This is a response to Cyberdaves thread where he claims to lionize the concentration mechanics. Overall I do not mind the mechanic myself in some ways its good and in other ways not so good. SOme spells need the mechanics IMHO but they slapped it on other spells that did not need it and they introduced massive power creep on some spells that would not need it had they used the spellas printed in another edition. Faerie FIre and Bless would be examples of that.
Faerie FIre
1E +2 to hit bonus
2E +1 bonus to hit
3E +1 bonus to hit
5E advantage to hit (+4 or +5 roughly).
Bless
1E/2E/3E +1 to hit/saves
5E +1d4 to hit/saves
5E is selling reasonably well for a new and shiny edition of D&D but then agian so has every other edition of D&D before it. It has likely outsold OD&D and 4E though. 5E also has great art but I wonder if they updated the original red box to 5E art and d20 mechanics if they could not duplicate that feat with a new and shiny D&D. Cyber Dave used the arguement that its success and good reviews are proof the developers got it right. After all 5E is sellling well but so did the original Red Box which remains the biggest selling item of D&D to this day selling an amount roughly equal to the combined PHBs ever sold for 3.0, 3.5, 4E and 5E combined.
Concentration is such a mechanic they even slapped it on Dancing Lights as I can recall that spell causing all sorts of problems in previous editions. I think I used it once in 2E for a romantic date, Drow PCs have used it as well over the years and I think once in 3E it was situationally better than a light spell. Once. Yup better whack concentration on it so Drow can't levitate and use dancing lights!!! Yup that'll show them #@&% we are good at this!!!!
Why not just reply in the existing thread?
I really don't have enough experience with concentration to judge it, but what I like about it especially well is that now the characters have to decide which spell to use for which situation rather than just "I cast all the buffs before combat starts".
Today's market is not the Red Box's market. Consider competition, market saturation, how revolutionary the product is, etc. before considering the fairness of a given comparison. Also consider the state of the entertainment industry, the gaming industry, the CCG industry, as they provide outlets for fans that weren't around (or at least were not as prevalent) back in the day.
Having said that, no, the game does not need the Concentration mechanic. It's what the playtesters "voted in" though. On the subject of oldschool D&D, I think the old tendency to build a mansion out of houserules has been worn to a nub by the march of editions in the interim. Releasing the game as a simple and malleable ruleset targeted at the majority of their attentive fanbase is likely the wisest course they could have taken--one that recalls to memory how we (meaning myself and those I played with then) once interacted with rules. We used what we liked, changed what we didn't, and added what we thought fit. D&D can never be everything to everyone at the same time, but it can give the consumer enough leeway to mold the game into something preferable.
That's likely of small comfort to those who only engage in organized play, but I don't see an easy way of crossing that bridge.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
The game didn't work fine for 30 years.
3E happened. Then 3.5E happened. We can't talk about balance without mentioning the sheer lack of it in that
5E's not perfect and should have more things for fighters so they're not just "I attack" wonders, but at least it doesn't hate them like a certain 3.5E clone does monks
when i was first introduced to the concentration mechanic in 3rd edition, i found it awkward and insulting. After all, wizards already had 2 hp per level and an AC of what you guys would consider 10-11. Wizards had 1 spell a day that averaged 3 damage. Leave the poor wizard alone. Let them grow up and get their beards and do awesome stuff, and let all that time being picked on pay off.
A wizard was an investment, and Concentration made them a bad investment.
Then pathfinder came out and made concentration and spell interruption even worse. There was basically a feat tax that only wizards had to pay. They sucked enough as it was, but then they made them worse.
Something odd happened in 5th edition. While the concentration mechanic carried over in some sense, the 3rd edition version, and the pathfinder version isn't what people noticed. Instead of worrying about being attacked - which is still legally in the rules somewhere though i haven't seen it get enforced - the real change is how many things you can concentrate on at once.
Concentration suddenly added an extra attack each round where it shouldn't have, and to balance it, they gutted all the spells that really shouldn't have even had the mechanic in place.
Traditionally, spells like Haste and Fly were layered onto a character's combat functions. The price was losing the spell slots that could have been used for fireball or lightning bolt - both really good spells. Now mechanically, that's sacrificing a lot, even by 5e standards.
fireball is at least 8d6. But it's in a 40' ball. That's 8 squares by 8 squares, with some trimming on the corners. Do you have any idea how many monsters that hits?! Assuming a 50% saturation in a heavy battle, thats like 20 monsters. Even with a lower density, you are usually clearing 10-15 monsters in one hit. That means you are spending 80d6 to 120d6 damage to get your "concentration effect".
Here's the question, how many 5e concentration spells are going to kick back that 80d6 damage? Most concentration spells only add +1d6 to +1d12 effect per round. Most battles seldom last more than 10 rounds. Do the math, we need less spells with concentration.
Here's a few spells that probably shouldn't require concentration...
Antilife Shell(5), Antimagic Field(8), Aura of Life(4), Aura of purity(4), Aura of Vitality(3), Bane(1), Banishing Smite(5), Banishment(4), Barkskin(2), Beacon of Hope(3), Beast Sense(2), Bestow Curse(3), Blade Barrier(6), Bless(1), Blinding Smite(3), Blur(2), Branding Smite(2), Calm Emotions(2), Circle of Power(5), Cloud of Daggers(2), Cloud kill(5), Compelled Duel(1),
Darkness(2), Detect Evil(1), Earthquake(8), Elemental Weapon(3), Enhance Ability(2), Enlarge(2), Expeditious Retreat(1), Fly(3)
as you can see, i got tired around the letter E or F. That doesn't mean the list couldn't be bigger. Much bigger.
Zardnaar wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
I find it fund that Zard regularly claims casters are overpowered in his game, that all his players take casters of some sort and even the fighter-types take partial casters. And then he simutaneously argues the game shouldn't have concentration, which is a major balancing factor and restriction on the power of casters.
He reinforces this opinion by citing bless and faerie fire - two spells that almost the entire world of players disagree with him on. I mean, how many threads have we had this discussion, and how many people have told Zard they don't view those spells as overpowered as he does? And yet he again assumes they are overpowered and claims adding +1s back into the game instead of advantage and an extra die is the better solution. Right - it couldn't possibly be that the world views those issues differently than him, right?
Just play 3.5 if that's what you really want. The resources are out there. No one is forcing you to play 5e if you don't want to. I think it would be less work to put proficiency, advantage, and extra attack into 3.5 than it would be to try to force 5e to adopt 3.5 designs.
3.5 was a fine game even with the lack of balance. It was rich enough to keep me playing the edition all the way up to 5e's release. People have had enough time to figure out the system to know what the traps are and avoid them. 5e is a fantastic game for the people who want to play the type of options that were traps in 3.5 like fighters, monks, and rogues. The concentration mechanic has made my players, who are former 3.5 and PF players, enjoy the system because they play a different style than they would in the previous editions.
Zardnaar wrote:
I'm not going to weigh in on the concentration mechanic itself, since I'm on record on that subject already. All I'll add is that it's a mechanic for throttling spells, not scrunched-forehead-focus. Call it "channelling" and all the flavor arguments go away.
I'm posting instead to correct some very bad mischaracterizations of previous editions in this thread.
Zardnaar wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
@shintashi's statements:
First of all, I just want to reiterate, see what Tempest wrote. Great stuff. I am not going to go over what he has already gone over, as I think he has said everything I would have wanted to say on that subject, and he probably said it better. A few more points...
shintashi wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
shintashi wrote:
5E does not scale well when you want to add extra complexity. It is all in the DMs hand, whether it is concentration, or related mechanics. That is one thing I hoped they addressed when participating in the playtest. Get rid of other things like tiers, where a class like a fighter needs to wait until third level to make meaningful class choices.
The question is not if you should remove concentration. Because we have established that you and me don't like it. The question is what will we do about it. Me, I altered my spells, rewrote several to fit what I want. I'm in complete agreement that it is a bad mechanic that I don't like. Luckily for me the group I play with in the home game are creative and like to tweak and create the games they like. So we just created our own game for that. D&D is not going to create the game that I really want, though they came damn close with this edition. Now in the hobby shop I play by the book, and at Adventure League I am a rules lawyer because that is a more competive play more like Magic the Gathering than roleplaying to me at least.
I will add that their are many other things the contributed to the success of 5E. The bounded accuracy, the action economy, great rogue, love the battlemaster, great smiting rules for Paladins, best countersepll method I have ever seen, etc.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
shintashi wrote:
devincutler wrote:
devincutler wrote:
devincutler wrote:
BTW, didn't notice anyone mentioning it above, so I wil: concentration is an old mechanic, not just 3e make-an-automatic-skill-check concentration, either, but 1e spells that required concentration even harder to maintain than the 5e version.
Brimleydower wrote:
There's certainly some edge cases where buff spells *should* have had concentration but lack it and spells could work without it.
That doesn't mean the entire mechanic is flawed though. Stacking spells is a huge can of worms, especially in mid to high levels. Both buffs and debuffs.
The_Jester wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Animal salesmen too. I think I lost every single donky I ever owned... 
Cyber-Dave wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
shintashi wrote:
There's an unwritten, unspoken understanding 'round these parts that you don't name your animals. You just don't do it.
I name mine "donkey." Even if its a horse. That, or reaper-bait... oh reaper-bait, how I fondly remember you and all your brothers/sisters. 
FallingIcicle wrote:
Maybe they will make a feat for spell casters...
Improved Focus- +1 int, wis, or Charisma
You gain the ability to maintain concentration on one offensive spell and one defensive spell at the same time. Offensive spells are any spell which targets an enemy, deals damage, requires a saving throw, or grants a bonus to attacks, or any spell that interferes with the actions another creature can take(eg. forcecage).
Keep track of each 'concentration' effect separately. If you take damage you make saving throws for each effect you are concentrating on.
Congratulations, you can now have Blur or invisibility up to protect yourself, and Haste up on your ally. Concentration mechanic fixed.
Zardnaar wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I think some of the spell stacking got ridiculous in 2E as well as 3E, though the former (imx) seemed to have more to do with Wizard-on-Wizard fights. Spells designed to stop spells, then a spell to strip that spell, then a spell to prevent that spell from stripping those kinds of spells, and of course a spell to trump card all of those spells stopping those spells from stopping those spells, etc. Any encounter with a high level wizard in Baldur's Gate 2 actually did a pretty remarkable job of simulating this cumbersome arms race. So at least Concentration will prevent that from being a thing.
Polymorph spells are the big ones that need changed when concentration is removed IMHO. People have to be kidding me if they think fly and haste ruin the game. Hope my waterwalking spell last week didn't ruin the DM's game. I cast it as a ritual to avoid an environmental hazard that I think was supposed to be a big deal.
Brimleydower wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
after the first 10 buffs, the rest are just fluff anyways....Also you skipped right over the fact that you mentioned multiple PrCs...which 5e does not have in any compareable sense. Also, once you are in the realm of having splatbooks with things like Persistent Spell you aren't really playing real DnD anymore as it is. Not really a new thing...old school had Alter Reality as a spell...Skills and Abuses era had clerics casting at-will Heal...at 1st level.
What buffs did you need in 3.5 beyond Heroes Feast, Wind Walk, Mindblank, and Telepathic Bond? Add in Deathward and Freedom of Movment and you're pretty much down to jank like Darkvision and Longstrider and pass without trace.
Every one of the 'good' spells I just listed were nerfed in 5e...ahh yes but they made sure to put Concentration on dark vision...And even if you did stack all these things, regular 3rd level Dispel Magic attempts to dispel EVERY buff on you unlike in 3.x.
Also, by default most martial classes with no magical training whatsoever are better at concentrating than the actual spellcasters...this is one of my biggest peeves honestly and makes absolutely 0 sense...making an entire mechanic to limit a class that nearly every PC in your group is better at doing than you are.
IMO concentation mechanics are great.
I still remember horrors of 3,5E when parties wen't prebuffed in fight with everything but the kitchen sink.
And limiting concentration slightly removes the chance of 5min work day as most of the time casters did an overkill with buffs and then for the rest of the day were limited to crossbows 
On the other side there whould be a reevaluation on what buff do and do not deserve concentration "trait".
Also a feat with +1 to one ability and maximum of 2 spells with concetration could be considered for a dedicated buffer/debuffer.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Sadly to me the came so close to balancing most of the issues without the concentraiton mechanic. Though I like it when players can burn resources and complain about 5MWD when they overuse their resources.
Sadly, I have been playing and DMing less through the summer, but I have been watching a lot of Critical Role at Geek and Sundry, and I'm noticing more an more how the concentration mechanic is working as intended to do a number of things.
1) Limit power
2) Presents spellcaster with more interesting decisions when casting spells
Both of these outcomes often work simultaneously to add complexity to the spellcaster's role. I'm a big fan.
Maintaining a concentration spell often forces the spellcaster to stay out of harms way, which seems to add more tactical decision-making and sometimes roleplaying fodder too.
Choosing which concentration spell to maintain is another interesting challenge that adds to the game.
In a way, it is one of those mechanics that make the spellcaster feel much different from other classes. I've always liked playing spellcasters in 1e through 5e precisely because the choices of which spell to use when can become a challenge in itself. Concentration adds to this, and I'm really glad that the spellcasters feel different as a result.
Rhenny wrote: