I'm being bothered by the fact that a caster has a single concentration slot that implies that it is equally hard for a caster to maintain concentration on a 1st level spell (eg: Resistance) and 9th level (eg: Weird)
This makes no sense to me or my players whatsoever, but the DMG specifically warns about tinkering with Concentration.
I've heard of a homebrew rule that I've seen going around that a caster could have concentrations equal to the level of his highest spell slot. Eg: A caster with 6th level spell slot could maintain concentration on a single 6th level concentration spell OR one 4th and one 2nd level. This sounds very balanced and reasonable solution to me and in no way unbalanced.
Yet many criticize this as "breaking the game" yet I don't see how. I would also add to the rule that a caster could have only one concentration effect on per target. (This would prevent the much dreaded buff/debuff stacking). (Not that buff stacking has ever been a problem in my games unless you're running a WoW raid re-enactment where the bosses sit alone in a room patiently waiting for players to come. I also have not banned dispel magic from my games = rip buff stacks)
However, I haven't played much 5th edition though so I wanted to ask if this house rule seems game breaking and if so, how exactly would it break the game?
I... Don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to scan every spell in the game looking for exploits.
Off the top of my head, I guess a player could use multiple Summon ___ spells at once to have a squad of friendly monsters whose stats are balanced around you only having one at a time. Compared to the spells that create multiple smaller monsters, the difference is noticeable.
It would also let paladins stack smite spells with buff spells. This one's debatably even a problem, but I don't think anyone really thinks paladins need a boost.
I... Don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to scan every spell in the game looking for exploits.
I fully agree, but based on how strongly many feel about Concentration I just assumed people would have specific examples already in mind. Like I said, so far what I've read on the web the general consensus is that any change to Concentration will irrevocable unbalance the game. If so, I just wanted to understand how since that is rarely explained other than by buff/debuff stacking that I've done away with here.
I guess a player could use multiple Summon ___ spells at once to have a squad of friendly monsters whose stats are balanced around you only having one at a time. Compared to the spells that create multiple smaller monsters, the difference is noticeable.
Yes, however one could not summon two max level monsters. If there were to be multiple they would have to be weaker. For example a caster with a 6th level summon spell can only cast it once OR he could cast a 4th level summon and a 2nd level summon. I don't see how the more-but-weaker-creatures option would outpower the single high level summon? (But I could be wrong)
It would also let paladins stack smite spells with buff spells. This one's debatably even a problem, but I don't think anyone really thinks paladins need a boost.
Ah, but my rules would prevent that since you cannot have two concentration effects on the same target. Thus a Paladin under this homebrew rule could not have say Heroism and Searing Smite on himself at the same time.
I'm being bothered by the fact that a caster has a single concentration slot that implies that it is equally hard for a caster to maintain concentration on a 1st level spell (eg: Resistance) and 9th level (eg: Weird)
I don't see the issue. Something can be simple to execute and still require your full attention.
I've heard of a homebrew rule that I've seen going around that a caster could have concentrations equal to the level of his highest spell slot. Eg: A caster with 6th level spell slot could maintain concentration on a single 6th level concentration spell OR one 4th and one 2nd level. This sounds very balanced and reasonable solution to me and in no way unbalanced.
How are you going to handle non-spell concentration effects? Those don't have levels.
Yet many criticize this as "breaking the game" yet I don't see how. I would also add to the rule that a caster could have only one concentration effect on per target. (This would prevent the much dreaded buff/debuff stacking).
Players will just split their concentration over multiple targets and still get much more mileage than they would under vanilla rules. E.g. Clerics will use both Bane and Bless simultaneously, wizards will incapacitate multiple individual targets with Levitate, or get multiple Magic Weapon spells going, or use area spells.
I think concentration works the way it does at least partially to encourage teamwork and avoid one spellcaster from "solving" a combat alone. One example might be stacking movement denial like entangle with a damaging/debuffing area like hunger of hadar. Not only is the party unneeded here, they are actively shut out of the fight, unable to see any targets or get close to them without being damaged.
As for the difficulty of concentrating on a 1st level spell vs a 9th, sometimes you just need to accept and trust the game mechanics. I'm happy to toss out rules and systems that don't work, but concentration is one of the better mechanics in 5e. And if you just change your mental picture of spellcasting a bit, it fits just fine. Maybe concentration is more about keeping the magic flowing and focused on the target/s rather than handling the power level of it.
I think concentration works the way it does at least partially to encourage teamwork and avoid one spellcaster from "solving" a combat alone.
That's part of it. The other part is to stop the game from slowing down too much because 2-3 spellcasters each have 2-3 spell effects kicking every round causing multiple saving throws and damage rolls.
I don't see the issue. Something can be simple to execute and still require your full attention.
I see your point, but the issue is that lower level concentration spells get nerfed in a way as the caster gains levels due to increase of the opportunity cost of concentration. It would also increase the viability of these low level concentration spells. Lastly, there's much disagreement which spells need concentration in the first place and I see many DM's arbitrarily removing concentration requirement from this or that spell. (Some DMs do this only for 1-2 spells while others can have 10+) My way would do away with this revision by relaxing the concentration requirement slightly. Also allowing some reasonable combinations such as having a choice between multiple lesser summons or one strong summon.
How are you going to handle non-spell concentration effects? Those don't have levels.
Excellent question, I haven't thought of those. I also cannot really recall that many of them. Looking quickly through the classes I see Trickery Cleric's Invoke Duplicity as one example I guess? I would rule in case of class abilities their spell level would correspond to the highest spell slot a full caster would have at that level. Eg: Invoke Duplicity is gained at lv3 = level 2 spell level.
Players will just split their concentration over multiple targets and still get much more mileage than they would under vanilla rules. E.g. Clerics will use both Bane and Bless simultaneously, wizards will incapacitate multiple individual targets with Levitate, or get multiple Magic Weapon spells going, or use area spells.
They could do all those, but I don't see anything game breaking about them. Bane and Bless are both level 1 spells whose effects will hardly be decisive. Bane also has a saving throw.
Levitate can target only a single creature and that creature gets a Con save. It also doesn't disable it in anyway so if it has any ranged attacks levitate doesn't hinder it much, more like provides safety from your group's melees. Also there is dispel magic. Finally a level 17 wizard could only cast 4 levitates at the same time and that would take him 4 rounds. Is it really the most effective way to use a lvl17+ wizard?
Multiple magic weapons, yes, +1 bonus on 4 different weapons for level 17+ wizard. Would you consider that overpowered?
Lastly, AoE effects do not stack from the same caster so there's not change there.
I think concentration works the way it does at least partially to encourage teamwork and avoid one spellcaster from "solving" a combat alone. One example might be stacking movement denial like entangle with a damaging/debuffing area like hunger of hadar. Not only is the party unneeded here, they are actively shut out of the fight, unable to see any targets or get close to them without being damaged.
Could the same not be said of Entagnle + Fireball? Or any other damaging AoE spell?
Not only is the party unneeded here, they are actively shut out of the fight, unable to see any targets or get close to them without being damaged.
I don't see anything wrong about a spellcater solving a minor encounter by himself. A good melee ends up racking more than enough kills as it is. It is rarely that a caster delivers the killing blow to a boss enemy. Situations like these allow the casters to shine as they slay a group of weak enemies on their own. If a caster can solo an entire boss encounter that's not a rule problem, that's just poor encounter design from the DM.
Maybe concentration is more about keeping the magic flowing and focused on the target/s rather than handling the power level of it.
That's a very interesting perspective. I'll certainly take it to my players. It's just that my players are transferring from 3,5 and many of their favorite spell combination (that were not OP btw at least in my games) are now unusable under the Concentration rule. I'm getting demands to do away with it entire or heavily revise the spells themselves, neither of which I'd like to do so I'm trying to come up with a creative yet balanced solution. :D
That's part of it. The other part is to stop the game from slowing down too much because 2-3 spellcasters each have 2-3 spell effects kicking every round causing multiple saving throws and damage rolls.
In my games there are often situations where one character solves something by himself. Eg: a rogue sneaks ahead, scouts and disables traps or opens locked doors for the group while rest of the party waits. A fighter duels an enemy knight boss while the rest of the group is trying deal with a wave of adds. Or a mage takes out a goblin patrol with one or more choice spells. Once again, it's all about encounter design. For example all enemies don't have to appear at the same time in one convenient fixed point. Have the enemy attack from multiple sides, how do you AoE two separate groups at once? If the rest of the party is afk all the time and the campaign is soloable by a single caster then the game is way is too simple.
Lastly, increased dice rolling is an OOG quality of life question unrelated to game balance. Like, would it be okay if there's only 1 caster in group? How much dice rolling is too much? :D
Let me preface this by saying I don't like to appeal to authority but trust me when I say I'm speaking from experience. I've been playing 5e from the start as both a DM and a player, I've played a tier 3 spellcaster, I've spent a lot of time bickering on these forums about what the rules say, and I've listened to pretty much all of the Sage Advice/Dragon Talk podcasts that Jeremy Crawford's been in. I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp on 5e's rules both in terms of theory and practice.
I see your point, but the issue is that lower level concentration spells get nerfed in a way as the caster gains levels due to increase of the opportunity cost of concentration.
I don't think that's true. There's plenty of low level concentration spells that are still effective at higher levels, and they become increasingly affordable as you gain spell slots. Rather than falling off the wayside, they tend to get used more liberally since a low level slot is no longer a major investment. It's mainly single-target, instantaneous damage spells like Chromatic Orb that become obsolete, since cantrips easily match their damage once you start rolling 2 and 3 dice.
Lastly, there's much disagreement which spells need concentration in the first place and I see many DM's arbitrarily removing concentration requirement from this or that spell. (Some DMs do this only for 1-2 spells while others can have 10+)
For the most part, 5e did a good job in assigning concentration. There's no spells I can think of that arguably should've had concentration but don't, and I can only think of 2 spells off the top of my head that are absolutely terrible and giving them concentration was overkill (True Strike and Witch Bolt.)
Excellent question, I haven't thought of those. I also cannot really recall that many of them. Looking quickly through the classes I see Trickery Cleric's Invoke Duplicity as one example I guess?
There's also the College of Glamour's Mantle of Majesty, the Ghostly Gaze Eldritch Invocation from XGtE, the optional Favored Foe Ranger feature from TCoE, the Ring of Shooting Stars, and the Spellshard from Eberron: Rising From the Last War.
They could do all those, but I don't see anything game breaking about them. Bane and Bless are both level 1 spells whose effects will hardly be decisive. Bane also has a saving throw.
I don't think you appreciate how powerful adding an average bonus of 2.5 to your ally's attacks and a 2.5 penalty to your enemy's attacks is in a game that effectively has a soft cap on AC of 20. I can count the number of monsters with an AC higher than 20 but CR lower than 20 and that aren't unique to a specific adventure book in one hand.
Bane is also multi-target and targets a weak save. Most non-legendary monsters have absolutely no saving throw proficiencies and charisma scores ranging from average to utterly abysmal (unintelligent monsters like oozes can go as low as 1.) Not only is Bane fairly easy to stick on an individual creature, if you target 3 it's extremely unlikely all 3 will succeed their saves. And once you've got Bane on, now they're all the more likely to fall for even more powerful saving throw spells.
Levitate can target only a single creature and that creature gets a Con save. It also doesn't disable it in anyway so if it has any ranged attacks levitate doesn't hinder it much, more like provides safety from your group's melees.
Unlike almost every other spell that can seriously hinder you, it's a single save, not a save every round. There's a lot of monsters that don't have ranged attacks, and even if they do, they're probably not going to hit a wizard with Shield and party members willing to provide half cover. If the wizard decides to run out of range it's all over. Levitate is an absolute death sentence.
Lastly, AoE effects do not stack from the same caster so there's not change there.
There's no rule that would prevent different area effects from applying to the same monster, even if they come from the same spellcaster. The rule is that you can't subject a target to multiple instances of the same effect.
Could the same not be said of Entagnle + Fireball? Or any other damaging AoE spell?
No, because Fireball only damages you once. Non-instantaneous area spells have a much higher damage potential, offset by the fact that it's difficult to keep monsters inside of them. A single spellcaster can't usually both trap a monster and also keep hitting it with Flaming Sphere because pretty much every spell that could keep an enemy trapped and every non-instantaneous damaging spell requires concentration.
It's just that my players are transferring from 3,5 and many of their favorite spell combination (that were not OP btw at least in my games) are now unusable under the Concentration rule. I'm getting demands to do away with it entire or heavily revise the spells themselves, neither of which I'd like to do so I'm trying to come up with a creative yet balanced solution. :D
I also came from 3.5e so I do know how frustrating concentration can be for old players, but I also know first-hand how broken spell stacking is in that edition. In my last 3.5e game the party had so many buffs from spells, class features, and magic items that I literally needed a spreadsheet to keep my bonuses straight.
Here's a middle ground that's much less likely to destroy the difficulty of your encounters: offer them a feat that lets them choose one 1st level or 2nd level spell to specialize in, and allow them to concentrate on that one spell at the same time that they concentrate on something else.
I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp on 5e's rules both in terms of theory and practice.
That sounds great and is the reason why I'm here for, to hear from people with experience in 5th ed. To clarify my motives, I'm not suggesting that this variant be made official or to suggest that the current concentration system is somehow broken and doesn't work.
The point of variant systems in the first place is to customize the game in a way that makes it more fun to its DM and players. The purpose of this thread is to determine whether my proposed variant will be unbalanced or prove overpowered. And I believe that with my variant rule the game will be more fun to my particular group. (provided it is not overpowered)
I don't think that's true. There's plenty of low level concentration spells that are still effective at higher levels, and they become increasingly affordable as you gain spell slots. Rather than falling off the wayside, they tend to get used more liberally since a low level slot is no longer a major investment.
That's a fair point, they don't take your highest level spell slot anymore and are more affordable in a way.
There's also the College of Glamour's Mantle of Majesty, the Ghostly Gaze Eldritch Invocation from XGtE, the optional Favored Foe Ranger feature from TCoE, the Ring of Shooting Stars, and the Spellshard from Eberron: Rising From the Last War.
All of those abilities are quite on par with the effects of spells that a full caster would gain at that level. Thus my way of valuating their "spell slot level" seems quite accurate. Eg: Glamour would count as lv3 spell and favored enemy as lv1 for purposes of my concentration rules. Eberron source material I don't have, but not planning to use it either.
[Bane + Bless]
All true, but lets keep in mind that these are common level 1 spells. A low level group with a paladin and a cleric can set that combination. It's hardly an overpowering combination if it can be cast so easily even with base rules. I wouldn't say this trivializes content if a single cleric casts them both. The paladin can do something else like smite.
Unlike almost every other spell that can seriously hinder you, it's a single save, not a save every round. There's a lot of monsters that don't have ranged attacks, and even if they do, they're probably not going to hit a wizard with Shield and party members willing to provide half cover. If the wizard decides to run out of range it's all over. Levitate is an absolute death sentence.
Exactly, seriously hinder which levitate doesn't do as it doesn't incapacitate. Also note the 500 pound limit! An obese human can easily weigh over 500 pounds. An armored ogre definitely weighs over 500 pounds. Drizzt's pet Guenhwyvar weighs 600 pounds. The spell also requires at least 20 ft of vertical space so it's not so useful indoors as enemies can still move by propelling themselves off surfaces. To be a death sentence this use of the levitate requires quite specific enemy and conditions. Finally, the spell doesn't even let the target take fall damage when it ends so if the wizard runs out of range nothing happens as the "target floats gently to the ground if it is still aloft".
There's no rule that would prevent different area effects from applying to the same monster, even if they come from the same spellcaster. The rule is that you can't subject a target to multiple instances of the same effect.
No I meant that my variant rule on concentration prevents overlapping AoE effects from concentration spells of the same caster. For example casting web on top of entangle by the same caster will cause entangle spell to fizzle out. (The new spell always overrides an older one). This is part of my effort to prevent stacking of concentration spell effects.
No, because Fireball only damages you once. Non-instantaneous area spells have a much higher damage potential, offset by the fact that it's difficult to keep monsters inside of them. A single spellcaster can't usually both trap a monster and also keep hitting it with Flaming Sphere because pretty much every spell that could keep an enemy trapped and every non-instantaneous damaging spell requires concentration.
I feel this is not a matter of balance, but an effort cut back on bookkeeping. These were standard mechanics in previous editions.
I also came from 3.5e so I do know how frustrating concentration can be for old players, but I also know first-hand how broken spell stacking is in that edition. In my last 3.5e game the party had so many buffs from spells, class features, and magic items that I literally needed a spreadsheet to keep my bonuses straight.
Heh I understand, I was doing the same thing and that's one of the biggest appeals of 5th edition how streamlined it is and prunes the amount of bookkeeping. But I feel it goes a little too far in some case just for the sake symmetry rather than game balance.
Here's a middle ground that's much less likely to destroy the difficulty of your encounters: offer them a feat that lets them choose one 1st level or 2nd level spell to specialize in, and allow them to concentrate on that one spell at the same time that they concentrate on something else.
That is an interesting proposal and sounds good to me, but I don't see how it really differs from mine in practice. At low levels this variant is even more powerful than what I'm proposing. A level 5 mage could cast one level 3 and one level 2 concentration spells, but with my system he could not.
At high levels your proposal can still be more powerful. For example a 17th level mage could simultaneously cast level 9 and level 2 concentration spell. Under my system he could only cast the level 9 one or one level 7 and one level 2 (or 8 and 1).
The only difference is that my system is a bit more flexible as a 17th level caster could cast level 4 and level 5 concentration spells at the same time, but that's the only difference. Add on top of that all the non-stacking requirements I have. Oh your proposal also fixes the spell to a specific spell, but even so, I'd call them relatively equal solutions in terms of power wouldn't you say?
All true, but lets keep in mind that these are common level 1 spells. A low level group with a paladin and a cleric can set that combination. It's hardly an overpowering combination if it can be cast so easily even with base rules. I wouldn't say this trivializes content if a single cleric casts them both. The paladin can do something else like smite.
I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture. If it's just the cleric getting to concentrate on two spells, fine, that's one thing. The issue is that your house rule enables combos like this for every caster in the group. A cleric can set up both Bane and Bless while a Bard is simultaneously maintaining Faerie Fire and Heroism and a Druid maintains both Entangle and Flaming Sphere. Each of the 1st level spells in these combos is already useful enough to be worth taking up your one concentration slot, so when you start stacking 2-3 extra ones, things get out of hand fast. Faerie Fire alone is already overpowered for a 1st level spell (inflicting advantage on all attack rolls is strong enough as it is, and Faerie Fire does so for multiple targets and without the duration expiring before combat ends.) Protection From Evil And Good is similarly overpowered for a 1st level spell when it's applicable.
Unlike almost every other spell that can seriously hinder you, it's a single save, not a save every round. There's a lot of monsters that don't have ranged attacks, and even if they do, they're probably not going to hit a wizard with Shield and party members willing to provide half cover. If the wizard decides to run out of range it's all over. Levitate is an absolute death sentence.
Exactly, seriously hinder which levitate doesn't do as it doesn't incapacitate...To be a death sentence this use of the levitate requires quite specific enemy and conditions.
It does effectively incapacitate many monsters, in a way that no other spell of similar level can accomplish. When it's applicable, it's game-breakingly strong. Similar abilities like Entangle, Color Spray, Ensnaring Strike, Hold Person, Web or a Monk's Stunning Fist are basically good for 1 round, 2 if you get lucky.
No, because Fireball only damages you once. Non-instantaneous area spells have a much higher damage potential, offset by the fact that it's difficult to keep monsters inside of them. A single spellcaster can't usually both trap a monster and also keep hitting it with Flaming Sphere because pretty much every spell that could keep an enemy trapped and every non-instantaneous damaging spell requires concentration.
I feel this is not a matter of balance, but an effort cut back on bookkeeping. These were standard mechanics in previous editions.
That doesn't mean it was a good thing. I can't vouch for 2e but 3.5e left fighter-types at the whims of spellcasters because the only good way to stop a magic user was to use more magic (e.g. Dispel Magic.) Being able to set up death traps is a dominant strategy you don't want to facilitate. Requiring two characters to set up a control spell plus an area hazard and asking them to consider whether that's worth giving up two different concentration spells is both more interesting tactically and raises the bar for trivializing an encounter.
Here's a middle ground that's much less likely to destroy the difficulty of your encounters: offer them a feat that lets them choose one 1st level or 2nd level spell to specialize in, and allow them to concentrate on that one spell at the same time that they concentrate on something else.
That is an interesting proposal and sounds good to me, but I don't see how it really differs from mine in practice. At low levels this variant is even more powerful than what I'm proposing. A level 5 mage could cast one level 3 and one level 2 concentration spells, but with my system he could not...Oh your proposal also fixes the spell to a specific spell, but even so, I'd call them relatively equal solutions in terms of power wouldn't you say?
My solution has an absolute limit of 2 spells, one of them being fixed (so if it's not relevant to the current situation, tough luck), has an opportunity cost (they could've boosted their spellcasting ability modifier, or picked another feat like Lucky, War Caster, or Metamagic Adept) and is sufficiently restrictive that you can do away with all the other rules (no exceeding your max spell level, no more than one effect per target, no more than one area effect...)
Giving them a hard limit of 2 spells and ensuring they can't mix and match any two spells is more important than not going over the sum of their spell level. If I was playing a character with 4th level spell slots and I had to choose between concentrating on a 4th level spell or concentrating on 2 lower level spells, 2 spells almost always wins. The difference from one spell level to the next isn't anywhere near enough to compensate for being able to combine two concentration spells.
I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture.
I think I see your point, the power level of the party increases. I, however would assume this power increase would be relatively marginal and wouldn't lead to actual breaking of the game. I admit I don't have enough experience with 5th ed to say this for certain, but I find it hard to believe these example would trivialize content. I guess I'll just have to see for myself.
By that logic any elemental spell is overpowered when used against enemies that are vulnerable to it. Or how about turn undead against undead? These are instances where the DM can very easily balance things out without having to raise challenge rating of opponents.
It does effectively incapacitate many monsters, in a way that no other spell of similar level can accomplish. When it's applicable, it's game-breakingly strong. Similar abilities like Entangle, Color Spray, Ensnaring Strike, Hold Person, Web or a Monk's Stunning Fist are basically good for 1 round, 2 if you get lucky.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. Many monsters yes, but powerful monsters rather few. Yes it would be effective against high level elven fighter, but that's up the DM if he wants to feed the party enemies specifically tailored to be light enough to levitate. For some reason I have a feeling you're using the 3rd edition version of levitate where the enemies can take fall damage when it ends. (note that in 3rd ed levitate could not be used offensively)
I'm also wondering are the other CC spells even worth casting if they are so weak? Wouldn't direct damage spell be a better option in most cases?
I can't vouch for 2e but 3.5e left fighter-types at the whims of spellcasters because the only good way to stop a magic user was to use more magic (e.g. Dispel Magic.)
I fail to see the relevance. You don't seem to be bothered that fighter-types makes mince meat from bards and rogues in any edition. But D&D Classes are not meant to be equal in power when it comes to 1v1. Rogue-types are better at skills, casters are very powerful given the right spells and conditions (and prep time) while fighter types have terrific damage consistency and defence. I have no idea why people cry that fighter-types are weak. No class is sub-par to another given a campaign with diverse challenges.
A high level fighter can put out 4 attacks each round all day long in both 3,5 and 5ed while having high health and defense. In fact they are buffed in 5ed since all attacks now use max attack mod while casters have been heavily nerfed both in the amount of spells they get, the effect of spells and even how they are allowed to cast them. In my games in 3,5 fighter types dominated already most encounters and what my casters are concerned is that now they will be just a utility class while fighters take all the glory.
Then again, it all depends on the DM. If the DM allows rests whenever the party wants and gives the party ample prep time against boss fights the casters would love that. But if rest opportunities are few and far between, encounters have many enemies that don't cluster at a single point and may come as a surprise, then the fighter-types will carry the game.
Giving them a hard limit of 2 spells and ensuring they can't mix and match any two spells is more important than not going over the sum of their spell level. If I was playing a character with 4th level spell slots and I had to choose between concentrating on a 4th level spell or concentrating on 2 lower level spells, 2 spells almost always wins. The difference from one spell level to the next isn't anywhere near enough to compensate for being able to combine two concentration spells.
Good point about the feat, I forgot about that. Also true that the selection is also larger with my method. But I don't know, I don't see that big of a difference between the two methods, I could make mine into a feat as well and thus the difference would only boil down to effect stacking vs selection. (Yours has the benefit of stacking effects while mine greater selection) However spells need to be prepared anyway as the selection is already narrow so imo the difference between locking a spell and having a few alternatives isn't that big of a power spike.
I think I'll give this house rule of mine a try.
I greatly appreciate your input though and will closely monitor all the concerns you mentioned. I plan to run a game from 1st -20 levels so I will get to see how it works on different stages of character power. If I notice encounters getting trivial or dominated by casters I will remove this rule, but as of yet I'm not convinced this rule would break the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm being bothered by the fact that a caster has a single concentration slot that implies that it is equally hard for a caster to maintain concentration on a 1st level spell (eg: Resistance) and 9th level (eg: Weird)
This makes no sense to me or my players whatsoever, but the DMG specifically warns about tinkering with Concentration.
I've heard of a homebrew rule that I've seen going around that a caster could have concentrations equal to the level of his highest spell slot. Eg: A caster with 6th level spell slot could maintain concentration on a single 6th level concentration spell OR one 4th and one 2nd level. This sounds very balanced and reasonable solution to me and in no way unbalanced.
Yet many criticize this as "breaking the game" yet I don't see how. I would also add to the rule that a caster could have only one concentration effect on per target. (This would prevent the much dreaded buff/debuff stacking). (Not that buff stacking has ever been a problem in my games unless you're running a WoW raid re-enactment where the bosses sit alone in a room patiently waiting for players to come. I also have not banned dispel magic from my games = rip buff stacks)
However, I haven't played much 5th edition though so I wanted to ask if this house rule seems game breaking and if so, how exactly would it break the game?
I... Don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to scan every spell in the game looking for exploits.
Off the top of my head, I guess a player could use multiple Summon ___ spells at once to have a squad of friendly monsters whose stats are balanced around you only having one at a time. Compared to the spells that create multiple smaller monsters, the difference is noticeable.
It would also let paladins stack smite spells with buff spells. This one's debatably even a problem, but I don't think anyone really thinks paladins need a boost.
I fully agree, but based on how strongly many feel about Concentration I just assumed people would have specific examples already in mind. Like I said, so far what I've read on the web the general consensus is that any change to Concentration will irrevocable unbalance the game. If so, I just wanted to understand how since that is rarely explained other than by buff/debuff stacking that I've done away with here.
Yes, however one could not summon two max level monsters. If there were to be multiple they would have to be weaker. For example a caster with a 6th level summon spell can only cast it once OR he could cast a 4th level summon and a 2nd level summon. I don't see how the more-but-weaker-creatures option would outpower the single high level summon? (But I could be wrong)
Ah, but my rules would prevent that since you cannot have two concentration effects on the same target. Thus a Paladin under this homebrew rule could not have say Heroism and Searing Smite on himself at the same time.
I don't see the issue. Something can be simple to execute and still require your full attention.
How are you going to handle non-spell concentration effects? Those don't have levels.
Players will just split their concentration over multiple targets and still get much more mileage than they would under vanilla rules. E.g. Clerics will use both Bane and Bless simultaneously, wizards will incapacitate multiple individual targets with Levitate, or get multiple Magic Weapon spells going, or use area spells.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think concentration works the way it does at least partially to encourage teamwork and avoid one spellcaster from "solving" a combat alone. One example might be stacking movement denial like entangle with a damaging/debuffing area like hunger of hadar. Not only is the party unneeded here, they are actively shut out of the fight, unable to see any targets or get close to them without being damaged.
As for the difficulty of concentrating on a 1st level spell vs a 9th, sometimes you just need to accept and trust the game mechanics. I'm happy to toss out rules and systems that don't work, but concentration is one of the better mechanics in 5e. And if you just change your mental picture of spellcasting a bit, it fits just fine. Maybe concentration is more about keeping the magic flowing and focused on the target/s rather than handling the power level of it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
That's part of it. The other part is to stop the game from slowing down too much because 2-3 spellcasters each have 2-3 spell effects kicking every round causing multiple saving throws and damage rolls.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I see your point, but the issue is that lower level concentration spells get nerfed in a way as the caster gains levels due to increase of the opportunity cost of concentration. It would also increase the viability of these low level concentration spells. Lastly, there's much disagreement which spells need concentration in the first place and I see many DM's arbitrarily removing concentration requirement from this or that spell. (Some DMs do this only for 1-2 spells while others can have 10+) My way would do away with this revision by relaxing the concentration requirement slightly. Also allowing some reasonable combinations such as having a choice between multiple lesser summons or one strong summon.
Excellent question, I haven't thought of those. I also cannot really recall that many of them. Looking quickly through the classes I see Trickery Cleric's Invoke Duplicity as one example I guess? I would rule in case of class abilities their spell level would correspond to the highest spell slot a full caster would have at that level. Eg: Invoke Duplicity is gained at lv3 = level 2 spell level.
They could do all those, but I don't see anything game breaking about them. Bane and Bless are both level 1 spells whose effects will hardly be decisive. Bane also has a saving throw.
Levitate can target only a single creature and that creature gets a Con save. It also doesn't disable it in anyway so if it has any ranged attacks levitate doesn't hinder it much, more like provides safety from your group's melees. Also there is dispel magic. Finally a level 17 wizard could only cast 4 levitates at the same time and that would take him 4 rounds. Is it really the most effective way to use a lvl17+ wizard?
Multiple magic weapons, yes, +1 bonus on 4 different weapons for level 17+ wizard. Would you consider that overpowered?
Lastly, AoE effects do not stack from the same caster so there's not change there.
Could the same not be said of Entagnle + Fireball? Or any other damaging AoE spell?
I don't see anything wrong about a spellcater solving a minor encounter by himself. A good melee ends up racking more than enough kills as it is. It is rarely that a caster delivers the killing blow to a boss enemy. Situations like these allow the casters to shine as they slay a group of weak enemies on their own. If a caster can solo an entire boss encounter that's not a rule problem, that's just poor encounter design from the DM.
That's a very interesting perspective. I'll certainly take it to my players. It's just that my players are transferring from 3,5 and many of their favorite spell combination (that were not OP btw at least in my games) are now unusable under the Concentration rule. I'm getting demands to do away with it entire or heavily revise the spells themselves, neither of which I'd like to do so I'm trying to come up with a creative yet balanced solution. :D
In my games there are often situations where one character solves something by himself. Eg: a rogue sneaks ahead, scouts and disables traps or opens locked doors for the group while rest of the party waits. A fighter duels an enemy knight boss while the rest of the group is trying deal with a wave of adds. Or a mage takes out a goblin patrol with one or more choice spells. Once again, it's all about encounter design. For example all enemies don't have to appear at the same time in one convenient fixed point. Have the enemy attack from multiple sides, how do you AoE two separate groups at once? If the rest of the party is afk all the time and the campaign is soloable by a single caster then the game is way is too simple.
Lastly, increased dice rolling is an OOG quality of life question unrelated to game balance. Like, would it be okay if there's only 1 caster in group? How much dice rolling is too much? :D
Let me preface this by saying I don't like to appeal to authority but trust me when I say I'm speaking from experience. I've been playing 5e from the start as both a DM and a player, I've played a tier 3 spellcaster, I've spent a lot of time bickering on these forums about what the rules say, and I've listened to pretty much all of the Sage Advice/Dragon Talk podcasts that Jeremy Crawford's been in. I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp on 5e's rules both in terms of theory and practice.
I don't think that's true. There's plenty of low level concentration spells that are still effective at higher levels, and they become increasingly affordable as you gain spell slots. Rather than falling off the wayside, they tend to get used more liberally since a low level slot is no longer a major investment. It's mainly single-target, instantaneous damage spells like Chromatic Orb that become obsolete, since cantrips easily match their damage once you start rolling 2 and 3 dice.
For the most part, 5e did a good job in assigning concentration. There's no spells I can think of that arguably should've had concentration but don't, and I can only think of 2 spells off the top of my head that are absolutely terrible and giving them concentration was overkill (True Strike and Witch Bolt.)
There's also the College of Glamour's Mantle of Majesty, the Ghostly Gaze Eldritch Invocation from XGtE, the optional Favored Foe Ranger feature from TCoE, the Ring of Shooting Stars, and the Spellshard from Eberron: Rising From the Last War.
I don't think you appreciate how powerful adding an average bonus of 2.5 to your ally's attacks and a 2.5 penalty to your enemy's attacks is in a game that effectively has a soft cap on AC of 20. I can count the number of monsters with an AC higher than 20 but CR lower than 20 and that aren't unique to a specific adventure book in one hand.
Bane is also multi-target and targets a weak save. Most non-legendary monsters have absolutely no saving throw proficiencies and charisma scores ranging from average to utterly abysmal (unintelligent monsters like oozes can go as low as 1.) Not only is Bane fairly easy to stick on an individual creature, if you target 3 it's extremely unlikely all 3 will succeed their saves. And once you've got Bane on, now they're all the more likely to fall for even more powerful saving throw spells.
Unlike almost every other spell that can seriously hinder you, it's a single save, not a save every round. There's a lot of monsters that don't have ranged attacks, and even if they do, they're probably not going to hit a wizard with Shield and party members willing to provide half cover. If the wizard decides to run out of range it's all over. Levitate is an absolute death sentence.
There's no rule that would prevent different area effects from applying to the same monster, even if they come from the same spellcaster. The rule is that you can't subject a target to multiple instances of the same effect.
No, because Fireball only damages you once. Non-instantaneous area spells have a much higher damage potential, offset by the fact that it's difficult to keep monsters inside of them. A single spellcaster can't usually both trap a monster and also keep hitting it with Flaming Sphere because pretty much every spell that could keep an enemy trapped and every non-instantaneous damaging spell requires concentration.
I also came from 3.5e so I do know how frustrating concentration can be for old players, but I also know first-hand how broken spell stacking is in that edition. In my last 3.5e game the party had so many buffs from spells, class features, and magic items that I literally needed a spreadsheet to keep my bonuses straight.
Here's a middle ground that's much less likely to destroy the difficulty of your encounters: offer them a feat that lets them choose one 1st level or 2nd level spell to specialize in, and allow them to concentrate on that one spell at the same time that they concentrate on something else.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That sounds great and is the reason why I'm here for, to hear from people with experience in 5th ed. To clarify my motives, I'm not suggesting that this variant be made official or to suggest that the current concentration system is somehow broken and doesn't work.
The point of variant systems in the first place is to customize the game in a way that makes it more fun to its DM and players. The purpose of this thread is to determine whether my proposed variant will be unbalanced or prove overpowered. And I believe that with my variant rule the game will be more fun to my particular group. (provided it is not overpowered)
That's a fair point, they don't take your highest level spell slot anymore and are more affordable in a way.
All of those abilities are quite on par with the effects of spells that a full caster would gain at that level. Thus my way of valuating their "spell slot level" seems quite accurate. Eg: Glamour would count as lv3 spell and favored enemy as lv1 for purposes of my concentration rules. Eberron source material I don't have, but not planning to use it either.
All true, but lets keep in mind that these are common level 1 spells. A low level group with a paladin and a cleric can set that combination. It's hardly an overpowering combination if it can be cast so easily even with base rules. I wouldn't say this trivializes content if a single cleric casts them both. The paladin can do something else like smite.
Exactly, seriously hinder which levitate doesn't do as it doesn't incapacitate. Also note the 500 pound limit! An obese human can easily weigh over 500 pounds. An
armoredogre definitely weighs over 500 pounds. Drizzt's pet Guenhwyvar weighs 600 pounds. The spell also requires at least 20 ft of vertical space so it's not so useful indoors as enemies can still move by propelling themselves off surfaces. To be a death sentence this use of the levitate requires quite specific enemy and conditions. Finally, the spell doesn't even let the target take fall damage when it ends so if the wizard runs out of range nothing happens as the "target floats gently to the ground if it is still aloft".No I meant that my variant rule on concentration prevents overlapping AoE effects from concentration spells of the same caster. For example casting web on top of entangle by the same caster will cause entangle spell to fizzle out. (The new spell always overrides an older one). This is part of my effort to prevent stacking of concentration spell effects.
I feel this is not a matter of balance, but an effort cut back on bookkeeping. These were standard mechanics in previous editions.
Heh I understand, I was doing the same thing and that's one of the biggest appeals of 5th edition how streamlined it is and prunes the amount of bookkeeping. But I feel it goes a little too far in some case just for the sake symmetry rather than game balance.
That is an interesting proposal and sounds good to me, but I don't see how it really differs from mine in practice. At low levels this variant is even more powerful than what I'm proposing. A level 5 mage could cast one level 3 and one level 2 concentration spells, but with my system he could not.
At high levels your proposal can still be more powerful. For example a 17th level mage could simultaneously cast level 9 and level 2 concentration spell. Under my system he could only cast the level 9 one or one level 7 and one level 2 (or 8 and 1).
The only difference is that my system is a bit more flexible as a 17th level caster could cast level 4 and level 5 concentration spells at the same time, but that's the only difference. Add on top of that all the non-stacking requirements I have. Oh your proposal also fixes the spell to a specific spell, but even so, I'd call them relatively equal solutions in terms of power wouldn't you say?
I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture. If it's just the cleric getting to concentrate on two spells, fine, that's one thing. The issue is that your house rule enables combos like this for every caster in the group. A cleric can set up both Bane and Bless while a Bard is simultaneously maintaining Faerie Fire and Heroism and a Druid maintains both Entangle and Flaming Sphere. Each of the 1st level spells in these combos is already useful enough to be worth taking up your one concentration slot, so when you start stacking 2-3 extra ones, things get out of hand fast. Faerie Fire alone is already overpowered for a 1st level spell (inflicting advantage on all attack rolls is strong enough as it is, and Faerie Fire does so for multiple targets and without the duration expiring before combat ends.) Protection From Evil And Good is similarly overpowered for a 1st level spell when it's applicable.
It does effectively incapacitate many monsters, in a way that no other spell of similar level can accomplish. When it's applicable, it's game-breakingly strong. Similar abilities like Entangle, Color Spray, Ensnaring Strike, Hold Person, Web or a Monk's Stunning Fist are basically good for 1 round, 2 if you get lucky.
That doesn't mean it was a good thing. I can't vouch for 2e but 3.5e left fighter-types at the whims of spellcasters because the only good way to stop a magic user was to use more magic (e.g. Dispel Magic.) Being able to set up death traps is a dominant strategy you don't want to facilitate. Requiring two characters to set up a control spell plus an area hazard and asking them to consider whether that's worth giving up two different concentration spells is both more interesting tactically and raises the bar for trivializing an encounter.
My solution has an absolute limit of 2 spells, one of them being fixed (so if it's not relevant to the current situation, tough luck), has an opportunity cost (they could've boosted their spellcasting ability modifier, or picked another feat like Lucky, War Caster, or Metamagic Adept) and is sufficiently restrictive that you can do away with all the other rules (no exceeding your max spell level, no more than one effect per target, no more than one area effect...)
Giving them a hard limit of 2 spells and ensuring they can't mix and match any two spells is more important than not going over the sum of their spell level. If I was playing a character with 4th level spell slots and I had to choose between concentrating on a 4th level spell or concentrating on 2 lower level spells, 2 spells almost always wins. The difference from one spell level to the next isn't anywhere near enough to compensate for being able to combine two concentration spells.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think I see your point, the power level of the party increases. I, however would assume this power increase would be relatively marginal and wouldn't lead to actual breaking of the game. I admit I don't have enough experience with 5th ed to say this for certain, but I find it hard to believe these example would trivialize content. I guess I'll just have to see for myself.
By that logic any elemental spell is overpowered when used against enemies that are vulnerable to it. Or how about turn undead against undead? These are instances where the DM can very easily balance things out without having to raise challenge rating of opponents.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. Many monsters yes, but powerful monsters rather few. Yes it would be effective against high level elven fighter, but that's up the DM if he wants to feed the party enemies specifically tailored to be light enough to levitate. For some reason I have a feeling you're using the 3rd edition version of levitate where the enemies can take fall damage when it ends. (note that in 3rd ed levitate could not be used offensively)
I'm also wondering are the other CC spells even worth casting if they are so weak? Wouldn't direct damage spell be a better option in most cases?
I fail to see the relevance. You don't seem to be bothered that fighter-types makes mince meat from bards and rogues in any edition. But D&D Classes are not meant to be equal in power when it comes to 1v1. Rogue-types are better at skills, casters are very powerful given the right spells and conditions (and prep time) while fighter types have terrific damage consistency and defence. I have no idea why people cry that fighter-types are weak. No class is sub-par to another given a campaign with diverse challenges.
A high level fighter can put out 4 attacks each round all day long in both 3,5 and 5ed while having high health and defense. In fact they are buffed in 5ed since all attacks now use max attack mod while casters have been heavily nerfed both in the amount of spells they get, the effect of spells and even how they are allowed to cast them. In my games in 3,5 fighter types dominated already most encounters and what my casters are concerned is that now they will be just a utility class while fighters take all the glory.
Then again, it all depends on the DM. If the DM allows rests whenever the party wants and gives the party ample prep time against boss fights the casters would love that. But if rest opportunities are few and far between, encounters have many enemies that don't cluster at a single point and may come as a surprise, then the fighter-types will carry the game.
Good point about the feat, I forgot about that. Also true that the selection is also larger with my method. But I don't know, I don't see that big of a difference between the two methods, I could make mine into a feat as well and thus the difference would only boil down to effect stacking vs selection. (Yours has the benefit of stacking effects while mine greater selection) However spells need to be prepared anyway as the selection is already narrow so imo the difference between locking a spell and having a few alternatives isn't that big of a power spike.
I think I'll give this house rule of mine a try.
I greatly appreciate your input though and will closely monitor all the concerns you mentioned. I plan to run a game from 1st -20 levels so I will get to see how it works on different stages of character power. If I notice encounters getting trivial or dominated by casters I will remove this rule, but as of yet I'm not convinced this rule would break the game.