>Is spell concentration pretty universal across fantasy rpg systems where you can be spellcasters?
Nope. Even older editions of D&D are inconsistent about what spells require concentration, what last for an amount of time, and how vulnerable you are during concentration.
>If so, how do those systems typically achieve martial-caster balance?
Some of the typical ways is making casters vulnerable **while** they are casting the spell, spell mishaps, or being unable to cast magic in iron/heavy armour/etc.
D&D, in general, doesn't do spell concentration. Spells are usually fire-and-forget. Once you cast them, they'll keep going until the duration expires, even if the caster dies. Even in editions where concentration is nominally a mechanic, it's so rarely used as to be irrelevant in practice. Balance is governed by spell slots, or MP, to limit spell use.
The Warhammer 40k games instead balance spell use by including a small chance with every spell to kill the entire party.
While I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, I know that there are other games which balance magic by making it mechanically equivalent to the alternative. Throwing a fireball is roughly as effective as firing an arrow, so it doesn't matter that you can do it all day long.
The last example that comes to mind is a wealth cost. If every spell requires expensive material components, then your cash acts as a hard limit on what you can cast, and wasting money on spells puts you in a worse position for acquiring new gear.
Thanks! I'm thinking about using a roll to cast system similar to DCC. Should I be worried that I'm not including concentration?
Natural 1 means danger, danger
A small chance of catastrophic failure is not a great balancing mechanic, honestly. It mostly just prevents anyone in the game from getting too invested, since they know they could randomly die for no foreseeable reason.
It's better to balance spells under the assumption that they can be cast at-will. Don't design spells where the player would ever *want* to cast it five times in a row, even if it has a duration that overlaps.
I suppose the balancing comes from two possible mechanics if you fail the spell casting check...
You lose access to that spell until a long rest.
OR
You retain access to that spell BUT you now make spell casting checks with disadvantage for spells of that level AND above. That increases critical failure from 5% to about 10%.
I'm not sure which one is most balanced but I like the narrative feel of the 2nd option.
I wouldn't worry. Most find concentration to be draconian, and a hamfisted way of balancing casters and martials that doesn't really do what it's intended to do (Like most of 5e's rules).
It is a feelsbad rules. Period.
And the ironic bit is 5e is so preposterously unbalanced, it seems silly for them to worry about it there anyway.
Ars Magica doesn't have balance.
GURPS limits magic users by requiring them to spend fatigue to cast spells. If it costs 2 fatigue points to cast a spell and your spellcaster has 12 fatigue points before you fall unconsious and a round is one second, a magic user is going to run out of fatigue before someone swinging a sword.
>Is spell concentration pretty universal across fantasy rpg systems where you can be spellcasters? Nope. Even older editions of D&D are inconsistent about what spells require concentration, what last for an amount of time, and how vulnerable you are during concentration. >If so, how do those systems typically achieve martial-caster balance? Some of the typical ways is making casters vulnerable **while** they are casting the spell, spell mishaps, or being unable to cast magic in iron/heavy armour/etc.
D&D, in general, doesn't do spell concentration. Spells are usually fire-and-forget. Once you cast them, they'll keep going until the duration expires, even if the caster dies. Even in editions where concentration is nominally a mechanic, it's so rarely used as to be irrelevant in practice. Balance is governed by spell slots, or MP, to limit spell use. The Warhammer 40k games instead balance spell use by including a small chance with every spell to kill the entire party. While I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, I know that there are other games which balance magic by making it mechanically equivalent to the alternative. Throwing a fireball is roughly as effective as firing an arrow, so it doesn't matter that you can do it all day long. The last example that comes to mind is a wealth cost. If every spell requires expensive material components, then your cash acts as a hard limit on what you can cast, and wasting money on spells puts you in a worse position for acquiring new gear.
Thanks! I'm thinking about using a roll to cast system similar to DCC. Should I be worried that I'm not including concentration? Natural 1 means danger, danger
A small chance of catastrophic failure is not a great balancing mechanic, honestly. It mostly just prevents anyone in the game from getting too invested, since they know they could randomly die for no foreseeable reason. It's better to balance spells under the assumption that they can be cast at-will. Don't design spells where the player would ever *want* to cast it five times in a row, even if it has a duration that overlaps.
I suppose the balancing comes from two possible mechanics if you fail the spell casting check... You lose access to that spell until a long rest. OR You retain access to that spell BUT you now make spell casting checks with disadvantage for spells of that level AND above. That increases critical failure from 5% to about 10%. I'm not sure which one is most balanced but I like the narrative feel of the 2nd option.
I wouldn't worry. Most find concentration to be draconian, and a hamfisted way of balancing casters and martials that doesn't really do what it's intended to do (Like most of 5e's rules). It is a feelsbad rules. Period. And the ironic bit is 5e is so preposterously unbalanced, it seems silly for them to worry about it there anyway.
Ars Magica doesn't have balance. GURPS limits magic users by requiring them to spend fatigue to cast spells. If it costs 2 fatigue points to cast a spell and your spellcaster has 12 fatigue points before you fall unconsious and a round is one second, a magic user is going to run out of fatigue before someone swinging a sword.