Concentration-gating. What do you think?

[SangoProduction]

In 5e, they also have some spells that require concentration, but rather than requiring your standard action (or whatever action you've mitigated it to), it is simply a status of "I am concentrating on a spell, so I can't cast another concentration spell."
It seems surprisingly elegant.
Although it does have the direct effect of only ever using the best concentration spell at once.... because you can only use one. But a buff to attack is circumstantially different from a buff to ... something not combat related. So there's still analysis and decision making. Plus, that comparison already happens between spells, because you can generally only cast one per turn, with hour-long spells being notable for not jockeying for your actions, and not being limited any basically any way, so long as you believe you are not going to run into an anti-magic f- well, so much for that.

Anyway, before I continue rambling, I was wondering what you guys would think of that system, if it were backported?
Obviously, in 3.5 concentration spells were (hopefully) designed such that they were worth spending the action on. So it probably wouldn't be a smooth port. Especially if you're going to need to go through 1,000 spells just for the core classes' first level spells and see if they need any adjustment... eh. Know what? Screw that.

[Darg]

This mechanic already exists in 3.5. There are different types of concentration spells: concentration (animal trance); concentration + x duration/level (hypnotic pattern); concentration, x duration/level (telekinesis). In the first and second cases you maintain concentration until you decide to break it or you're forced to.

In 5e they converted some 3.5e timed duration spells into concentration spells to limit effect stacking. This increased the number of concentration spells compared to 3.5.

[SangoProduction]

This mechanic already exists in 3.5. There are different types of concentration spells: concentration (animal trance); concentration + x duration/level (hypnotic pattern); concentration, x duration/level (telekinesis). In the first and second cases you maintain concentration until you decide to break it or you're forced to.

Yeah. I know. The difference is 5e's simply stops you from casting further concentration spells, while 3.pf has you spending actions to concentrate.

On a conceptual level, which way do you think is better?

[Darg]

Yeah. I know. The difference is 5e's simply stops you from casting further concentration spells, while 3.pf has you spending actions to concentrate.

On a conceptual level, which way do you think is better?

It depends. In 3.5 concentration spells are more active in nature and there are simply less of them. In 5e a lot of the concentration spells were converted from 3.5e timed duration spells that don't require the concentration action in the first place.

[Fizban]

A perfectly decent mechanic, with only one problem: it's not concentration. You can't concentrate on multiple things at once. Concentrating on something precludes doing other things more complicated than say, walking. You do not concentrate on something else while you are attacking. You do not concentrate on something else whilst casting a spell, when casting a spell itself requires concentration. The 5e mechanic is not concentration. It makes no sense, it's confusing as heck, why, why would you call it that?

Call it Sustain: yes. Some spells must be sustained by your magic, you can only sustain one at a time, and if you lose consciousness (or are mentally incapacitated in some way, etc) your sustained spell also ends.

Then you can go about figuring out the pool of spells you want to all be mutually exclusive which will gain the Sustain: yes entry.

[icefractal]

A sustain mechanic could be interesting, and doesn't need to be limited to a single one; it could be any fixed number, or grow by level. However, it's IMO going to require a significant rebalance of the spells using it (at least unless you set the limit higher than will usually be hit, but then why bother).

If I was making a non-resource-depletion caster that's probably how I'd do it - in-combat casts just action economy, buffs having a sustain limit, utility stuff either counting against that sustain limit or a separate one.

Also could tie into magic items - everyone gets a sustain limit; non-casters don't inherently have a use for it, but anyone can take feats that give improved benefits (but use a sustain slot), and there are items that costs less than typical (but use a sustain slot).

[Chronos]

Yeah, the two are completely different mechanics. About the only thing they have in common is that everything that used 3e concentration also uses 5e concentration... but then, almost everything with a duration in 5e uses concentration. It probably is a good way to rein in caster power, but it'd be very difficult to backport, since it'd have to be done for every spell individually (the fact that it applies to almost all spells with durations would make the decisions easy, but there are still exceptions, so you'd still need to make thousands of decisions).

[Crake]

Also could tie into magic items - everyone gets a sustain limit; non-casters don't inherently have a use for it, but anyone can take feats that give improved benefits (but use a sustain slot), and there are items that costs less than typical (but use a sustain slot).

Another option would be to tie buffs to chakras similar to incarnum, meaning a buff and an item cant occupy the same chakra slot, and maybe implement a metamagic that allows you to shift the chakra of your buff, perhaps increasing in cost as the target chakra strays further from the normal chakra

[Ady]

Drawing on an abundance of experience with Concentration, the initial feature of the system that was pointed out: that you have to compare between spells, it actually far more of a hassle than anything for designing spells. The 5e Druid and Warlock are hit the most by this, as a majority of their spells are concentration, which means they end up casting one spell in a fight and holding onto it for as long as possible, spending future turns on meager cantrips, which is intensely uninspiring, and forcing all future releases to creep up the power of concentration spells or just see them go unused.

It's also somewhat infuriating in the case of clerics, where Bless is certainly one of the best spells to keep up at all levels due to the complete lack of spells that provide non-advantage bonuses, and yet it's a spell they get at first level. It's hard to say there's a lot of tactical consideration when the best course of action for a cleric is immediately available and hardly changes.

I personally prefer the system pathfinder, and more specifically spheres, uses. Concentration can be removed by spending points on it usually, and there are ways to make concentration easier (Easy Focus) or give the concentration to others to maintain (various Teamwork, Mana sphere, Familiar and Companion feats). All Backporting does is make it less taxing to keep a single spell up, but significantly limit the overall amount of abilities you could use.

[Xervous]

It’s a simple mechanic for a simplified game. If I wanted to limit how many magical effects a single character has going at once there’s more nuanced ways to accomplish that goal. It runs into some of my gripes with 3.5e buffs and magic items, so it would be tied in with a change to other parts of the system.

Strip the system of basic +X effects, fix the math, then run magic items and spell sustaining off a nice granular attunement system that doesn’t treat invisibility the same as shapechange.

[Aquillion]

It's definitely an easy way to balance magic and makes 5e spellcasting more balanced overall.

That said I still don't like it. Combining spells in different ways is part of the fun of playing a spellcaster.

[animewatcha]

Concentration/sustainment of 1 spell per individual spell level? 1 level 1, 1 level 2, etc. can't cast spell of same spell level as concentrating/sustaining.

[Zanos]

Having played 5e I greatly disliked concentration. Nearly all good spells were given concentration so you couldn't use more than one at a time; wanted to haste the fighter while flying away from an enemy? Too bad, both are concentration. So a lot of my 5e combats were just picking the most powerful concentration spell I had then firing away with a cantrip every turn and I was incredibly bored. Eventually I found out that blindness wasn't a concentration spell so I cast that sometimes but was generally unimpressed with the results considering it's a CON save ends spell, generally the worst thing to target.

If you want to make spellcasters both worse and boring it's an interesting idea, I guess. It would take more work than just switching the mechanic over though because, ironically, most combat spells in 3.5 that take concentration aren't even worth casting if they didn't have it.

[Gadora]

Having played 5e I greatly disliked concentration. Nearly all good spells were given concentration so you couldn't use more than one at a time; wanted to haste the fighter while flying away from an enemy? Too bad, both are concentration. So a lot of my 5e combats were just picking the most powerful concentration spell I had then firing away with a cantrip every turn and I was incredibly bored. Eventually I found out that blindness wasn't a concentration spell so I cast that sometimes but was generally unimpressed with the results considering it's a CON save ends spell, generally the worst thing to target.

If you want to make spellcasters both worse and boring it's an interesting idea, I guess. It would take more work than just switching the mechanic over though because, ironically, most combat spells in 3.5 that take concentration aren't even worth casting if they didn't have it.

I'm in a similar boat. It forced me to be selfish with my buffs, which was a lot less fun for me.

[Quertus]

Although it does have the direct effect of only ever using the best concentration spell at once.... because you can only use one.

I still don't like it. Combining spells in different ways is part of the fun of playing a spellcaster.

I'm in a similar boat. It forced me to be selfish with my buffs, which was a lot less fun for me.

Yeah, in general, this is something that makes the game less fun for everyone. Unless you’re in a high-op party where the muggles provide their own toolkits and don’t need buffs, you shouldn’t consider this - and if you are in a high-op party, why are we talking nerfs?

Now, what *could* be fun is if muggles get their own “sustain” abilities, allowing them to *not* count against a caster’s concentration for a certain number of buffs. Or if a caster could maintain 1 Spell from each school. Or if Specialists could maintain X spells from their specialty. An idea that starts with adding variety and fun to the game, and then looks at implementation and balance and “is this actually fun?” and “does this actually promote variety, or is there one obvious best approach?”.

The *only* time I remember a “concentration” mechanic being at all interesting was an episode of Lina Inverse (one of maybe 2 I’ve seen; the other has a girl worshipping a God of destruction she made up - “tamagustra” or something) where apparently most Mages in that universe can only sustain 1 Spell, Lina could sustain 2, and dude had an item that let him sustain 3.

Actually, I take it back - Monte Cook’s d20 WoD had Mages have a limit of # active spells = Int bonus… and one of the spells you could keep active was to boost Int… it was a little interesting to work out an optimized buff routine, and occasionally interesting to figure out what buffs to drop / how to get them back / how much it’ll cost to get them back when, suddenly, you find yourself in a situation where you need different buffs (say, hiding in a smoke-filled burning building from creatures that track by heat and scent while trying to Detect weakened floors both to avoid and to use as an ambush spot). Of course, even then, you never drop your Int boost, because it helps you sustain more spells.

So, based on my experiences, you *could* make a sustain mechanic that was mildly interesting, giving bonuses to muggles and specialists and certain Prestige Classes, and maybe creating a few races and classes and items to support this change, and rewriting monster strategies and modules and so on that involve lots of now illegal buffing (and remove “under water” even further from something any sane adventurer ever even considers), but unless you’ve got this *really cool idea* you’re just dying to try out, it sounds like more work than it’s worth, with the possible exception of using d20 WoD as a basis, and just limiting *all* active spells rather than going through all spells and adding a “sustain” entry to just some of them.

But perhaps the first question should be, what are we trying to accomplish? What problem are we trying to solve?

[Aquillion]

But perhaps the first question should be, what are we trying to accomplish? What problem are we trying to solve?

I mean, while I don't like how it plays, the problem it is trying to solve is obvious and it does do a really good job at that.

In 3.5e, a lot of the brokenness of casters comes from stacking spells beyond what the developers envisioned or intended. Battlefield control wizards and CoDzillas operate by combining spells in ways that effectively provide multiplicative boosts to their effectiveness - two battlefield control spells that individually just slowed enemies down but which together make enemies totally ineffectual; or a big pile of buffs that individually would have made the cleric or druid a bit better but together make them vastly stronger than the fighter.

Balancing every spell when combined with every other spell is hard, so it's much easier to just say "you only get one big spell at once."

Of course, the downside is that finding those combinations is part of the fun of the game, even if it's potentially unbalancing... and concentration blocks you from combining spells that aren't game-breaking together too, which is just annoying.

[Quertus]

I realized another thing one would need to do if making a change like this (that wasn’t triggered by Mystra dying again): World building. Creating spells like “Faerie’s Blessing: grants Flight and Invisibility”, that a world that had had this restriction on # of sustained spells would surely have already created. No slight to WoD d20 for not having them in their “rotes”, as the insurgence of the Supernatural is explicitly a “new” thing in that setting.

I mean, while I don't like how it plays, the problem it is trying to solve is obvious and it does do a really good job at that.

In 3.5e, a lot of the brokenness of casters comes from stacking spells beyond what the developers envisioned or intended. Battlefield control wizards and CoDzillas operate by combining spells in ways that effectively provide multiplicative boosts to their effectiveness - two battlefield control spells that individually just slowed enemies down but which together make enemies totally ineffectual; or a big pile of buffs that individually would have made the cleric or druid a bit better but together make them vastly stronger than the fighter.

Balancing every spell when combined with every other spell is hard, so it's much easier to just say "you only get one big spell at once."

Of course, the downside is that finding those combinations is part of the fun of the game, even if it's potentially unbalancing... and concentration blocks you from combining spells that aren't game-breaking together too, which is just annoying.

I agree wrt what makes the game fun. But then, I’m a “Johnny combo player” at heart.

Ok, dumb question: why not solve the problem of niche protection by simply removing all buff spells? Now every class needs to be self-sufficient, and provide their own means to fly, breath under water, hit things, etc. - no spells to help with any of that anymore.

Stacking BFC… is that really an issue? I mean, for the same action economy, couldn’t you stack SoD effects, or stat drain, or even stack Fireball spells, and just win by giving the enemy the “dead” condition? Heck, the übercharger could be stacking *corpses* by the time you’re stacking spells, if they had left enough pieces large enough to stack.

[Darg]

I don't see the problem with shooting fish in a barrel? Maybe it's because DMs are rewarding PCs for shooting fish in a barrel when the player does the equivalent of randomly coming across a barrel with fish in it and then dropping in some dynamite?

[Wintermoot]

So the reality of what you would be doing to 3.5/p is:

1. Add a concentration action, similar to a swift action, where each character gets one concentration action a round maximum and they can do it alongside their various move/attack/cast/fullround/fivefootstep actions
2. Explain the concentration action and what it does for spells that will be limited to concentration.
3. Go through thousands of spells and figure out which ones to alter from "duration: 1 round per level" to 'duration: concentration (max 1 round per level)" or similar.

The end result, instead of the casters putting tens of buff spells on themselves and their party before combat begins, they will end up limited to one buff spell. Their usefulness as party-buffers is now all but gone unless you figure out how to make 'buff other spells' not concentration gated - perhaps by moving the concentration to the person being buffed instead of the spellcaster?

Ultimately, i'd want to know what the non spell casters get to do with their concentration actions that they don't need? I'd like to see you add something for the fighters and thieves and monks to do with concentration actions.

[NichG]

I'd do two (different) things:

- The recipient of a buff has a number of slots equal to 5+Cha mod worth of spell levels they can support. Debuffs don't have this limit or interact with those slots. A buff recipient can take over Concentration from the caster (see below) with a Spell craft check DC 10+Spell Level, but failure ends the spell. You can take 10 on this check.

Optional rule: debuffs also use these slots, CL check against existing spells for a new one to displace an old one. Reason to want Cha 4, so you're immune to debuffs at 3+ spell level, but a bit silly.

- The caster of a non-instantaneous spell may *always* choose sustain it via 3.5e Concentration, which means they must spend an action (maybe reduce to swift?) each round they want to keep it up and it risks being disrupted, but the duration doesn't count down. If concentration is disrupted, the spell ends. If the caster lets go, it's normal duration begins to count down. You can't re-engage Concentration once you've let it go, and Concentration is needed in order to change any ongoing parameter of a spell on the fly - so this probably hits any non-freewilled summons and maybe even Dominate Person.

Mostly the idea is to make precombat buffing a bit simpler (no 'guess how many minutes until the encounter'), and to have a bit of an elastic 'how much magic can you bear', making Cha and even Int have additional tertiary relevance even to noncasters.

[Quertus]

Optional rule: debuffs also use these slots, CL check against existing spells for a new one to displace an old one. Reason to want Cha 4, so you're immune to debuffs at 3+ spell level, but a bit silly.

Is this the “surly Dwarves and their resistance to magic” rule?

One could also have items interact with these slots, either requiring them (thus limiting buffs *and* items) or protecting them (protecting vs debuffs by interacting with your “overcome caster level” rules).

Then the question is, do you want the equivalent of metamagic reducers in the form of, say, specialists or certain Prestige Classes getting to reduce the “size” of their buffs (or increase the size or potency of their debuffs, or whatever).

Also… having already run Wizards who invented custom spells to steal control of spells in D&D (now there’s a trick almost nobody sees coming, despite there being existing items that do just that), I’d personally want the rules written in such a way as to not prevent such, and, as Animate Dead is kinda my favorite spell, if nothing else, I’d certainly want ways to reestablish control of one’s own undead, or for there to be a mechanism to not lose that control in the first place just because you took a nap.

[NichG]

Well there's that free willed bit... If your undead or constructs are programmable you don't have to concentrate, but you also don't get to change their orders as an act of will.

Program Undead spell, instantaneous duration? Necrohacking is a thing now!

[stack]

PF2 has sustained spells; you spend one action a round to maintain the spell (and sometimes move it around or affect another parameter). Since it is based on the 3-action system, you are still free to do some other things (most spells are two actions, or move and use a one action spell , like a number of focus spells)). Some caster classes have high level feats to get an extra action to sustain (doesn't stack with haste and other action boosters).

[Quertus]

Well there's that free willed bit... If your undead or constructs are programmable you don't have to concentrate, but you also don't get to change their orders as an act of will.

Program Undead spell, instantaneous duration? Necrohacking is a thing now!

Given that Command Undead is only, what, level 2, lasts for day/level, and works on sentient undead, too? This sounds like a Cantrip at most, and an essential one for commanding undead laborers.

The tricky part is getting the Construct version of this spell balanced just right. Maybe a Canrip works for Constructs you created, or ones you've "hacked", and the "hacking" part is the higher-level spell? (See also... Rod of Construct Control?)

- The recipient of a buff has a number of slots equal to 5+Cha mod worth of spell levels they can support.

It occurs to me that this is a stealth buff (heh) for classes that can go book-diving for lower-level versions of spells, like... Archivist and Artificer?

[NichG]

Given that Command Undead is only, what, level 2, lasts for day/level, and works on sentient undead, too? This sounds like a Cantrip at most, and an essential one for commanding undead laborers.

The tricky part is getting the Construct version of this spell balanced just right. Maybe a Canrip works for Constructs you created, or ones you've "hacked", and the "hacking" part is the higher-level spell? (See also... Rod of Construct Control?)

Command Undead probably actually suffices for the basic function of program undead - it has the right kind of stuff (you have to give a verbal command not telepathic, etc) and the commands have to be simple if the undead isn't intelligent. I guess Program Undead would be a higher level version that lets you put in stuff like if statements, password checks, etc - with Program Undead you could make a non-sentient undead resist Command Undead for example, or even pretend to go along with it and then attack the person when their back is turned. Maybe make it a 5th level spell, instantaneous duration (so it can't just be dispelled, you're fundamentally rewriting the nature of that particular undead).

For Constructs, you could have a similar breakdown. A low level spell that can basically get instructions into a Construct that is primed to receive instructions (which could be done as part of the crafting process), and a high level spell to basically re-flash the firmware.

If the 'actually programming' spells are high enough level, this creates a fun sort of middle range where someone might want to dabble in making undead or constructs but isn't quite good enough to secure them, even against a lower level apprentice, and hijinks ensue...

It occurs to me that this is a stealth buff (heh) for classes that can go book-diving for lower-level versions of spells, like... Archivist and Artificer?

True!