Concentration feat/item

[jmartkdr]

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.

The other limitation is that you need to use your action each turn to maintain the concentration, which really limits which spells it works with.

Honestly, for myself, I'd say no to anything that lets you concentrate on *any* additional spell, but would consider items/feats/etc for specific spells on a case-by-case basis. For example, having both *haste* and *investiture of flame* at the same time would be a no, but if you really want to spend two spell slots to dual-wield *shadow blades*, I'd probably find a way to make that happen.

 

[Jester David]

The other limitation is that you need to use your action each turn to maintain the concentration, which really limits which spells it works with.

Honestly, for myself, I'd say no to anything that lets you concentrate on *any* additional spell, but would consider items/feats/etc for specific spells on a case-by-case basis. For example, having both *haste* and *investiture of flame* at the same time would be a no, but if you really want to spend two spell slots to dual-wield *shadow blades*, I'd probably find a way to make that happen.

To me, concentration is one of the big things preventing quadratic wizards. I’m wary of anything that removes or limits it without a high price.

 

[Harzel]

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?

Well, I just thought that it was an interesting 'upper bound' on how potent the ability would be. In retrospect, perhaps not that interesting? Idk. Let's see. Thinking harder about whether allowing two simultaneous concentration spells would be 'game-breaking' or 'devastating' - I'm not sure that is answerable without something a bit more concrete in the way of a definition of 'game-breaking' and 'devastating'. It seems like it must have something to do with its effect on the difficulty of encounters. As one possible benchmark to consider, let's think about some change that generally knocks encounters down one 'step' (medium -> easy, hard -> medium, etc.). Personally, I would call that significant, but 'game-breaking' seems too strong. I would expect something termed 'game-breaking' to, perhaps, trivialize a substantial class of encounters that would otherwise be hard or worse.

But then I would expect that in general the effect of adding one PC would be in the neighborhood of knocking encounters down by one step, not trivializing hard encounters. So if allowing two concentration spells is no worse than adding a PC, then (assuming you agree with the previous loose definitions) it couldn't be 'game-breaking'.

That said, it seems certain that one can construct examples of encounters intended to be hard or worse, that would be trivialized by the allowance of two concentration spells. Examples involving small numbers of opponents (e.g., two) seem especially ripe for this. However, I don't think it would be unfair to characterize (most of?) such encounters as rather fragile to begin with.

Ok, so that's all sort of off the top of my head. Is my reasoning too narrow, too hand-wavy, have a hole I missed, completely off the mark in my characterization of 'game-breaking', or seem otherwise unconvincing?

 

[Blue]

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.

I am glad you play at reasonable tables. Back in the 3.x days, there was the concept of "CoDzilla", short for "Cleric or Druid Godzilla". This was becasue with buff stacking they could turn themselves into an amazingly powerful character that outshined everyone else at their own specialties, and it would last all day / be quick to reapply. And it wasn't limited to just Clerics and Druids - I had a fighter / wizard who between polymorph and various buff spells was sick. One of the places I learned that detuning characters to make everyone around the same was more fun for everyone.

All of that said, concentration spells usually end up being buffs or debuffs. Right now the 5e paradigm is that it's one per caster, so going up to two a good chunk of having an extra caster. Not the same - you don't get the actions not additional slots. But it's still an outsized effect on any single encounter. A sorcerer with twinned greater invisibility AND twined haste is such a force multiplier.

If I really wanted to add something in, I'd probably allow a feat or item that allows a second concentration slot, but the total for all spells being concentrated on can't exceed your highest level slot. So a 7th level caster with the feat could concentrate on two spells that maxed at four levels between them.

This is still quite potent - spells like Bless have built into the spell the opportunity cost that you can't have up any other Concentration spells, and it's only 1st level. So that 7th level character could have up Bless and Spirit Guardians at the same time.

If you want the feat to be repeatable, it allows even more spells but still with the same cap. You need to be high level to have a two ASI/feat slots dedicated to this, and there are plenty of low/mid level buffs that are still pretty devastating when combined. And it's making good use of low level slots in high level combats, so it's a real multiplier still.

 

[Blue]

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.

Concentration in 3.5 filled a very different purpose than in 5e, so it's not really comparable. 3.5 didn't have any limitations on the number of spells you could have up at once. Concentration was to avoid losing your spell due to damage or other effects.

So even though it has the same name, it's a different mechanic for a different purpose and not comparable to 5e Concentration.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Huh... that is a fun idea.
It's very different, as concentrating in 3e required you to spend a standard action each round to maintain the spell. Having your familiar maintain concentration would free up your action in that instance.

But that'd be a super fun idea for a 5e feat or wizard subclass that specialises & buffs familiars. Being able to transfer concentration to the familiar, who maintains the spell for you, but has to be out and about to do so (and thus vulnerable)

 

[Krachek]

Create the feat and playtest it.
You won’t break the table, a window or nothing else in the room.
A feat will be a good tester forcing the player to choose it over something else.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's funny how frequently the desire for more Concentration pops up. I have zero problem with RAW, and like it the way it is.

Would 2 (or more!) concentration spells be more powerful? Sure. Dual-wielding greatswords, or getting full Dex bonus to AC in plate armor, would also be more powerful, but I don't hear anybody trying to houserule workarounds on those.

 

[TallIan]

What's wrong with a ring of spell storing, given to the fighter/rouge?

It limits the spell level to under 5 and takes a significant effort to recharge (ie the DM has some control by not letting the party have two long rests)

 

[StormbringerAUS]

Interesting points all round.

I like the idea of a Magic item that is worn/attached to a familiar and for the use of perhaps a bonus action the familiar can 'concentrate' on a spell for its Master - the familiar couldn't do anything else that round (which is fine by me as I find them annoying in general). I would probably make the familiar have to be in contact or say with 5 feet of the caster.