This is a tough one. On one hand I really like the limitations on spell stacking when it...
I was continuing the conversation about concentration spells, elsewhere, and found that several people either didn't fully realize how they worked or thought that the damage problem would hardly ever come up (they hadn't actually played, of course). I thought I might as well cut-and-paste my reply, here, since it ties in with my last post.
Okay, let's do some math. The DC for the concentration check is either 10 or half the damage that was taken, whichever is higher. In practice, this means that it will almost always be 10, at lower levels, but will tend to creep up, as monster damage increases, at higher levels (or even at not-so-high levels, if you believe, as the Mines writers seem to, that a green dragon is an appropriate threat, in a beginner's module: its breath weapon can easily turn the DC into a 21). When it comes time to make the check, it is a Constitution save. Given that most spellcasters are not going to have proficiency in Con (neither clerics nor wizards do, at this point), this means that, unless you add a lot to your Con score, as you advance, your chance of making the check will be much the same at 20th level as it was at 1st - actually, often lower, at that point, since the DC will be higher (possibly, much higher, judging by the aforementioned "beginner dragon"). And note that the spell level doesn't even enter into the picture, so your 20th level wizard has the same chance of maintaining concentration on 1st level spells as he does on 9th level spells. Also, keep in mind that this applies to all spellcasters. Maybe WotC pictures the wizard hiding behind rubble, maintaining his (single) concentration spell by avoiding melee altogether, but I can't even guess what they picture clerics, rangers and paladins doing, in the same situation...
In practice, this means that most spellcasters have about a 30% - 45% chance of failing the check and losing their spell, every time they take damage (or are jostled on a boat or whatever). This assumes a typical Con of 12 - 15, with the occasional 16+. These Con scores might seem a bit high, but I'm trying to give WotC every benefit of the doubt, here. Also, I'm assuming that a lot of spellcaster players will soon pick up on this and start making Con a priority. Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's call 35% typical (Con 14 or 15), since that's near the middle (again, erring in WotC's favor), and Con 14 seemed pretty common in our groups, anyway. This means that, if you get hit once, there is a 35% chance that your Shield of Faith or Blur or Beacon of Hope or whatever goes down (possibly, without actually doing anything). With two hits, the average chance of failure jumps to 57.75%. With three, it jumps to 72.5375%. And so on. To put this another way, even your defensive spells are going to typically fail after two or three hits, of any sort, and often they have better than a 1-in-3 chance of failing after one. Watch out for monsters with multiple attacks!
And in actual game play, we found that this was exactly what happened. For the wizard, this was a problem because he (one group) or she (the other group) would often only cast a defensive spell if (s)he was in trouble (i.e. in danger of getting hit... and, thus, losing the life-saving spell...). For the cleric, it was even worse, in a way, since casting a defensive spell on yourself or someone else and then charging into battle is just business as usual, for a cleric. Three specific examples come to mind, just in a few days of play, although I'm sure there were others that would do just as well.
- As previously mentioned, our wizard got into a tight spot and, quite sensibly, cast Blur. The critter immediately hit him, anyway, causing him to fail a concentration check and lose the spell. End result: wasted turn, wasted spell slot, and a defensive spell that did no actual defending (and, very nearly, a dead wizard).
- In the other group, the cleric had the same thing occur with Shield of Faith. She was pounced on by a couple of ruffians and promptly lost the spell - which was not surprising, given that each ruffian got two attacks. Again, wasted turn, wasted slot, no defense. (Sidenote: Apparently, the writers of Mines also think that "ruffians" should appear in hordes, in a 2nd level dungeon, and that they should each have 16 hit points and get multi-attack - something the fighters would not get until 5th level. Are you getting the impression that I was less than thrilled with Mines as a let's-go-catch-us-some-newbies introductory adventure? We experienced folk managed - barely - but I foresee a lot of beginner TPKs, with the ruffians and their bugbear buddies. Not to mention the dragon.)
- Same group. This time, the cleric, seeing yet another band of ruffians and now appreciating that the Mines writers really like ruffians, quite sensibly casts Bless on the party. Again, she gets pounced on, and again the spell goes down - without any other player ever benefiting from it. There were a lot of people gritting their teeth, at that point. And at least one saying that she will never again play a cleric, in 5E. (It probably didn't help that this was one of the few times she got to cast a spell that wasn't Cure or Healing Word).
All of this got us wondering: once the real player's book comes out, is anyone going to even want to look at a transmuter or bard? Most of the buffs seem to have been removed (judging by both the basic rules and the playtests), and those that remain are mostly concentration spells. Are you going to want to play a wizard who can only have one spell, of his primary type, up at a time? And are you going to want to be on the receiving end of a potentially critical spell, such as Spider Climb or Invisibility, which might abruptly fold, if the wizard, three tunnels back, takes damage or gets jostled?
BTW, I should clarify that I don't entirely hate the idea of toning down the number of buffs that can be used, at once. I'm good with that. But WotC's method is way too extreme and has too many ridiculous side-effects.
I could see changing Concentration to match how we want to play.
Maybe DC 5 or 1/4 damage dealt.
Or just use the Playtest version and damage doesn't disrupt except maybe on a crit.
There's going to be a lot of "season to taste" going on group by group.
My personall pet project is savage humanoids using high quality manmade gear (goblins wielding scimitars versus say clubs or sharp sticks).
|
Just so we're all clear on what we're talking about: in 1st edition AD&D, 0 level spell slots did not exist. However, a magic user or illusionist could use 4 cantrips to fill a 1st level slot. There were no cantrips at all in the PHB; they were introduced in Unearthed Arcana.
In 2e, Cantrip was a 1st level Wizard spell that allowed the caster to perform minor tricks for 1 hour/level.
Cantrips and orisons as 0 level spells were introduced in 3e, and they had limited uses per day just like any other spell.
Thanks for posting that, some people may not understand the different types, function and power level of the older edition cantrip. They hear the word "cantrip", and unless they have experience in those older games they assume 3rd ed default 0 level spell power and utility when that was far from the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see changing Concentration to match how we want to play.
Maybe DC 5 or 1/4 damage dealt.
Or just use the Playtest version and damage doesn't disrupt except maybe on a crit.There's going to be a lot of "season to taste" going on group by group.
My personall pet project is savage humanoids using high quality manmade gear (goblins wielding scimitars versus say clubs or sharp sticks).
I'm not sure that reducing the DC would entirely solve the problem, at least with defensive spells. There would still be a reasonable chance of the spell crumbling before it actually does anything. And remember that, while the DC goes up, at higher levels, the bonus for the roll usually doesn't.
I actually don't have a big problem with this, if the defensive spell is supposed to be "ablative" - that is, if it is supposed to, say, take some damage and then collapse. But none of the 5E spells work that way, so far. In fact, I can't help but think that the folks at WotC didn't even bother to run the numbers, on this one. And who knows what their "playtesters" were doing...
And, of course, none of this solves the problem that you cannot have more than one spell going at a time - a problem that might not even be a problem, if so many spells weren't concentration spells, in the first place. I mean, I know we don't want to over-buff, but does anyone really have a problem with the cleric putting up Shield of Faith and then Blessing the group? Or the wizard protecting himself, a little, with Blur, while using a Flaming Sphere or letting his buddy Spider Climb? And do we really want that Spider Climb to fail, when the wizard gets hit?
The best solution would probably be to just have less cocnentration spells, in the first place - especially, in the defensive department. As stands, there are far too many of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the insight, I'll keep an eye on this when I play the game.
I feel like these issues could be pretty easy to solve with some house rules. Just rule that a spell caster can concentrate on up to 2 or 3 spells at a time or make a few of the concentration spells non-concentration spells.
I find the amount of buffing with spells that starts to happen in Pathfinder/3e quickly gets pretty out of control (I often see characters with between 6-10 active spells on them), so I'm glad they're cutting that back, but I agree that it does need to be done in an intelligent way.
I could see changing Concentration to match how we want to play.
Maybe DC 5 or 1/4 damage dealt.
Or just use the Playtest version and damage doesn't disrupt except maybe on a crit.There's going to be a lot of "season to taste" going on group by group.
My personall pet project is savage humanoids using high quality manmade gear (goblins wielding scimitars versus say clubs or sharp sticks).
I'm not sure that reducing the DC would entirely solve the problem, at least with defensive spells. There would still be a reasonable chance of the spell crumbling before it actually does anything. And remember that, while the DC goes up, at higher levels, the bonus for the roll usually doesn't.
I actually don't have a big problem with this, if the defensive spell is supposed to be "ablative" - that is, if it is supposed to, say, take some damage and then collapse. But none of the 5E spells work that way, so far. In fact, I can't help but think that the folks at WotC didn't even bother to run the numbers, on this one. And who knows what their "playtesters" were doing...
And, of course, none of this solves the problem that you cannot have more than one spell going at a time - a problem that might not even be a problem, if so many spells weren't concentration spells, in the first place. I mean, I know we don't want to over-buff, but does anyone really have a problem with the cleric putting up Shield of Faith and then Blessing the group? Or the wizard protecting himself, a little, with Blur, while using a Flaming Sphere or letting his buddy Spider Climb? And do we really want that Spider Climb to fail, when the wizard gets hit?
The best solution would probably be to just have less cocnentration spells, in the first place - especially, in the defensive department. As stands, there are far too many of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concentration is still going to be a hell of a lot easier to maintain than in 0e, 1e, 2e, B/X, BCMI, or RC.
How do you figure? You weren't limited to only a single concentration spell, in those editions. And they didn't give clerics, rangers and such a bunch of spells to cast on themselves and the party that would end if they got hurt. Spell use expectations are very different, in 5E (or 3E or 4E or Pathfinder, for that matter).
Actually, come to think of it, there were no concentration spells, other than a few illusions, in those editions, and concentration meant something somewhat different. So, you're kind of comparing apples and oranges, here.
If you are referring to the fact that damage might disrupt a long-term spell, you have a point, but there is no other connection. And, even in those editions, there was some debate as to how that applied to a spell that was already cast and simply became "part of" the target or gained an existence of its own, so to speak - Mage Armor, to give a more modern example (which, BTW, is one of the few non-concentration defensive spells in 5E).
Thanks for the insight, I'll keep an eye on this when I play the game.
I feel like these issues could be pretty easy to solve with some house rules. Just rule that a spell caster can concentrate on up to 2 or 3 spells at a time or make a few of the concentration spells non-concentration spells.
I find the amount of buffing with spells that starts to happen in Pathfinder/3e quickly gets pretty out of control (I often see characters with between 6-10 active spells on them), so I'm glad they're cutting that back, but I agree that it does need to be done in an intelligent way.
We were tossing around the idea of allowing a caster to have one concentration spell "for free" but then have to make concentration checks to cast other concentration spells, at the same time, with the DC slowly going up. So, for example, you could cast Blur, as usual. Then, on your next turn, you could make a DC 10 concentration check to maintain it, while casting Flaming Sphere. If you want to push your luck, you could then try to maintain both of those while making a concentration check (this time, DC 12) to add in Spider Climb. Failure causes the whole mess to collapse.
A couple of tweaks we discussed: the DC increases by +2 for each extra spell of a different variety (as noted above) but only by +1 for an extra incident of the same spell (so you can cast Spider Climb on both yourself and your buddy). A failed concentration check only ruins the last spell, not all of them (I prefer the "nuke 'em all" approach - or, at least, "nuke all of them but the most recent one, that necessitated the check" - but I'm mean that way).
Of course, none of this deals with the much more serious damage-ruins-your-defenses problem (especially for paladins, rangers and the like). Really, as I said earlier, the best solution would have been for WotC to be more careful about which and how many spells they applied the concentration label to. But it's too late for that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first paged through 4e at the book store it looked to me like a video game rather than an RPG.
Completely agree. Except for the lack of a controller, display, and graphics of any kind, it was just like a video game!
Pardon the sarcasm, but this little bit of edition warring needs to be taken out behind the chemical shed.
Concentration is still going to be a hell of a lot easier to maintain than in 0e, 1e, 2e, B/X, BCMI, or RC.But it's a completely different thing than it was, so the comparison doesn't really apply.
In the good old days Concentration was just for casting spells, right? At least for most spells. The Bless didn't go away if the cleric got hit after casting it?
There weren't as many buff spells then, but most of them still didn't preclude casting another one and have a good chance of going away if you got hit.
Yes, most spells could only be disrupted while being cast (a pretty narrow window). And, as I said earlier, the term "concentration" mostly applied to illusions and other spells that you might want to alter while they were in effect (to make them move in a non-stupid way, for example). I think Kthulhu is a bit muddled, on this one.
I think Cwylric is on the right track that the solution is probably to have fewer concentration spells. As another alternative/houserule, what about having concentration spells peter out over a round instead of instantly dissipating? For example, casting and maintaining the spell would both require concentration as normal, but if you lose concentration after it's been cast, the effects will still last for one more round as long as you're still conscious. That would give the spider climbing rogue a chance to see that the wizard got clobbered, and he would have a fighting chance to get to lower ground, but it would still prevent the wizard from having a slew of buffs and battlefield controls running at once. This would also allow there to be two concentration spells in play at once, but only for one round, which might lead to some interesting tactics and improvisation.In general, I think the concentration rules are a great idea for combating the "flying/buffing/invisible/pit-creating/hail-producing/black tentacle summoning god-wizard" phenomenon, but I agree that requiring continued concentration just to maintain basic, minor buffs like Bless is overkill. Definitely something I'll look out for when the PHB comes out.
Hmmm, that's not a bad idea (the one-round-fadeout, I mean). As you said, it would give your buddies a chance to recover from failed Spider Climbs, Invisibilities and the like (as long as they sense that the end is near). And it would, at least, give that "ablative" feel to defenses that I was talking about earlier.
Still wish there were less of 'em, though...
Hmmm. Thinking along those lines: allow lower level spells than you can cast to avoid the concentration rules? Or cast a lower level spell from a higher level slot, without getting the other boosts for casting at a higher level, to not need concentrationIn general, I think the concentration rules are a great idea for combating the "flying/buffing/invisible/pit-creating/hail-producing/black tentacle summoning god-wizard" phenomenon, but I agree that requiring continued concentration just to maintain basic, minor buffs like Bless is overkill. Definitely something I'll look out for when the PHB comes out.
Maybe. You could rule that, if the spell is, say, two levels lower than the highest slot you possess, you don't have to worry about concentration checks (or, to go all 5E about it, you get advantage on them). Using a higher level slot might work, kind of like metamagic. Of course, both of these solutions don't help low level characters, at all. Bless still crumbles easily and can't be maintained while casting Shield of Faith.
Best solution: less concentration spells. (Okay, I promise I'll quit being a broken record, now...)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to start saying "exploring a real fantasy world" to random strangers.
Pretty likely that 'Concentration' like 'Healing' and 'Short Rest/Long Rest' will just be something people option/house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now for something completely different: I wish WotC would update the Basic PDF to have the page numbers in the correct corners... :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well 2d8 or 2d10 damage for a cantrip isn't too crazy, but once they scale up to 3d8/3d10 they start to become a better option than a 1st level spell. The 4d8/4d10 cantrip will be less of an issue since it doesn't come into play until 17th level, and most people don't spend much time playing at that level. Plus at 17th level a 4d10 damage cantrip is still pretty minimal compared the other options that casters have.
Keep in mind weapon damage will increase due to multiple attacks. An 11th level wizard might bust out a 3d8 cantrip, but that doesn't compare to a fighter making 3 attacks in a round, and chances are the wizard will almost always have higher level spells he will use instead, so cantrips will probably remain a last resort.
So although on paper it looks kind of off, I'm going to reserve judgment on that issue until I play the game for a while. I have a feeling it won't be a problem.
Except that cantrips are single target spells. Burning hands is 3d6 and hits multiple targets (if they're close). Thunderwave is 2d8 and also hits multiple targets, an magic missile gives you 3 missiles to use as you choose with not attack roll needed, so in those respect first level spells are better.
The advancing cantrips ties in to preparing spells in higher level slots conceptually. It also takes a spells effects and creates the paradigm that who casts it matters almost as much as the spell itself. That's an awesome feature to have. I expect classes like the sorcerer to really capitalize on it and can't wait to see what the PHB has in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had this whole catty multi-paragraph comeback all written out, spellchecked and everything...then I saw Chris said to drop it.
I'm a sad, argumentative panda...
Edit: Stop bashing on 4e, it's deadest horse in the entire land of dead horses. Some of us really enjoyed the system, some of us thought it was nifty that all the classes have the same rough power level, some of us just don't care why you don't like it. If you're not into it, don't play it.
I think Chris's "Drop it" comment was more directed to the rather extensive hostilities between 2 posters, and probably not towards the 4th Edition comments. Though I agree with ya, GypsyMischief. Would be nice if the 4e bashing would stop. Even though it just wasn't the system for me.
So much in 5e depends on how you expect to play. Regarding the concentration thing for example, in most previous editions you could bust out a spell, or in 3.5 a ton of spells, wade into combat and go for it. My players were used to this, but once they worked out how concentration worked they adjusted their tactics. The key thing if you are buffing someone now is not to get hit yourself. It changes the way you play, and the self buffing classes need to expect their buffs to drop more often. As a side note it makes potions way more valuable (assuming I am running them right) as they appear to not require concentration.
Also it's pretty easy to drop the taking damage part from concentration. You could also house rule that the casters ability score modifier could be their maximum number of concentration spells if you want more "buffability" in the game.
Also since the bad guys buffs drop pretty easily as well I am finding I am having them disengage and rebuff themselves during combat.
Not to quibble over the Concentration issue, but list of feat names released this week contained one called War Caster. I'm guessing it'll deal with the DC somehow. Well, and few more things, given the super feats we saw in the playtest.
Never mind concentration checks, how about death saves: unmodified DC 10 rolls on a d20 are terrifying!
Also it's pretty easy to drop the taking damage part from concentration.
I like that idea the most for a houserule. Each caster only being able to keep one buff spell up at a time is great and should solve the "stack 10 buffs on everyone" problem that high level 3.X games have. But having their one buff easily disrupted just by being hit in combat seems way too harsh. Especially with how difficult it looks like the DC to keep the spell going will be.
|
Not to quibble over the Concentration issue, but list of feat names released this week contained one called War Caster. I'm guessing it'll deal with the DC somehow. Well, and few more things, given the super feats we saw in the playtest.
Never mind concentration checks, how about death saves: unmodified DC 10 rolls on a d20 are terrifying!
Yeah some people are already calling feat tax on the war caster. Be interesting to see how it plays out once the PHB hits the shelf.