide what the core mechanics are.
Farmer42 wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
things that would/have made our 5e game run smoother.
1. simplified crits: double damage total, whatever it is (we didn't know until 12 sessions in... and then the game kinda went suck)
2. Concentration simply meaning "duration can expire whenever you want" this probably went on for a while, may 6 sessions. Some of us actually thought it meant The spell ends either when you stop concentrating (such as during a long or short rest) or had an independent duration like 1 minute. Some thought it meant you could maintain the spell by concentrating up to 1 minute. Most of us thought concentration was confusing but we had no idea how bad it actually sucked until the legit, crap version manifested.
3. dropping the multiclass spell casting tables. This didn't help balance anything. It just warped things like max spell casting effectiveness while reducing number of lower level spells. I would rather have the spells I know at lower level than cast fewer spells from multiple classes at higher level. And round down? Seriously? That's just mean.
D&D has two playing styles. Apophatic and Cataphatic. Apophatic D&D rules are better; when you look at the rules as a list of things you can't do, as boundaries. When you look at D&D as Cataphatic - meaning only what is written is what you can do with it, then the amount of rules you need never ends, and you end up with Hundreds of Classes and thousands of variants, but a lot of unhappy people.
D&D is supposed to be enjoyable, and 5e is supposed to allow people to have their own playing style favorites from other editions. 5e promised it wouldn't attempt to become yet another incarnation of Edition Wars, but that's exactly what people are trying to do with it. When someone with happy gamers from previous editions comes to this forum and says 'your new edition is making my gamers unhappy' you don't stop and go 'well, screw you hippie, me and my iwatch buddies love this new edition. Go back to your antique Linux Desktop and your dusty old books. We don't need you'.
shintashi wrote:
shintashi wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
shintashi wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Kazadvorn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Since I rarely play a spellcaster, that might be why I like concentration. Without it my preferred character types become marginalized as the spellcasters become more and more powerful. Casters & Caddies and all that.
I enjoy it, and my players enjoy it. We are all hardcore 3e players. It was a trip to not have to worry about buffing correctly for a change.
However, I am a huge fan of dropping in very few but powerful items. Such as one that increases the amount of spells one can concentrate on by 1. It is interesting how often that extra concentration slot goes unused if the particular caster is worried about just throwing out spells.
I can see both sides of the coin. I am much more of a fan on low magic settings. Middle Earth, the world of the Black Company, and the like. Sometimes I do want to feed that higher fanasty beast though, and then I would want concentration to not be as much of a factor.
But again, I really enjoy the concentration rules thus far, and I have heard no complaints from my players. If they don't complain, then I don't see a reason to change.
Brock_Landers wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The level of rudeness around here is unfortunate. Sorry for expressing an opinion.
arnwolf666 wrote:
I think some people here don't even know how Concentration works.
Anyway I would never remove it or allow someone to cast two at once. It can seriously break the game if used in the right combinations. It will make Casters way way too powerful and they are already very strong.
arnwolf666 wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Jared711 wrote:
Istbor wrote:
i think its funny when people talk about concentration and balance. Any rule that fundamentally effects so much of the game is never about balance. See, balance is really just whether or not one class has an advantage over others, or whether the player characters are too powerful compared with the DM run encounters. Thing is, concentration rules apply to both DM encounters and to players. If the Wizard can cast stoneskin and some other spells, so can an NPC villain or their henchmen. Is it only wizards who deal with concentration? No. Concentration pervades all spell casters. That includes a Fighter type (EK), Paladins, Rangers, A Rogue Type (AT), Clercs, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks.
Additionally, it means you would be able to do multiple buffs on classes like the Monk and Barbarian... and your enemies would be able to do the same.
Now like I said, Balance was funny to me. In 2nd edition, we didn't have infinity cantrips. In 1e, we started with 1 spell a day, and had 2 hit points as wizards. We could be killed by housecats doing a paw/paw/bite attack. But balance between editions is variable. 5e caps characters at what 2e would consider about 14th level, and 1e might consider 9th or 12th level, give or take. 1e characters were more powerful at high levels than just about any edition, and 2e were nothing to sneeze at. 3e characters had weird race mixes but when we talk about Balance, the favor went to the monsters largely after 9th level. In 4e, it was more like a video game so balance was up to the mood of the players, but basically if you squint, everything was roughly the same. 5e characters at higher levels are a bit more robust than 4e, and maybe slightly weaker at levels 1-3. Again, these are vague observations.
It is true that concentration being removed changes the power dynamic. Character classes would change from 1/4th an encounter to a full encounter. By that, I mean a single wizard of a level equal to the challenge rating of a dragon or giant or devil, for instance, could probably dispatch that Encounter, legendary actions and all, single handedly with good planning. Of course, without planning, the lack of concentration advantage experienced by previous editions has shown to be almost non existent.
You can't really enter a brand new battle and tell the bad guys to wait while you charge up 3 or four special effects. Additionally, some of your special effects would expire almost as quickly as you get to the next set. For example, if you cast 9 different stacking effects, on average, they would have a duration of 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 and 1 round respectively. So for 10 rounds you are setting up effects, and not likely doing anything unless the particular effect also allows you to take a free or associated action. Next, you have an average of 5 rounds with an average of 5 effects up, being strongest for the first 3-4 rounds and tapering down again in the remainder. Is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not.
The mechanic shows that even if we want characters to have huge piles of powers active, there is already a practical limit in place, and a cost of several rounds of preparation. Now don't get me wrong, there will be group spells, and there will be summoning spells, and there will be a couple of spells with several minutes or hours duration. That's fine.
But we should look at an important fact:
The topic of concentration is controversial. While many of you like it, some of you don't. The fact that people can get upset about it tells us plain as day:
there needs to be a printed optional rule to ignore concentration in some future supplement. Printed optional rules exist to resolve arguments. Then the DM can use them, or not use them, but the argument stops there. Right now, this thread is proving the argument is with the rules, not with the DM.
Sure, DMs can ignore or change any rule they don't like, but especially controversial rules need to be adressed.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
shintashi wrote:
shintashi wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Ilse wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MonsterEnvy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ilse wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I will also add that for me, one of the greatest joys of the game, is customizing rules for the type of setting I want to create. It's very fun for me.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Personal attacks against me asside, I can vouch for a variety of points:
1. I don't even play a wizard in 5e. I'm too much of a munchkin to wait till 18th level to cast Polymorph Other, when I had the same spell at 7th for 20+ years.
2. out of 11 characters in our group, only one doesn't have spells. 5e is very heavy in spell casting.
3. The second most powerful character in a game I DMed from AD&D was a Fighter, and in many ways he was arguably more powerful than the most powerful character in the game. That game included five spell casters.
4. The options available to a class in D&D depended on the editions and the books you owned. S&P and high level campaigns gave our token fighter a 60% Resistance to Magic. That fighter was quite rich because of dragon hordes, and he had plenty of access to wishes from players and items alike, even though we were relatively a low magic item campaign compared with other DMs. I have stories about the +3 Mace, which reminds me, the Cleric kept complaining that the Fighter was too powerful and hogging all the glory. Maybe it's true. I recall many battles where the fighter just killed the main encounter so quickly others had difficulty figuring out what to do next. The group sorted it out by saying things like "You take this one, I'll handle the next".
Now, Removing Concentration is Easy. You simply have a rule that says "Where Concentration is Listed, the duration listed may be used instead". The books already have time units next to concentration, so nothing has to be added. The spell lists don't have to be reprinted, they work fine the way they are.
How bad did buffing get in our campaigns? Well, Haste back in the day aged your character a year, so it wasn't cast frequently. Stoneskin was cast on Warriors and Wizards, because Warriors were front liners, and Wizards were squishy, like way easier to kill than stuff in later editions. A 20th level wizard might have 40 hit points in 1e or 2e. Not good enough for a random claw/claw/bite from a dragon. Later, improved haste spells came into play.
When fighting something like an elemental or dragon, Protection from X was common. When fighting wizards, you might see various anti magic shells, or minor globes, or prismatic spheres, depending on what the players had. I think the most common time stacking happened was when characters were fighting really powerful foes, like main villains, god avatars, etc. Warriors of Heaven introduced some completely broken stuff, but thankfully we waited until people's characters were already "broken" before introducing it, so it was hardly noticeable.
Actually, every edition except maybe 4e has something some character class or spell can do that is totally busted. As a DM, I look at how things play out, as averages, and peaks, before deciding whether it will work for my campaign. Each edition has it's own balance though, and if you want the same feel from one edition to the next, that can be tough. 3e for example changed the power relationship, from near demigods to modest heroes, although there were some exceptions, and i was told many times 3e "assumes" magic items in play. Which for me was a little odd, because my favorite AD&D classes typically eschewed magic items (monk, barbarian, kensai, psionicist). It was like being told "everyone smokes for +5 bonuses" and I'm like "But I don't smoke?". XD
The searing language used in this thread, I put forward as further evidence that the concept of concentration is not a done deal in everyone's mind. People have their reasons for changing it, or not using it in their own games. Many people are happy with it. But we need a Blue Box in a supplement somewhere for the people who don't want to use it. That blue box won't change the ability to have concentration as a standard rule. It will simply let DMs know it's ok if their particular group wants to skip it - many do.
Ilse wrote:
shintashi wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
one of the problems i can see concentration being redacted to listed durations is the fact that something like "your head is on fire for 2d6/round" or "you are under mind control for up to 1 hour" might be a bit broken, if you are looking to find a way to stop it.
Concentration spells could therefore have Release conditions that indicate "concentration" spells have turned off. Presummably, a spell without a concentration duration doesn't have a shut off condition other than dispel magic. It works whether you are charmed, tied up, asleep, etc.
But what if Concentration spells were an indicator that if the Wizard is under the following conditions, concentration spells end?
1. Dead
2. 0 hit points/Unconscious (such as being knocked out with a weapon or martial arts)
3. Sleeping, Naturally or Otherwise
4. Subject to a failed Save/Suck effect and failing, such as Paralysis, Sleep, Petrification, or Polymorph
5. Charmed or Possessed
6. Laughing Hideously or Uncontrollably
7. Some other shocking event that has a non instanteous duration that also involves Failure
The first 6 are obvious conditions for breaking concentration, although Paralysis and Charm might not be, and #7 is sort of a catch all for other conditions I might have missed. I thought being burned alive or electrocuted might be operative, but then I thought a protection from fire or electricity might be concentration spells (they are), and that would be a game paradox.
My main emphasis is on the notion that concentration ends if you fail a saving throw for something that has a non permanent duration and also pulls your character out of battle because of that failure.
So the Way it might work is Concentration Spells as listed last up to their Duration, but they may be ended At will be ceasing concentration, or by meeting a condition where concentration is no longer possible, as listed above.
Certainly if psionicists are introduced, it will be tempting to apply concentration to all of their effects. This would be an unmitigated disaster as their capacity to attack and defend psionically should be treated like worn equipment. The number of times you see a flying/levitating psionic character who is also 2. sensing their surroundings 3. shielding themselves with a forcefield 4. maintaining a shielded mind and 5. attacking with a super power and/or doing some kind of super speed/melee effect is pretty high. For them I suggested simultaneous concentration up to their Wisdom Modifier.
That "limitation" might work for spell casters for some games, using Intelligence or Charisma modifier in place of Wisdom.
Here is an observation I have noted from my experiences with concentration in 5e both as player and DM: One of the nice side benefits of concentration and the debuff of buffing in 5e in general is that players of casters are more free to choose the spells they want.
In 3.5/PF, where buffing is king, it is expected (or even demanded in some groups) that a caster will dedicate a sizeable portion of their spells just so they can buff the party and themselves according to the group's determination as to what is most optimal. This often meant that the caster's spell list was predetermined with very little room for variation.
Since a caster can often maintain just one buff in 5e, demands to be the buff-bot almost disappear entirely. This makes being the caster a lot more fun. Also, preparing higher level spell lists feels less like sumbitting a scientific paper too, since the urge for "peer review" of the caster's list by the other players is reduced greatly due to the simple fact that the caster can't buff them all anymore.
As a result, I have seen less statements such as, "What do you mean you don't have _____!" Or, "Buff me now, plz!"
Sure, players still make requests and demands for spells and buffs in 5e, but it is very liberating when the caster says, "OK I'll buff you, but I can only give you one and that means it goes away when I use Power Word: Nuke It," and then to have the requesting player say, "Ok, save the spell, I'll use my own resources instead."
As a DM, I absolutely don't miss having to deal with buff stacking-- whether it is from the players' side or for my having to implement similar measures for NPC/Monster casters.
Kishri wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Polymorph has not been working for me. Yeah, I did the fireball thing. But those are pretty useless in the major fights so far, but they do a good job leading up to the fights and weakening certain areas before a fight.
Tiny Hut, arcane eye, rope trick have all been great out of combat.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Jared711 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I would also say a lot of it has to do with how you use your spells and what one's definition of "effective" is.
Just last night in a 5e game, in a fight with a bunch of undead including a mini boss, the party wizard cast a humble Flaming Sphere spell. While it wasn't a show stopper, it did a great job of area denial and actually did a boat load of damage to the boss and his minions over the 5 rounds it lasted. In fact, the sphere caused the killing damage to the boss.
Sure, it didn't destroy any undead right off. It didn't stop any undead right in their tracks. But it did help channel the undead, while nickle and diming them with damage, so the rest of the party could more effectively womp on them. Over the 5 rounds, the sphere did about 300 points of damage to various critters, greatly speeding up the battle. If ones definition of effective is all about delivering the knock-out blow, or racking up gobs of DPR, then no, that Flaming Sphere didn't get the job done. However, if by effective one means the spell contributes gainfully towards the party achieving a goal (winning a major, above CR, fight in this case with no one being forced to make a death saving throw), then it was a blazing success. The player had a lot of fun with it too.
A minor digression from up thread where what it was like being a caster in AD&D was mentioned and how it often sucked with high magic resistances and the fact that most everything saved on a 3 or higher-- This was true. However, that never stopped skilled players from rocking with casters by getting creative. Can't effect it directly? Fine... let's see if it can breathe mud, shoot through walls, or survive me bringing down the roof on it... or one of a thousand other options.
In short, direct spell attacks often failed, especially the save-or-I-win spells, and if that was important to the player, then being a magic-user (single class)* in high level AD&D was disappointing. However, if you got creative... "It might have 100% MR and save on 2, but that floor he is standing upon doesn't. Muwahahaha." Also, there were spells that allowed no save at all, or even if you saved it still sucked-- Fumble was a great example of this.
I am thnking that 5e has inherited this mindset from AD&D to some extent.
*Two of the most common house rules, to the point of almost being universal, was the lifting of race level limits, and the other being that any race, including human, can multiclass meaning that many characters in high powered games were often multiclassed which changed the game's dynamic in many ways.
Kishri wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Kishri wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Kishri wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Jared711 wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
My current PC would be broken if he was able to stack concentration spells. I'm glad I can't.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I like to optimize either toward a goal or toward a theme, with the theme+goal optimization being top priority. When in a cluster F**, the team work aspect is supposed to use the unique resources of the variety of classes to acheive values neccessary to overcome difficult situations. When stranded or intentionally flying solo or in small groups (such as someone getting called into work or half the party dying mid dungeon from unepected high damage and lots of failed saves), it is useful to be able to wing it by prepping and then dumping your own limited resources into whatever layers are necessary to make it out alive, at least until someone can call for backup, get to the medic/raise dead guy, etc.
For some people balance is what it's all about. I think Concentration is imbalanced. I think it weakens characters and NPCs too much.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
My Assassin/Shadow Monk/Warlock could have darkness and hex going simultaneously, just as the immediately obvious example. I'm sure there are others.
Like, recently I had hex up. A few rounds later I wanted to spider climb out of reach of the melee monsters. So I could safely rain arrows down on them. But I wasn't willing to drop hex, so I decided against it. Stuff like that. Or invisibility with pass without trace and spider climb is the ultimate unfindable scout.
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Also, the dichotomy is quite entertaining. "Oh, well we don't use optional rules that might negatively impact play. Hey, look guys, I'm going to houserule this major change to the game that will remove concentration to allow buff stacking..."
Hehe. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I love it.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I was thinking that you could go with a compromise. Concentrating on invisibility alone, no problem. Concentrate on invisibility + spider climb, now you're at a DC 5 each round to maintain them all. Still no problem if you have an into of 8 or higher. Add a third spell and it jumps to 10. A fourth and you're at 15. Miss one check and they all come tumbling down. No modifiers other than your intelligence.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Consider a character that could do nothing in combat besides 2 abilities.
He has an ability at level 20 that he could deal 800 damage during the day a divided any number of ways he desired even between multiple turns and encounters. As an action he can choose to do any amount of damage up his maximum unused damage for the day.
He also has a once per day ability to instantly take him and his party to a safe place to rest for 8 hours.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3.5e method of balance was saying he can deal a comparable amount of damage in a day to any other melee character so it's balanced regardless of his ability to ensure a safe long rest at any time
The 5e method of balance says we can't only worry about limiting what a character can do in a day, we also have to worry about limiting how much he can do on a single turn. (or at a single point in time). Then it doesn't matter nearly as much when or if he can get a rest.
FrogReaver wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
every single fight i have been in the last unknown number of gaming sessions has had an encounter with NPCs that could exploit whatever exploits PCs might get from concentration. My last fight was with half a dozen wizards including a Lich. Invisibility was used by one of them to try to escape. One of our players got lucky guessing which three hallways to cast thunderwave down. When I was hiding in a room, an NPC came in and cast Cone of cold, wiping out her own allies to do damage to us. That actually happens a lot - our NPCs keep killing themselves off to try to take us out. Stacking invisibility, or even Haste, isn't going to make any of us demigods.
shintashi wrote:
arnwolf666 if it's your game, I suggest you remove concentration from weaker spells that you don't think should have it like protection from energy or stone skin. On stronger spells like bless and improved invisibility you leave the requirement. You have already corrected some of the broken non-concentration spells so it seems adjusting the spells would be easier and more balanced.
Concentration is a sort of hit or miss anyhow, why does blink not have concentration but blur does, etc.
If your players aren't abusing not having concentration then you could remove the concept entirely as you said. You know how best to handle how you want your own game to proceed. Know that's it's easier to start with less and then give more later than the other way around. Perhaps you could give the casters an item that would allow for more concentration spells to be cast with the knowledge it might be taken away.
Jared711 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
wow. just wow. So different philosophy.
When I ran games back in the late 90s, we had a pretty large group. 5 Spell casters or multiclass warrior-spell castors. The wizards used buffs on the group whenever possible. It wasn't like a thing where they were only saving themselves, unless the the spell could only work on themselves. Most of the time level-D6 beams, cones, and blasts were used. Sometimes they got creative with stuff, but buffs were never about a single wizard making themselves uber to the detriment of others.
Actually, there was this one time one of the proxy types went to challenge his own god because he got an inflated ego fighting in the blood war, well, it ended badly and he went fleeing to one of the uber wizards for sanctuary. The next session, that uber wizard got sucked into major conflict with some kind of extradimensional headhunter who the DM had custom taylored to stalemate the uber Wizard, and then the main fighter showed up to support them.
If the narrative is about the player characters, it doesn't matter what they do, the story is them.
Macv12 wrote:
shintashi wrote:
I've got something to say to the "If your non-casters are feeling useless without Concentration reigning the casters in, you don't know how to design encounters" crowd.
You know what I don't miss? I don't miss having my encounter design constrained by the need to make absolutely certain that every single notable encounter - investigation, combat, exploration, interaction, every single one - have something in it for every class, from the wizard and cleric who can do it all to the thief whose abilities are limited to a situational damage boost and a few exploration abilities that can be bypassed with low-level spells to the fighter who's got a THAC0 or Base Attack Bonus and... nothing else... going for her. I can do that. I spent decades doing that. But it's a limit on what I can run, and it's a pile of work that I could be putting into assembling my story or making another three encounters that would by nature have been fun had the game I was playing at the time been better or just not working on D&D game at all and instead watching a TV show or hanging out with my family.
Concentration and the other things that brought casters into line with non-casters in this edition in terms of power (like making most of the skill-bypassing spells subpar options compared with a successful skill check) free me from having to do that, and in doing so they make my games better. No longer does every boss need to be able to dispell a million stat-boosting buffs and shrug off four save-or-lose spells to allow the fighter a chance to draw her sword and actually do what her player built her to do. No longer do I have to use DM fiat through contrived story manipulations to arbitrarily "turn off" powerful exploration and investigation spells so that the rogue can actually be the best in the party at doing the things she was built to do.
My game is better because I'm no longer doing that. And that's why Concentration and the other inherent limiters 5e puts on spellcaster output are a good thing.
shintashi wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
shintashi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
To my recollection, we had a Fighter/Sorcerer, Fighter/Cleric, Cleric/Fighter, Cleric, Fire Mage/Immortal, Battlemage, Mage/Ninja, Bard, Warlock/Mage, Paladin/Mage, Psionicist, Druid, Kensai, Shadowier, Paladin, and an Anti-Paladin, in addition to some house rule classes. The fighter/sorcerer spent their first 30 levels as a fighter, and only a few levels as a sorcerer.
As to whether people were dependent on magic? Well, no. Obviously the people who were pure magic users were. How did buffs pan out? Well, to be frank, people liked attacking if they could hit and do better than 1d4 damage. That's pretty much the two requirements in retrospect. They wouldn't bother if they thought their damage sucked or they couldn't hit. Back in those days, wizards couldn't hit anything. In 5e terms, a level 20 Wizard would have 1 attack per round, it would do 1d3 damage + 0, and they would have a combined attack bonus of +6. They would have to hit an AC of 25 to 32. By way of comparison, the Fighter types would at the same level have something like an attack bonus of around +25 or better, after magic items, etc.
So if a wizard got the "cackamaymee idear" to go nova on buffs with stoneskin, haste, protection spells, mord's sword, etc., sure. I guess at 18th level and 5 spells later, they might be able to hold their own with a mid level fighter for 5 rounds, but what a waste that would have been.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
I've always wondered why the game didn't just do away with short rests and long rests and instead have the DM allow characters to recharge their abilitie and hp as if they had done a short or long rest only when the DM desired them to have such a recharge.
So intstead of always regaining spells and hp after an 8 hour rest the DM decides when during the campaign and story that characters will recharge their abilities. Might be a little more thematic?
FrogReaver wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Sounds like someone is trying way to hard to design a lost temple exploration that has negatives for the PC's taking is slow.
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I love these threads.
One side who doesn't like a mechanic tells everyone they shouldn't like it when the other side responds they say but we do like it because xyz. Then the side that started the thread proceeds to tell us how bad we were at dnd for xyz every being a problem in the first place. We reiterate that xyz was problems only to meet more resistance that xyz couldn't be a problem because it was never a problem in my game.
Basically the implication is always that we must have been playing wrong instead of it simply being that the game mechanics did not accomodate our playstyle.
Yep if only people would just play D&D right then they wouldn't like concentration either.
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Only physicists think about physics.
- a physicist, probably
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
Diffan wrote: