Concentration for Martials

[GeneralVryth]

*looks at the 5E landscape*

Yeah, I think we can introduce a sub-system that says "If you can cast spells from a class feature or feat, you cannot make use of this feature."

Shouldn't break anything, except maybe caster entitlement .

I kind of think/hope this was said in jest. Abilities that can't work if characters have another ability (not are using that other ability, but have it), are a bad design pattern. It's intentionally creating a Extra Attack dead level problem.

[Amnestic]

I kind of think/hope this was said in jest. Abilities that can't work if characters have another ability (not are using that other ability, but have it), are a bad design pattern.

Not sure I agree with that honestly. The extra attack issue has always stuck out primarily because it's entirely a balance ruling. There's no in-universe reason why a Fighter 5/Paladin 5 has only 2 attacks instead of 3. A dead level solely for game balance feels like the designers didn't plan properly.

But there might well be an in-universe reason why Spellcasting and Martial Focus (or whatever you call it) are incompatible, and that's a lot easier to understand. We already accept (sometimes begrudgingly) that while a barbarian is raging they can't cast or concentrate on spells. Same sorta thing.

[GeneralVryth]

We already accept (sometimes begrudgingly) that while a barbarian is raging they can't cast or concentrate on spells. Same sorta thing.

It's not the same thing though, that is exactly my point. You can have both the ability to rage and cast spells, you just can't do both at the same time. The player/character still have a choice of which they want to use in a given situation. The bad design pattern I was talking about would if you have spell-casting, therefor you can never have the rage ability even if you had a level that should grant it. There is no choice beyond the level up anymore, which if you have another reason to want levels in the class (Barbarian in this case) a dead level is created (well mostly dead).

[stoutstien]

It's not the same thing though, that is exactly my point. You can have both the ability to rage and cast spells, you just can't do both at the same time. The player/character still have a choice of which they want to use in a given situation. The bad design pattern I was talking about would if you have spell-casting, therefor you can never have the rage ability even if you had a level that should grant it. There is no choice beyond the level up anymore, which if you have another reason to want levels in the class (Barbarian in this case) a dead level is created (well mostly dead).

Eh. This is a symptom of how wonky level by level multiclassing is rather than a core design issue. You could easily have exclusive options because they just don't overlap anyways.

[Dr.Samurai]

Erm, what about races that get like, a cantrip?

That's fine, hence why I referred to class features and feats.

I kind of think/hope this was said in jest. Abilities that can't work if characters have another ability (not are using that other ability, but have it), are a bad design pattern. It's intentionally creating a Extra Attack dead level problem.

In jest only insofar as it would never happen.

But truthfully, having to worry about spellcasters poaching literally any mechanic we discuss to give to martials is annoying. I consider it bad design to create a set of classes that can do such a wide variety of things, approximate or just get other class' class features, and be built to meet or surpass others while still being able to do much more.

So not in jest .

[Witty Username]

I mean, a game element can be both a resource and a constraint.

To expand on this, resources are constrains. They are limits on the amount and context a character can do something.

Being able to spend a resource is not an advantage, things like spell slots, concentration, ki, prof uses per long rest, etc. Are fundamentally not helpful without an ability to use them.

If you have two characters, one has a +2 to attack rolls, and one has +2 to one attack roll if they spend a point. The one that does not require spending points is simply superior unless anothers affect is in play.

For this, use concentration if it looks like it will create an interesting play state or limit a powerful ability. But it is not a slot, not needing concentration is an advantage, not a limitation.

--
Spellcasters don't normally poach martial abilities by multiclassing, the tend to duplicate the effect with spells or invest a subclass as possible.
And as a hot take, they tend to be the weaker options or have unfavorable play in the martial space.

[Ionathus]

Whatever is used for the "concentration slot", remember...Druids can't start doing it while in Wildshape,

Point of order: your other examples are right but this is incorrect. Druids can sustain concentration while in Wildshape, on a spell that they cast before Wildshaping:

You can't cast spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn't break your concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as Call Lightning, that you've already cast.

EDIT: Ignore that top part, maybe one of these days I'll read the full quote before leaping in with an Um, Actually

In broad strokes, I disagree with the idea that the concentration slot "should" be filled with something for martials -- as other people said, Concentration was introduced as a (quite elegant) limiter for buff stacking. There's no "need" to fill that for PCs who don't cast spells.

However (and this might feel like a semantics difference), I do believe finding a use for the Concentration mechanic would make martial gameplay more interesting. Not wanting to be hit because you might lose Concentration is a compelling wrinkle that affects combat tactics, as does the eternal tradeoff of "do I cling to my current Concentration spell, or would dropping it for another one be more effective?"

Those are two decisions that can absolutely make it more fun and flavorful to play a martial -- and there's nothing about those concepts that should make them exclusive to casters. Choosing between a "defensive" and "offensive" stance each turn, for instance, would add some much-welcome complexity to martial combat. And martials (usually) have better CON than casters, so they'd be able to tank higher damage without risking concentration, but would still have to weigh the costs of doing so.

[Theodoxus]

Point of order: your other examples are right but this is incorrect. Druids can sustain concentration while in Wildshape, on a spell that they cast before Wildshaping.

TBH, that's what JLandon said "you can't START concentrating [on a spell] while wildshaped." Meaning, if the concentration mechanic were expanded to include martial stances or whatever, a wildshaped Druid wouldn't be able to use said stance unless they started before assuming the wildshape. Of course, the desire to assume a stance would entirely depend on what the benefit would actually be... but given it's a martial thing, I don't see why a frontline Druid wouldn't at least consider incorporating it.

In broad strokes, I disagree with the idea that the concentration slot "should" be filled with something for martials -- as other people said, Concentration was introduced as a (quite elegant) limiter for buff stacking. There's no "need" to fill that for PCs who don't cast spells.

However (and this might feel like a semantics difference), I do believe finding a use for the Concentration mechanic would make martial gameplay more interesting. Not wanting to be hit because you might lose Concentration is a compelling wrinkle that affects combat tactics, as does the eternal tradeoff of "do I cling to my current Concentration spell, or would dropping it for another one be more effective?"

Those are two decisions that can absolutely make it more fun and flavorful to play a martial -- and there's nothing about those concepts that should make them exclusive to casters. Choosing between a "defensive" and "offensive" stance each turn, for instance, would add some much-welcome complexity to martial combat. And martials (usually) have better CON than casters, so they'd be able to tank higher damage without risking concentration, but would still have to weigh the costs of doing so.

I think it's a little too hard to talk about broad concepts and if they're appropriate or not, without having the specifics to discuss. The idea of using Concentration as a direct import from casters to martials is significantly different (and the abilities would more than likely need to be a lot stronger to match the potential loss through combat) than an ability that uses the same 'resource slot' or 'design space' or however you'd like to visual it, but not the same mechanic for loss (Concentration check).

[NichG]

I'd probably just design specific things for specific martial classes or subclasses, rather than try to have a generic 'martial use of concentration'.

Like, a class which can stack different kinds of buffs into its attacks as it lands hits, but which are lost if concentration is interrupted.
A class ability (barbarian? monk?) to buffer hitpoint damage (and at higher levels, things like poisons and status conditions) as long as concentration is sustained successfully - you take the damage/effects/etc the moment concentration is interrupted or allowed to lapse, but you can receive healing to drain the buffer or lose the status conditions.
A rogue ability to sustain sneak attack eligibility against a target you have successfully landed a sneak attack against as long as you sustain concentration.

Etc...

[GeneralVryth]

But truthfully, having to worry about spellcasters poaching literally any mechanic we discuss to give to martials is annoying. I consider it bad design to create a set of classes that can do such a wide variety of things, approximate or just get other class' class features, and be built to meet or surpass others while still being able to do much more.

Sounds like you are talking about non-magical characters more so than martials (unless a Paladin isn't a martial?). Also, can't any non-magical character poach spell-casting by taking levels in the right class (or some subclasses, or some feats)? How is that any different?

[Ionathus]

TBH, that's what JLandon said "you can't START concentrating [on a spell] while wildshaped." Meaning, if the concentration mechanic were expanded to include martial stances or whatever, a wildshaped Druid wouldn't be able to use said stance unless they started before assuming the wildshape.

R.I.P. My Reading Comprehension. You are totally right, I don't know how I missed that extra phrase in there.

[stoutstien]

Sounds like you are talking about non-magical characters more so than martials (unless a Paladin isn't a martial?). Also, can't any non-magical character poach spell-casting by taking levels in the right class (or some subclasses, or some feats)? How is that any different?

If a non spell caster wants lv 3 spells it's at least a 5 lv investment.

If a caster wants extra attack they can pick it up in the cheap with a subclass (a superior version with BS) or just casting a spell that grants it. Or just summon something that is equivalent to a semi optimized fighter without even eating into anything other than concentration.

If a non caster wants the big low level mitigation spells then they can grab a feat or multiclass to get 1-2 uses per day.

If a spell caster wants at least 19 AC, better saves, and doesn't want to delay progression it's a single level investment.

The budgets for features is very lopsided in favor towards casters cherry picking huge benefits with little cost where the flip side needs massive investments to get the same.

[Just to Browse]

Add my vote to the "we don't need this" pile. Concentration serves two very specific functions: (1) it limits the number of persistent, powerful effects a caster can keep active at a time, and (2) it discourages getting hit. #1 has no bearing on martial characters, and #2 is bad for a lot of melee characters, most of whom are martial.

If you (royal you in this case) think there's something is wrong with martial characters generally, any fix you write should be targeted to their problems. Hacking an existing subsystem to achieve your goals is just going to add unnecessary complication and deleterious side-effect.

[Theodoxus]

If you (royal you in this case) think there's something is wrong with martial characters generally, any fix you write should be targeted to their problems. Hacking an existing subsystem to achieve your goals is just going to add unnecessary complication and deleterious side-effect.

I can't speak for others who are discussing the pro side, but my reasoning is expanding martial options with a subsystem of stances that are similar to, but distinct from fighting styles, wherein they might boost something like saving throws (a +2 bonus to a specific save, for instance), or concentration breaking blows, where any hit deals disadvantage to the concentration check on the target; perhaps another stance that allows movement through another's space, etc.

Now, in my way of thinking, these types of boons require something akin to concentration. They can't be broken, so there's no concentration check, but they do require the same 'head space' that concentrating on a spell would take. Thus, you can't adopt a stance and concentration on a spell simultaneously. Does this bork Paladins or Rangers? Maybe. Though I think the option to use one or the other is a tactical decision that adds to the game. It keeps War Clerics from casting Bless and then stacking a saving throw stance at the same time. But it doesn't interfere with a Paladin's aura.

Like I noted above though, it depends on what the overall idea is. Since one of the more talked about updates to Fighter was making Maneuvers a base Fighter ability (as it was in D&DNext), then perhaps granting all the base classes that get Extra Attack the option to have these Maneuvers as stances, which you can only ever have 1 working/running at a time - but they don't use Superiority Dice, just a blanket +1 (or possibly PB, if you want them to be a bit better). It's a tiny boon but you can't also concentrate on a spell.

[Just to Browse]

I can't speak for others who are discussing the pro side, but my reasoning is expanding martial options with a subsystem of stances that are similar to, but distinct from fighting styles, wherein they might boost something like saving throws (a +2 bonus to a specific save, for instance), or concentration breaking blows, where any hit deals disadvantage to the concentration check on the target; perhaps another stance that allows movement through another's space, etc.

To me this still seems like it's going in the wrong direction. The logic seems to be:

1. Martials should have something to do with concentration.
2. What if martials had stances that use the concentration rules? That seems cool.
3. Shoot, now we have to change the rules to fit that (stance concentration needs to be different from spell concentration)
4. Shoot, we also have to work around the side effects in extant content (partial casters aren't benefiting as much, do we need to buff the ranger more elsewhere?)
5. Shoot, a commonly-requested martial feature can only be included in a limited form now (using a variety of maneuvers within a round doesn't work well with stance-swapping)

In the hypothetical example, martial classes already need a list of brand new content (stances with their variable effects) written out, which is probably going to have to interface with class levels, and might require special rules & lists for e.g. differentiating rogue vs fighter vs ranger stances. That's 80-90% of the work still on the table.

If you're already doing all the hard work of writing this homebrew basically from scratch, piggybacking off Concentration is going to add more to your workload than it takes off.

[Saelethil]

Now, in my way of thinking, these types of boons require something akin to concentration. They can't be broken, so there's no concentration check, but they do require the same 'head space' that concentrating on a spell would take. Thus, you can't adopt a stance and concentration on a spell simultaneously. Does this bork Paladins or Rangers? Maybe. Though I think the option to use one or the other is a tactical decision that adds to the game. It keeps War Clerics from casting Bless and then stacking a saving throw stance at the same time. But it doesn't interfere with a Paladin's aura.

This is pretty much what I was thinking. And I would make the argument that this is how hunters mark should work.

[Witty Username]

If I were going to use concentration as a limitation on a martial ability, I would probably want it to be an ability that drawing aggression is part of the deal.

Things like difficult terrain around the character or limiting anothers actions.

Concentration's only inherently useful trait is that it encourages enemies to target the character to break concentration. Spirit guardians is a great example of a spell that works like this, the damage and movement reduction are oppressive tactically which means a cleric can force enemies to attack them instead of other PCs.

Something like an action and concentration to 'prep' a free action surge could be neat as a holding action. The fighter will rip apart any that close if they aren't dealt with, holding enemies at bay with shear presence is useful in combat and on brand for a tank, and attacking the fighter in melee is a favorable scenario in comparison to a squishy.

But this is to keep in mind, if the goal is buffs, give buffs. No need to make it more complicated than that.

[Pex]

To me this still seems like it's going in the wrong direction. The logic seems to be:

1. Martials should have something to do with concentration.
2. What if martials had stances that use the concentration rules? That seems cool.
3. Shoot, now we have to change the rules to fit that (stance concentration needs to be different from spell concentration)
4. Shoot, we also have to work around the side effects in extant content (partial casters aren't benefiting as much, do we need to buff the ranger more elsewhere?)
5. Shoot, a commonly-requested martial feature can only be included in a limited form now (using a variety of maneuvers within a round doesn't work well with stance-swapping)

In the hypothetical example, martial classes already need a list of brand new content (stances with their variable effects) written out, which is probably going to have to interface with class levels, and might require special rules & lists for e.g. differentiating rogue vs fighter vs ranger stances. That's 80-90% of the work still on the table.

If you're already doing all the hard work of writing this homebrew basically from scratch, piggybacking off Concentration is going to add more to your workload than it takes off.

That we will need rules for this is not a bug. It's the whole point feature because we're specifically adding something to martials so naturally we need rules to know how it works. The easiest is simply use the Concentration rules. Done. The problem is because generally martials get hit a lot by Law of Averages they will lose their Concentration by round 2 due to monsters having multiattack and lose the benefit of Concentration. Also, barbarians. Therefore something else is needed that is not dependent limited to taking damage. Call it Stance. Call it Focus. Whatever it is called it necessitates it is not Concentration.

The devil in the details is to what these rules are, but that these rules are needed to exist is not proof they shouldn't exist at all because of "complexity".

[Just to Browse]

That we will need rules for this is not a bug. It's the whole point feature because we're specifically adding something to martials so naturally we need rules to know how it works. The easiest is simply use the Concentration rules. Done. The problem is because generally martials get hit a lot by Law of Averages they will lose their Concentration by round 2 due to monsters having multiattack and lose the benefit of Concentration. Also, barbarians. Therefore something else is needed that is not dependent limited to taking damage. Call it Stance. Call it Focus. Whatever it is called it necessitates it is not Concentration.

The devil in the details is to what these rules are, but that these rules are needed to exist is not proof they shouldn't exist at all because of "complexity".

I'm not concerned about complexity, not sure how that came across (edit: on second look, I don't think I wrote that word at all in this thread until now?). The comparison point is maneuvers (as brought up by Theodoxus just a few posts above yours), and those are certainly not rules-free.

My point is that this process is can't be "simply use the Concentration rules. Done." You have demonstrated that quite well for me: After after ostensibly being "done", you raised a critical problem with Concentration and proposed changing one of its fundamental rules! Concentration only does two things and you have to throw out one of them out immediately! Why latch on to Concentration if it's not reducing your workload and you immediately need to cut it in half? You can just make stances their own thing, or use a maneuver system like A5E, or both like Bo9S, or just write interesting & powerful martial features without hooking into an existing game system.

[Theodoxus]

The why is simple. The desire is to keep casters from easily grabbing the martial benny once again with zero impact onto their functionality.

If Focus doesn't play well with Concentration, that's a good thing. How you make that happen is of lesser import than that it exists.

[Amechra]

A little to the left of the topic, but...

I feel like a Concentration-based martial character would actually be a better fit for a Monk-style character than the current "spend points from a pool" system. Maybe you could have two "levels" of "Monk Concentration" — a state of deep focus that you can only restore by meditating as part of a short rest (but can be spent to do superhuman feats), and stances that work more like normal concentration buffs (you only get one at a time, they get broken by damage, etc). It'd give the class a glass cannon feel without actually necessarily being super fragile — you'd go into melee to beat up dudes, with "breaks" when you disengage to re-enter a stance if you take enough damage to drop your concentration.

...

The problem with this thread (and similar "hey, let's give the guys without magic cool stuff that the spellslingers don't also get" threads dating back to the 3.X days) is that WotC made the conscious decision to make magic a purely additive thing with no real personal costs. As a result, going "oh yeah, only non-spellcasters can Concentrate to get +2 to damage rolls" or whatever feels pretty tacked on.

I feel like a better solution would be to change the game at a more fundamental level — for example, you could move most of the benefits of Constitution to Strength (the HP, the bonus HP healed from hit-dice, saves vs. poison...) and make the sixth ability score something spellcaster specific. Like, I dunno, it's called Potency and all it does is determine your save bonus on Concentration saves and your spell save DC. Then non-spellcasters would all have a universal dump stat, making their other ability scores (comparatively) better.

Or, alternatively, you could break the spellcasting classes' monopoly on spellcasting by making it something that anyone can dabble with, so spellcasters are mostly specialists in something anyone can do (like the Fighter or Rogue are) rather than having a completely unique subsystem that they have sole access to. Who knows, maybe D&D 7e really goes all in on scrolls and the Wizard-equivalent is a scholar who gets various upgrades to scroll use (like having "spell slots" that they could spend instead of burning a scroll, or the special ability to memorize a scroll and use "spell slots" to cast this "known spell" even without having the scroll on hand!). It wouldn't be the first time D&D took a class's cool unique stuff and gave it to everyone else...

[Witty Username]

A little to the left of the topic, but...

I feel like a Concentration-based martial character would actually be a better fit for a Monk-style character than the current "spend points from a pool" system. Maybe you could have two "levels" of "Monk Concentration" — a state of deep focus that you can only restore by meditating as part of a short rest (but can be spent to do superhuman feats), and stances that work more like normal concentration buffs (you only get one at a time, they get broken by damage, etc). It'd give the class a glass cannon feel without actually necessarily being super fragile — you'd go into melee to beat up dudes, with "breaks" when you disengage to re-enter a stance if you take enough damage to drop your concentration.

I am reminded of 3.5s psionic focus which at least felt that way.
Hold focus have some passive effects like wall running and such
Expend your focus for a big hit or armor piercing shot

It was interesting, monk would be a decent spot for it to live but I think it would salt the wound of psionics being gone for me.

[Amechra]

I am reminded of 3.5s psionic focus which at least felt that way.

That might be because I was also thinking of the good ol' psionic focus. And hey, making that the Monk "thing" wouldn't necessarily mean no psionics — Monks were a psionic class in 4e, after all.

[Dr.Samurai]

The PH2 in 3rd edition also introduced the Combat Focus feats, which gave you a benefit, and that benefit increased if you had Combat Focus. And you could sometimes sacrifice that Focus to do something else.

I agree with Amechra though that probably redesigning the system would be better.

[Just to Browse]

The why is simple. The desire is to keep casters from easily grabbing the martial benny once again with zero impact onto their functionality.

If Focus doesn't play well with Concentration, that's a good thing. How you make that happen is of lesser import than that it exists.

The why from the OP is actually to fill unused design space.

I think if your goal is to give martials toys that casters can't abuse, you're far better served by binding those features to things like the Attack action, weapon attacks, Strength, and class features. Concentration slots will still get abused by casters who want to hold a buff without the risk of losing it. Darth Credence's first post contains several effects that a caster would be happy to snap up.

[Damon_Tor]

In the past I've used concentration to balance certain effects. For example, the "dragon" class I designed can fly from level 1, but any damage taken results in a concentration save, and if they fail they fall (the limitation is lifted at later levels).

[Snowbluff]

I've thought about letting casters "hand off" a concentration spell to a willing participant. Basically when cast a spell on one target you can let them concentrate on it instead, using their save and their "concentration slot" instead. This would technically be a buff to casters, but personally I like the idea because it encourages casters to spent more of their spell slots on buffing teammates.


Stances would be cool, too.

[stoutstien]

I've thought about letting casters "hand off" a concentration spell to a willing participant. Basically when cast a spell on one target you can let them concentrate on it instead, using their save and their "concentration slot" instead. This would technically be a buff to casters, but personally I like the idea because it encourages casters to spent more of their spell slots on buffing teammates.

This is basically the artificer's big T3 feature. It's regulated by being limited to half casting progression and and only one spell per day though 10 times a day is a ton.

[Snowbluff]

This is basically the artificer's big T3 feature. It's regulated by being limited to half casting progression and and only one spell per day though 10 times a day is a ton.

Oh no, I would argue that it's artificer schtick with infusions from the top down, which doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Though I will say the spell storing items (and by extension that actual magical item) have further reaching implications and affect many more spells (spells without concentration, spells with multiple targets, spells that don't target friendlies), enabling quite a bit of weird stuff. Furthermore, unlike with storing item, the hand of takes the caster's action rather than the other character's, which again I prefer to them using for helping their friends instead of themselves.

[Snails]

I think if your goal is to give martials toys that casters can't abuse, you're far better served by binding those features to things like the Attack action, weapon attacks, Strength, and class features. Concentration slots will still get abused by casters who want to hold a buff without the risk of losing it. Darth Credence's first post contains several effects that a caster would be happy to snap up.

Taking this thread on a related tangent, I am less concerned about the "Concentration space" than the "Reaction space".

I am not so much interested in rehashing the power level of Counterspell, Shield, Absorb Elements -- for purposes of this discussion I accept that the Wizard get great stuff at the cost of a slot is okay by some reasonable definition of okay. That said, I do think there is a serious Action Economy misbalance here. Casting two spells in a round is casting two spells in a round, and that is super powerful.

The problem here is not the Wizard in isolation. The problem here is that the Wizard does this an average of >1 times per combat, while in most combats the Fighter and Cleric does this zero times. The gap here is far too large IMNSHO.

To get to the point, I think some classes need medium power Reactions baked into the class chassis. The Rogue does well enough here with Uncanny Dodge. The Fighter might get a single Opportunity Attack once in a blue moon, but they basically need to pay the high cost of a Feat or a specialty subclass to do better than that. Some Cleric subclasses have something, but those mainly are appreciated because the Reaction cost is so irrelevant due to lack of options.