Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 arnwolf666 Mar 05, 2015 0:40:06	I been playing a wizard that is now 15th level.  So I do know how the current system plays.  I like it, but not quite my feel.  Has anyone experimented with playing this edition without concentration checks?  And how did it work for them.  Please only comment if you have done this, not your opinion on why not to do it without having implemented it.  Thank You.
#2 abs1nth Mar 05, 2015 3:26:20	How would that work? Like a system where damage over a certain threshold automatically cancels concentration? It could be based on your con-mod and your level. I don't know, it would have to scale well, though. Maybe, simply making it based on your max HP is a better idea. Just take a certain percentage of that and whenever damage deals more than that you lose concentration. This would mean that smaller critters would no longer be able to threaten your concentration which may or may not be what you want.   Edit: Another idea would be to have a certain HP threshold that triggers loss of concentration. For instance you have 10 HP and whenever your HP drops below 5, your concentration is lost even if you just took 1 damage to get there. You could say that if you cast new concentration spells below that threshold that anytime you take any damage it is lost.
#3 AaronOfBarbaria Mar 05, 2015 3:20:07	Please clarify whether you mean "without concentration checks" to be exactly as the system is written, but  without the clause that you can keep a spell you are concentrating on if you roll high enough (so getting hurt always breaks concentration), or if you mean that taking damage while concentrating on a spell never includes risk that your concentration might break, or some other specific scheme of things that do break concentration and things which do not.
#4 kalil Mar 05, 2015 5:43:58	Just remove the check, it has virtually zero impact on practical gameplay.
(Reply to #4) Farmer42	kalil wrote:
(Reply to #3) Coredump00	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#7 Macv12 Mar 05, 2015 7:15:10	I haven't played the caster in my 5e group, so I may be misremembering...but IIRC we've never had someone make a concentration save. We use Concentration as a spell attribute that prevents two such spells from being active at the same time. In my experience, most situations can be described as one or more of the following:   The caster is already too fragile to take hits, so trying to avoid being hit to maintain concentration doesn't add any tactical considerations. The caster is consistently in melee and targeted by attacks, so their concentration would be broken quickly just from having to roll so many saves, making those spells suck. The enemies don't know what concentration is, so there's no change in how often they target the caster (so, no tactical change). Even if they did, they already wanted to focus fire the caster because he's a puny wizard throwing fireballs, so they'd be attacking him if they could (no tactical change). The enemies don't use concentration spells, so our party doesn't have to go after a specific character to stop their spell (no tactical change).   So you really don't miss out on much by making concentration unbreakable. We never reached anything close to lvl15, so my understanding of the landscape of concentration tactics is incomplete; take that for what it's worth.
#8 Slyck314 Mar 05, 2015 8:19:48	I don't know if I'm a fan. There have been a few times where a concentration spell is dominating the field and the onpy chance the opposing side has is to disrupt the casters concentration.
(Reply to #6) AaronOfBarbaria	Coredump00 wrote:
#10 feartheminotaur Mar 05, 2015 11:05:18	I played one session at the FLGS that had a few bizarre house rules - one of them was no concentration checks, or rather, no opportunity to keep a concentration spell up with a roll.  Beside damage auto-disrupting the spell, the DM even had Concentration spells grant advantage on attacks against the caster ("are you concentrating on your spell, or paying attention to the attacker?") and disadvantage on all saves.  I believe he did it because "casters are too strong"   It was terrible. We had a sorcerer (who planned on twinning haste and such on the only fighter) who simply declined to cast any concentration spells, and a bard who kept having every buff/debuff he cast drop.  It essentially removed a big chunk of the available spells and made party tactics more "protect the caster!" than "overcome the challenge!".  No one but the DM liked it, and even he had second thoughts after.
#11 Wuzzard Mar 05, 2015 15:43:15	I've tried the "no concentration checks" approach many times, though not for trying. We simply keep forgetting about it.  We've been trying to get better at it.  When we remember, it does add extra rolls and slows things down, not that they were moving briskly before hand or anything.
#12 arnwolf666 Mar 05, 2015 15:51:39	I meant more along the lines of removing the concentration mechanic all together.  I played alot of 1E/2E/3E and never had this quadratic wizard problem of 5MWD that people complain about.  Was just wondering if anyone has actually played without the concentration mechanic all together and how it affected their game.
#13 AaronOfBarbaria Mar 05, 2015 19:52:41	You can't have not had quadratic casters in those editions since that simply refers to the class getting new and inherently more powerful spells while progressing through the game, but the spells they already knew also getting more powerful through level-based variables. You can, however, have had them not used to create issues; likely by your caster players wanting to ration out their spells over as many encounters as possible rather than they embracing the cause of the 5-minute work day of casting a spell as often as possible because you expect to be able to rest and recover them at your leisure... and the DM not creating any reason to believe otherwise.
#14 DaveDash Mar 05, 2015 21:33:15	if you want to know what your game is like without concentration start handing out potions of fly, haste, etc. If you still reckon you can handle how ridiculously broken the game can become after that then by all means remove it.
#15 CCS Mar 05, 2015 22:36:20	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #14) arnwolf666	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #15) arnwolf666	CCS wrote:
#18 seti Mar 05, 2015 23:41:50	I know the OP said 'no opinions'....   Sorry, but, I have to add that if you lose that mechanic, you'd have to rewrite and re-balance many spells. Not just for PCs, but for monsters too.  Well, you would if your table cares about game balance, and not letting casters become demigods who eclipse every other non-caster in the game.   Also, are you asking this because you want to allow casters to stack things like fly, haste, etc. on themselves and/or other party members? Do you want to just elimate a (very mildly) time-consuming roll(s)? Do you just want to make a caster auto-lose a cast buff spell when hit?   Just curious. It'd really change the game to get rid of a (IMO) very well thought out, elegant, and necessary restriction on casters.   Relax, this is all my opinion, lol. I think 5e casters are awesomely powerful, and thankfully somewhat gimped by things like concentration rules. (ie: make the check, or lose the spell. You can only have one spell that requires concentration up at a time, etc.)  I love playing casters in 5e, but I also kind of hate DMing them. Especially when played by a rules-lawyering power gamer who has a really good memory, and tons of free time.
#19 AaronOfBarbaria Mar 05, 2015 23:42:19	Concentration is an interesting rule in my opinion, since it is one of the few things that Mike Mearls mentioned when talking about their intending to be time spent getting a feel for the game before letting 3rd parties put out materials, so that everyone would know if some rule unbalanced the game, like letting you concentrate on more than one spell at a time or removing the item attunement limit.
#20 Zardnaar Mar 06, 2015 2:25:47	I am considering dipping my toe in the water and taking concentration off some spells (Dancing Lights, the level 3 resist spell).
#21 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 3:36:05	Instead of that, Zard, why not try changing the limit to allow a character to concentrate 3 spells at a time?
(Reply to #18) arnwolf666	seti wrote:
#23 arnwolf666 Mar 06, 2015 12:56:49	In fact the more I think about it concentration (except for a couple spells like polymorph and shapechange) are there less for balance and more for preventing a nova, which causes players to experience their 5MWD.  Very clever and effective solution to a problem many experience.  For me it has always been go nova at your own peril because I don't ALWAYS give the option for a 5MWD.
#24 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 13:01:23	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #24) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
#26 DaveDash Mar 06, 2015 13:38:40	Just remember monsters have been toned down a lot now in terms of spells and special abilities, so prepare for a lot of rebalancing ahead. I had a level 14 Paladin solo a CR18 Dragon with buff stacking from potions, so that's now going to be the norm in your game. Good luck finding OOTB monsters that will challenge your party.
(Reply to #26) arnwolf666	DaveDash wrote:
#28 The_Jester Mar 06, 2015 14:44:02	If removing concentration limits, I'd still keep Concentration checks in the game and increase the DC by the number of spells currently being concentrated on. So there's still the chance of losing spells.   The problem with buff stacking is problematic. It can make the game significantly easier. At 15th level, a wizard has 18 spell slots. Even if not trying to have a five-minute workday and going for, say four encounters, that means the wizard can cast 4.5 spells per combat. The wizard can buff every party member before every fight and rely on cantrips. Or layer on the hours long buffs.  But the real problem comes in adventurers where there are fewer encounters where you can throw out a half-dozen spells on a single character and just let them steamroll over things. The invisible flying fighter with magic weapon and stoneskin.   If your DM is willing to let you try, you can give it a go and see what happens. Yes, you might be willing to choose to not break the game. That's cool. Some players could be given at-will heat vision that does 10d6 fire damage and not use it in a way that devalues the other party or makes the game too easy for the party. But not everyone can exercise that restraint.
#29 durntaur Mar 06, 2015 16:08:12	Divine Favor + Hunter's Mark + Hex + <anything I may have missed>...   ...enough said.
(Reply to #29) arnwolf666	durntaur wrote:
#31 Psikerlord Mar 06, 2015 17:53:39	kalil wrote:
#32 Psikerlord Mar 06, 2015 17:55:19	Vahnyu wrote:
#33 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 18:49:17	Psikerlord wrote: