What if there was a magic item that allowed you to have 2 spells with concentration?

[JakOfAllTirades]

Such a magic item breaks one of the fundamental rules of the game. Don't - just don't.

So does the Belt of Storm Giant Strength. "No Ability Scores over 20" is a fundamental rule, but there are a number of items which break it. (And a class feature, too.)

[Dr. Cliché]

Such a magic item breaks one of the fundamental rules of the game. Don't - just don't.

I'd hardly call concentration a fundamental rule. It's a slapdash attempt at balancing buffs, but one which makes naff-all sense and goes way too far.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'd hardly call concentration a fundamental rule. It's a slapdash attempt at balancing buffs, but one which makes naff-all sense and goes way too far.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's anything less than a fundamental rule of spellcasting.

[Dr. Cliché]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's anything less than a fundamental rule of spellcasting.

You're right. The fact that it's not a fundamental rule is what makes it less of a fundamental rule.

[TheRedTemplar]

I'd hardly call concentration a fundamental rule. It's a slapdash attempt at balancing buffs, but one which makes naff-all sense and goes way too far.

Look, just because they threw a little wrench in all your CoDzilla plans doesn't mean you need to sulk in your robe and wizard hat. Concentration keeps people from breaking the game by buff-stacking, and I don't see why getting an item to slightly go below that (like a Shield Guardian) is too big of an issue. However, complaining that Concentration is a problem and shouldn't exist only makes you come off as a whiny little warlock who was mad that the Martial Classes actually get a chance to do something this edition. Seriously, man up. It's not the best balancing mechanic, but it's a balancing mechanic, and it's here to stay. I don't really think anyone aside from muchkins complain about this.

[Dr. Cliché]

Look, just because they threw a little wrench in all your CoDzilla plans doesn't mean you need to sulk in your robe and wizard hat. Concentration keeps people from breaking the game by buff-stacking, and I don't see why getting an item to slightly go below that (like a Shield Guardian) is too big of an issue. However, complaining that Concentration is a problem and shouldn't exist only makes you come off as a whiny little warlock who was mad that the Martial Classes actually get a chance to do something this edition. Seriously, man up. It's not the best balancing mechanic, but it's a balancing mechanic, and it's here to stay. I don't really think anyone aside from muchkins complain about this.

If you project just a little harder we could use you to show a powerpoint presentation on baseless arguments.

Want to make that final push? I think I've got a spare cable around here somewhere.

[Theodoxus]

Our table uses Proficiency minus 1 for the number of concentration effects you can maintain. Honestly, we haven't run into any abuse - it's mostly for when you forget that your Hold Person would have just nuked your Hex... I also maintain that you should run the game you can control. If you can't handle a Haste/Cloudkill/Bless combination, don't allow for it.

I definitely need to check the Shield Guardian though... I have a player in dire need of a legendary item, and that as the chassis will certainly fit the bill.

[RulesJD]

Shield Guardians are acceptable as a magical item because they are very much destructible.

This is hugely important in something like Adventurer's League because it counts against your permanent magic item count but can be destroyed, so it's a calculated risk.

[TheRedTemplar]

If you project just a little harder we could use you to show a powerpoint presentation on baseless arguments.

Want to make that final push? I think I've got a spare cable around here somewhere.

Sure, let me just get up all the baseless arguments you made: I think it gives us more than enough to fill out a slide show all on it's own.

[Dr. Cliché]

Sure, let me just get up all the baseless arguments you made: I think it gives us more than enough to fill out a slide show all on it's own.

Sorry. I'll try to remember in future that the actual definition of words is irrelevant.


EDIT: I am curious though - why do you think Concentration is a fundamental rule?

[Telwar]

I suspect we'll see one, in an official product, within 18 months or so.

I don't really think they can hold themselves to trying to keep what balance they've achieved. At some point their raging..."affection" we'll call it for full casters will rear its head, and we'll have something like a necklace with a big red ruby in it that "holds your concentration for you on self-only spells" or some such, and they'll weakly justify it by placing it in some GoT-themed article. Or some other way.

[TheRedTemplar]

I believe Concentration is not only a Fundamental Rule, it was something that was needed. It prevents straight casters from dominating the game by limiting the combinations they can pull off, and makes the ones they can seem even greater because the player is now much more invested in trying to find interesting ways to use their spells that aren't just 'stack as many buffs on myself until I can't die' or similar.

I think this also sets a baseline for an interesting difficulty: it makes the game more challenging and interesting, and thus more engaging, at least to me. I like things that make me think and provide a suitably difficult-yet-rewarding experience, and having to decide which spell to concentrate on and when to concentrate on it helps provide that. It's honestly part of the reason why I love 5e so much. Additionally, this is one of the things that enemies can't get around either, causing the foes you fight to also do the same thing. Even better, since no one can stack those concentration slots (and it can be disrupted), you can prematurely end an enemies spell by breaking their concentration, which can weaken or cripple them if they were relying on it. Players also have to be careful, since they can also have their concentration be broken as well, which helps add to the 'strategic' bit by making the Tank's job more important and making players be more cautious, since losing that concentration spell at the wrong time can be deadly.

All in all, I think this mechanic is one of my favorite additions to the game, and one of the reasons I like 5e more than older editions. So ultimately, yeah, I'd say something so influential as this would be a Fundamental Rule of the game, and a good one to!

[Dr. Cliché]

Sorry, but you haven't actually said why Concentration is a fundamental rule. You just said that it was and then went off on a tangent.

Are you sure 'fundamental' means what you think it does?

[. Shadowblade .]

yes, warlock in our party asked for such item as last quest reward - she was using it to levitate (to be out of reach of enemies) and keeping active the Hunger of Hadar spell at choking point at the same time

[Dr. Cliché]

yes, warlock in our party asked for such item as last quest reward - she was using it to levitate (to be out of reach of enemies) and keeping active the Hunger of Hadar spell at choking point at the same time

Goodbye spell slots.

[Rysto]

Sorry, but you haven't actually said why Concentration is a fundamental rule. You just said that it was and then went off on a tangent.

Are you sure 'fundamental' means what you think it does?

Are you sure you read his post? It's a fundamental part of the balance of the game. Loosening the restriction gives more power to casters and devalues martials further.

[Socratov]

Why concentration is needed and why a double item should never be worn by druids.

Look at the druid spells. lots of them are concentration. Also lots of them have an area of effect, might use a bonus action or action to adjust to the Druid's advantage (and indeed the party's advantage). having one fo them might be encounter ending, having two of them is disasterous as of now the druid van do twice as much about it.

What's more, get resillience (CON) and a high con/form to wildshape to and those will stay in effect as long as the spell could. Might be spiked growth and a moon beam, maybe two moonbeams, maybe some other aoe enemies-get-royally-fornicated spellset.

Also, for sorcerer the twin spell is funny with two concentrations. 4 times fly is funny but not good enough, however, how about dual haste on the fighters/barbs? Now instead of 2 murder-death-machines you can now have 4 murder-death-machines. Then there is the dual walls of force/fire/wind, and many other useful spells. But all the concentration spells with 1 target will lead to 4 castings running of that very spell. That, or 2 characters running around with dual buffs.

[kaoskonfety]

That, or 2 characters running around with dual buffs.

I totally forgot about the 2 hasted, improved invisible frontliners with sentinel and say... polearm master... NOM NOM NOM

Good times.

Still... I'd try it as a very rare/legendary expendable or an artifact that has some very serious drawbacks/is actually a lich feeding on your spells to get at your soul...

[Dr. Cliché]

Are you sure you read his post? It's a fundamental part of the balance of the game. Loosening the restriction gives more power to casters and devalues martials further.

That's not what a fundamental rule is.

A fundamental rule is the core of the system - typically what the rest of the system is built around. If you want an idea of whether or not something is fundamental, consider how easy or hard it would be to remove it.

For example, Class is a fundamental rule in D&D. If you removed Class, you'd be left with a load of abilities floating in the aether. Likewise, Ability Scores are a fundamental rule. They are needed to resolve attacks, AC, spells, save DCs, saves, skills etc.

In terms of the magic system, D&D still uses a Vancian Magic system. The key points are:

1)Magical effects are packaged into distinct spells; each spell has one fixed purpose. A spell that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.

2) Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."

3) Magicians have a finite capacity of prepared spells which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as magicians. A wizard using magic for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".

Notice the lack of anything even remotely related to Concentration there?

Here's the key point - Concentration would be an exceptionally easy mechanic to remove. It already reads like an optional rule that was made non-optional at the last minute. Every concentration spell has a maximum duration, so you could literally just remove/ignore "Concentration up to..." from all of them and they'd function just fine. Likewise, there are few (if any) abilities or effects that interact with Concentration in any way. I can think of maybe one feat that would get a bit worse for its removal. That's it. Mechanically, spellcasting would function just fine without Concentration.

That brings us, of course, to balance. Whilst the mechanics of the game might function fine, spellcasters would almost certainly be too strong in terms of actual gameplay. However, this is missing the key point - Concentration, as a balancing mechanic, can be replaced. The fact that you've removed a balancing mechanic doesn't prevent you from adding a different one (e.g. a direct limit on buff-stacking). And, more importantly, it can be replaced without changing the feel of the system (as above, the key points of Vancian Magic remain unchanged with or without Concentration).

Maybe the new balancing mechanic would be better, maybe it would be worse. The point is that you have that option. Since Concentration isn't a fundamental mechanic, you can swap it out for a different one with minimal mechanical problems and whilst leaving the actual fundamental rules of the system intact.

[Rysto]

Wow, really? Alright, if we're going to start arguing over the precise definition of words here, I'm out. Discussions like these are never productive.

[Dr. Cliché]

Wow, really? Alright, if we're going to start arguing over the precise definition of words here, I'm out. Discussions like these are never productive.

I'm not arguing the definition of fundamental, I'm just telling you what the definition is.

If you want to argue that definition, take it up with the dictionary.

[TheRedTemplar]

I'm not arguing the definition of fundamental, I'm just telling you what the definition is.

If you want to argue that definition, take it up with the dictionary.

fun·da·men·tal:

"forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

"a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A fundamental rule is not strictly the 'core' of a system: it is a baseline. It's a part of a system that other parts can be based around, which may then be used as fundamental parts for others, like a chain. There are many fundamental rules that go into the makings of a game; creature types, races, ability scores and classes are some notable D&D ones.

If your definition of fundamental is 'not easy to remove', well, you're wrong. Easy to remove doesn't mean it isn't fundamental: for example, you could easily remove the concept of creature types or races from the game with little to no drawback and easily fill in the blanks when need be: likewise ability scores and classes are extremely difficult to remove as a mechanic properly because much of the game is based around them, and it just wouldn't be D&D anymore. Despite this, all four of the above examples are still fundamental rules because they act as a starting point for other parts of the game, regardless of how easy or hard they are to remove.

Which brings us to poor concentration (bless their heart). Concentration is also a fundamental rule: it provides a baseline, and many classes depend on it (for example, the Trickster Cleric's Duplicity Power and the Dragon Sorcerer's Draconic Presence, not to mention the myriad of concentration spells). Without it, player tactics and some class abilities would be totally changed, spellcasters would be played differently, and some other things I don't feel like listing because it'd be too long. It is a core part of the system.

Does that mean it can be removed and replaced? Of course. Like you said just scribble out the word concentration when you see it and add something else, or nothing at all. Does that means it's a good idea? YMMV on that. But just because something can be removed and replaced with varying difficulty, it doesn't mean that it's not a fundamental rule if it isn't difficult to do so (Want proof? Look no further than D&D Next/D&D 6th Edition, which is an example of removing the fundamental rules of races and classes: Now you just have a 'mixture' where all choices and abilities are almost totally predetermined if you even get a choice at all, essentially replacing them both by fusing them together).

And given your childish demeanor, you're likely either ignoring this response entirely and continuing in ignorance or you're thinking: "TL;DR but it has nothing to do with Vancian Magic, so it's not fundamental". Well my friendless friend, that's because both of them are fundamental rules. They both act as baselines that totally determine how spellcasting and certain mechanics in the game work, and both also help create a guide for spells and how they work. They're arguably both part of each other, actually: Concentration is simply part of the Vancian magic rules in 5e, making it a Fundamental Rule using another Fundamental Rule as a starting point.

Again, if you think concentration isn't a fundamental rule because it's easy to remove, I'd like to point out the above Vancian system of magic is also a fundamental rule and is just as easy to replace, such as removing the majority of the spellcasting rules and switching them with something like AD&D's.

And if you still think I'm 100% wrong and don't even have a single good point, then either replace your dictionary or go back to kindergarten, because you have some serious learning to catch up on.

[NNescio]

Guys, as much as I disagree with Dr. Cliché on this issue, I think we should try to keep the discussion civil here.

Back on topic, I agree that concentration is a fundamental balancing mechanic in this game, for the reasons outlined by TheRedTemplar in his post above me. Bypassing the concentration mechanic dramatically changes the potential and playstyle of most casters (even partial casters like EKs), and enables a combinatorial explosion of spell interactions that are not intended by the designers. These combinations are also hard to foresee and balance for the DM (unlike, say, breaking the usual 20/30 stat limit, which can be compensated easily just by adjusting numbers).

[Dr. Cliché]

fun·da·men·tal:

"forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

"a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A fundamental rule is not strictly the 'core' of a system: it is a baseline..

Are you serious?

You quoted the definition of 'fundamental', and your very next sentence is you ignoring that definition.

'Baseline' is not the definition of 'fundamental'. It's not even a synonym of 'fundamental'.

If your definition of fundamental is 'not easy to remove', well, you're wrong. Easy to remove doesn't mean it isn't fundamental: for example, you could easily remove the concept of creature types or races from the game with little to no drawback and easily fill in the blanks when need be

Races, yes, creature types, no. Races affect relatively little, but there are a lot of spells and such based on creature type (though, they'd certainly be easier to remove than in 3.5).

You can argue that these are fundamental to the fluff, but mechanically races really aren't important and could be removed with little hassle. Creature types would be a bit more of a pain (since there are spells that key off undead, elementals, demons etc.), but even those aren't fundamental rules anymore. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd consider creature type a 'rule'. It's more akin to a tag - something that has no use in and of itself (fluff not withstanding), but which can be used by actual rules.

It's the same with spell types. 'Evocation' doesn't change the nature of a spell, but other abilities key off Evocation spells.

Despite this, all four of the above examples are still fundamental rules because they act as a starting point for other parts of the game, regardless of how easy or hard they are to remove.

Why did you even bother posting that definition of 'fundamental'? You clearly didn't read it.

A fundamental rule is much more than just a 'starting point'. Hence why 'starting point' wasn't among the definitions. And, once again, it's not even a synonym.

Which brings us to poor concentration (bless their heart). Concentration is also a fundamental rule: it provides a baseline, and many classes depend on it (for example, the Trickster Cleric's Duplicity Power and the Dragon Sorcerer's Draconic Presence, not to mention the myriad of concentration spells).

See my previous post. Those two abilities, along with every concentration spell, already have maximum durations. Hell, in Duplicity, Concentration is practically a footnote.

Also, once again, 'fundamental' =/= 'baseline'.

Which brings us to poor concentration (bless their heart). Concentration is also a fundamental rule: it provides a baseline, and many classes depend on it (for example, the Trickster Cleric's Duplicity Power and the Dragon Sorcerer's Draconic Presence, not to mention the myriad of concentration spells). Without it, player tactics and some class abilities would be totally changed, spellcasters would be played differently, and some other things I don't feel like listing because it'd be too long. It is a core part of the system.

Casters being played differently with different tactics is completely irrelevant (not to mention subjective).

None of what you've said makes Concentration a fundamental rule. I'm not even sure it makes it a baseline rule. Nothing adds to it, uses it creatively or builds on it in any way. It's used on a of spells... and that's about it.

Does that mean it can be removed and replaced? Of course. Like you said just scribble out the word concentration when you see it and add something else, or nothing at all. Does that means it's a good idea? YMMV on that. But just because something can be removed and replaced with varying difficulty, it doesn't mean that it's not a fundamental rule if it isn't difficult to do so

Yes, it really does.

Fundamental rules are the primary ones. The most important rules. The core of their systems. If you can remove a rule that easily, then clearly and still have a perfectly functional system then that rule clearly isn't a fundamental one. Q.E.D.

(Want proof? Look no further than D&D Next/D&D 6th Edition, which is an example of removing the fundamental rules of races and classes: Now you just have a 'mixture' where all choices and abilities are almost totally predetermined if you even get a choice at all, essentially replacing them both by fusing them together).

What's your point here, exactly? That other D&D systems have different fundamental rules?

And given your childish demeanor

"What's that, Teapot? I'm black, you say?"

you're likely either ignoring this response entirely and continuing in ignorance or you're thinking:

You really can't accuse me of ignorance when you quote the definition of 'fundamental' and then proceed to immediately ignore it because it doesn't fit your argument.

"TL;DR but it has nothing to do with Vancian Magic, so it's not fundamental".

No, but thank you for putting words in my mouth.

Well my friendless friend

"I hate to break it to you, Teapot, but your colour is also rather dark."

They both act as baselines that totally determine how spellcasting and certain mechanics in the game work, and both also help create a guide for spells and how they work.

Again, you are misunderstanding what 'fundamental' means. I'm not even sure how you can consider concentration a 'baseline'. Nothing builds on it. In contrast, it is built on the rules for spells, ability scores etc. The rules that are actually fundamental.

They're arguably both part of each other, actually: Concentration is simply part of the Vancian magic rules in 5e, making it a Fundamental Rule using another Fundamental Rule as a starting point.

I see you've moved on to that grand tradition of non-arguments - saying whatever you like and pretending that it's factual.

Newsflash - you can't just take any rule you want and declare that it's 'fundamental'. Especially when said rule is demonstrably not. Likewise, you can't just claim something is part of 'Vancian Magic' just because it's in this edition of D&D. Like it or not, Concentration has nothing whatsoever to do with Vancian Magic.

Again, if you think concentration isn't a fundamental rule because it's easy to remove, I'd like to point out the above Vancian system of magic is also a fundamental rule and is just as easy to replace, such as removing the majority of the spellcasting rules and switching them with something like AD&D's.

So, to prove Vancian Magic is easy to remove, you're proposing that we replace it... with Vancian Magic.

And if you still think I'm 100% wrong and don't even have a single good point, then either replace your dictionary or go back to kindergarten, because you have some serious learning to catch up on.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Shall we go through the list of idiocies in this one post?
1) You bothered to quote the dictionary definition of 'fundamental', then proceeded to ignore that and define it as something completely different. Already your entire argument is invalid, but your stupidity doesn't end there.
2) You continued the trend by pointing out that a non-fundamental rule is easy to remove... as if that somehow supported your argument, instead of mine.
3) You then decided to pick a different definition of 'fundamental'.
4) Back to the first incorrect definition.
5) You proceeded to claim a load of irrelevant nonsense about tactics changing.
6) You showed *again* that you have no clue what fundamental means.
7) You then called my childish, whilst proceeding to spout a stream of ad hominem drivel, followed by condescension and insults.
8) You proved that you have no clue what 'Vancian Magic' is (despite me providing a link in my previous post).
9) You then clarified that 8 wasn't a mistake and you genuinely have no clue what Vancian Magic entails.
10) You told me to replace my dictionary . . . after you yourself repeatedly failed to grasp the meaning of 'fundamental'.

If even one of your three brain cells is still firing at this point, you'll gather up what little remains of your dignity and slink off out of this argument.

[TheRedTemplar]

Look, kid, if you're trying to troll, you're trying to hard. If you honestly believe anything you said yourself, well, your life to live not mine. Happy travels, o' Commander Contrarian.

[tieren]

Still... I'd try it as a very rare/legendary expendable or an artifact that has some very serious drawbacks/is actually a lich feeding on your spells to get at your soul...

Frontal lobe of Vecna

[Dr. Cliché]

Frontal lobe of Vecna

I have to ask though, how/where would you wear that item?

Or, is it like the Head of Vecna, and you'd have to replace your own frontal lobe with it?

[RickAllison]

I have to ask though, how/where would you wear that item?

Or, is it like the Head of Vecna, and you'd have to replace your own frontal lobe with it?

I'll do the knife part of it!!!

[Socratov]

Wow, talk about straw-manning over here. I should say we should refrain form using fire themed spells...

about the fundamental rules, I could see it go either of 2 ways:

If you think that the fundamental rules are the rules without any optional rules (as close to RAW as you can get), then concentration is a fundamental rule.

If you consider fundamental rules the set of rules you can't change through houserules and optional rules without moving so far away from DnD5e that you aren't playing DnD5e anymore. In this case, a case could be made that without de concentration rule the game would still be considered DnD 5e.

I can understand both lines of thought. I could even consider both interpretations as correct, both gramatically as conceptually.

Personally I consider the rule on its own useful and even neccessary at times. Though, to be fair, a bit restrictive. Some spells aren't worth it to use because of concentration and I'd think that if a caster can dish out 6th lvl spells, that 1st lvl spells shouldn't count for your concentration limit anymore (and that makes sense in a fantasy setting since the magic of 1st lvl spells becomes that more elementary, but I digress).

Having said that, the current rules are such that you can only concentrate on one spell (unless you can cheat like a sorcerer with twin spell). Doubling that makes for a great advantage over other casters.

[dev6500]

I have felt like only allowing 1 concentration based spell at a time is a little heavy handed. I have been thinking about it lately and I would either go over the list of concentration based spells and change some of the shorter duration ones(1 minute or so) to no concentration or I would modify the concentration mechanic.

Make it so that you can concentrate on 1 spell or 2 spells as long as both spells were of a level less than half the max level you can cast rounded down. So a wizard who can cast level 5 spells can concentrate on 1 spell of any level or 2 spells of level 2 or lower. That way it opens up some buff options without expanding the power too much.

If you want to make an item that allows the caster to concentrate on an additional spell perhaps make it like that. It just gives the caster the ability to concentrate on 2 weaker spells they are capable of.