Concentration feat/item

[cthulhu42]

I'm guessing this is well covered territory, but here goes anyway...

Would a feat or item allowing the addition of one more concentration spell be game breaking?

The feat might allow one additional concentration spell for every time the PC took the feat.

The item (a nice ring perhaps) would allow one more concentration spell.

A failed concentration check would break concentration on both (or all) spells.

 

[Yunru]

Depends entirely on who has it.

On a wizard or any other full caster it'll be devastating.

On say a Paladin or Ranger, it should be okay.

 

[Satyrn]

The best way to find out is to test it in play. So go ahead, but don't be too generous. Don't let the feat be taken more than once, for example.

I'd go with an item - a nice ring sounds right - that was usable once per day.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I don't know if it would break the game, but a feat that granted the ability to concentrate on two spells would be a no-brainer choice for nearly all casters, to be taken at the earliest opportunity even if it means not increasing your spellcasting stat until later.

 

[Jester David]

I think the Tal’Dorie Campaign Setting has a feat that allowed double concentration, but required a check each round to do it. So you can do it, but it won’t last long. Which makes it more balanced.

For magic items, I’d tie them to specific spells. For example, so you could maintain concentration on, say, hunter’s mark, at the same time as another spell.

 

[cthulhu42]

Depends entirely on who has it.

On a wizard or any other full caster it'll be devastating.

On say a Paladin or Ranger, it should be okay.

Could you give some examples of why you feel this way? I'm not saying you're wrong, just interested in your POV.

I will say that I played many earlier editions of D&D where casters could stack spells to their hearts content and I never thought of it as devastating. The main issue was usually keeping track of different buffs of varying durations.

Still, I like the concentration mechanic and am loathe to tinker with it without a serious look at it first.

 

[Harzel]

Depends entirely on who has it.

On a wizard or any other full caster it'll be devastating.

On say a Paladin or Ranger, it should be okay.

Doesn't seem like it would be any more devastating than having another caster of the same class.

 

[Yunru]

Doesn't seem like it would be any more devastating than having another caster of the same class.

So you're saying it's not more devastating than having a whole extra character? I can agree to that.
But are you implying it wouldn't be too broken, or that it would?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't know if it would break the game, but a feat that granted the ability to concentrate on two spells would be a no-brainer choice for nearly all casters, to be taken at the earliest opportunity even if it means not increasing your spellcasting stat until later.

I wouldn't go that far. It enables you to cast certain spells while other spells are still in effect, and have twice as many buffs running, but it would be fairly taxing on the spell slot economy.

Even as a cleric, I would choose +2 to Wisdom over a feat that allowed double concentration, because +2 to Wisdom increases the power of my at-will abilities while double concentration just lets me nova faster.

That being said, as a DM, I would not want to introduce a feat that allowed double concentration; because the kind of player who would take it is the kind of player that promotes the five-minute workday, and I don't want to encourage them.

 

[Eltab]

There was a feat for 3e that let your familiar concentrate on a spell after you cast it. You could then cast and concentrate on another spell.
This would give your campaign a feature that cannot be found just any old where.

P.S. The ability may have been a prestige class feature rather than a feat. My memory fails me on that point.