Help workshopping a Concentration feat

[Pechvarry]

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in the opinion of whether or not I should be screwing with Concentration rules. Please do not post about how "concentration rules are there for a reason," "you just broke the game," or other baby-tossing bathwater-posts. Keep it objective, please.

Totally Rad Concentration (name is negotiable):
You may hold concentration on multiple spells at once. When utilizing this feat, you can maintain concentration on a number of levels of spells equal to your proficiency bonus. Cantrips count as a 1st-level spell. You may not hold concentration on multiple "copies" of a spell. For example, you could not cast Guidance on 2 different allies.

Design and rules elaboration
Why a feat instead of a house rule?
a) Variant human notwithstanding, this feat is dangerous to start with, since players already start with +2 proficiency. (Mostly) Gating this ability behind 4th level does a decent job of ensuring this feat is only useful for your "has been" spell slots.
b) There is a dearth of support-oriented caster feats. I'd like to help solve that.

What about taking damage?
I haven't actually decided. This is a potential lever for balancing the feat.

What about casting spells in higher level slots?
The answer should be self-evident, but if I don't say it....
A spell's level is determined by the level it was cast at.

What input I need:
For each build listed below, rate how effective this feat is using the following scale
1 - worthless/trap
2 - unnecessary
3 - cool for certain builds
4 - should always be grabbed by level 20
5 - should always be your first or 2nd ASI purchase

If you feel a particular build scores differently within a category (e.g. particular cleric domains or sorcerers vs wizards), feel free to break it out as you see fit into your own build stubs.

If you don't feel like you know the mechanics and gameplay loops of a particular build, leave its entry blank, please! I'm happy for any input for builds you are comfortable making the judgement call on.

Builds:
buff-centric Cleric
Bard
buff-centric sor/wiz
CC-centric full caster
caster druid
shapeshifter druid
half-casting classes
caster subclasses (arcane trickster, EK)
warlocks
full-caster blasters
characters with no casting except from racial features and/or Mage Initiate

Thank you for your time.

EDIT: added CC-centric caster. In my mind I was lumping this in with buff-centric, but that's unfair.

I have presented hypothetical feat.

Please tell me how it would affect these builds by rating them on this scale. I made a rigidly defined scale so that we can be on the same page, lacking ambiguity.

[SharkForce]

what goal are you looking to achieve with this?

if it's to make buff casters viable, i'd say this is more likely to lead to double CC being optimal.

if you're just looking to make a buff-oriented caster possible, i'd say introducing a feat that allows the target of the spell do the concentrating (optional to use of course) will go a long way towards that. i'd be far more likely to cast haste on an ally if it didn't mean i can't cast web or hypnotic pattern or sunbeam or whatever other CC spell feels most appropriate for the occasion. but with the version you've presented, it's probably better to just look for two CC spells i can cast instead, most of the time. very rarely is a buff going to be as powerful as preventing a group of enemies from acting for a period of time.

i particularly like the "target can do the concentrating" option because it helps limit buff-stacking, which is one of the main reasons the concentration mechanic was introduced in the first place afaict.

[DivisibleByZero]

i particularly like the "target can do the concentrating" option because it helps limit buff-stacking, which is one of the main reasons the concentration mechanic was introduced in the first place afaict.

I kind of like that, but it's going to create a situation where buffing the tanks is optimal, as they will probably have better constitution.
How about this?

After casting a concentration spell on an ally, the caster can spend a bonus action to share concentration of the spell with the target. The target then spends his bonus action to accept concentration of the spell. After both bonus actions have been spent, concentration of the spell is partially transferred, allowing the caster to cast and concentrate on another spell.
If the target takes damage, he rolls a constitution check using the caster's bonus, or his own, whichever is lower.
If the caster takes damage, he rolls a constitution check for each effect that originated with him. The DC raises by 5 for each effect after the first that he held when he took the damage.
(so if the damage taken was less than 20, the the DC would normally be 10, if he holds 2 spells the DC is 15 for both (rolled separately), 3 spells = 20 for all, etc)
Each player may only accept shared concentration of a single spell, and this sharing counts towards the limit of one concentration per character for everyone except the original caster.

This allows a caster to cast and hold more then one buff spell, but still prohibits the crazy buff stacking that ruined 3e.

[MadBear]

One class you may not have considered with this feat would be the already bursty Paladin.

As it stands. Almost all of the paladin's damage spells require concentration. With this feat a paladin could cast some of their smite spells (searing smite) while maintaining hunters mark (vengeance paladin only), and at later levels could nova with:

Weapon Damage + strength/dex + Smite (the class feature) + hunters mark + Searing Smite + thunderous smite + haste

Granted with would eat up the spell slots of the paladin like crazy, but it'd allow them to use almost their entire spell list in one go.

[Fwiffo86]

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in the opinion of whether or not I should be screwing with Concentration rules. Please do not post about how "concentration rules are there for a reason," "you just broke the game," or other baby-tossing bathwater-posts. Keep it objective, please.

This is a fascinating concept you have here. I simply want to point out that I feel this is one more example of de-emphasizing martial characters by enabling the casters. But that is just opinion. Its your game, do as you wish. That being said:

The first question I would ask myself is: Is this a feat that all casters will feel is required, or to eliminate a built in and intentional weakness?

If the answer to either side of this question is yes, this feat is probably not written well.

[AgentPaper]

Allowing the target to concentrate on the spell is definitely the more interesting idea, though probably overpowered without any extra restrictions. Perhaps make it so that you split the concentration between you, so if either of you is hit, you need to roll concentration or lose the spell, and you can't concentrate fully on any other spells during that time. So, you can spread out buffs to your 2-4 party members, but at the cost of not being able to concentrate on a buff or CC spell yourself, and if you botch a concentration roll, all those buffs pop off at once.

[Ralanr]

Allowing the target to concentrate on the spell is definitely the more interesting idea, though probably overpowered without any extra restrictions. Perhaps make it so that you split the concentration between you, so if either of you is hit, you need to roll concentration or lose the spell, and you can't concentrate fully on any other spells during that time. So, you can spread out buffs to your 2-4 party members, but at the cost of not being able to concentrate on a buff or CC spell yourself, and if you botch a concentration roll, all those buffs pop off at once.

Why not just give them disadvantage on the concentration check?

[SharkForce]

letting the target handle concentration would be more powerful... for the person who's getting the buff.

me casting haste on you doesn't make *me* more powerful, it makes *you* more powerful.

unless you can come up with a reason why, say, hasting a single person is more powerful than preventing a dozen enemies from acting.

[Talderas]

Totally Rad Concentration (name is negotiable):
You may hold concentration on multiple spells at once. You can maintain concentration on a number of levels of spells equal to your proficiency bonus. Cantrips count as a 1st-level spell. You may not hold concentration on multiple "copies" of a spell. For example, you could not cast Guidance on 2 different allies.

Non-functional.

You cannot use any spell of 7th level or higher that requires concentration for the duration or has a casting time longer than 1 action (since that uses concentration). Additionally, spells of 4th to 6th level of the previous two categories cannot be cast when the spell would be gained. Teleportation Circle, gained at 9th level, cannot be cast as your proficiency bonus is only +4. 4th level spells, gained at 7th level, cannot be used until 9th level. 5th level spells, gained at 9th level, cannot be used until 13th level. 6th level spells, gained at 11th level, cannot be used until 17th level.

[Person_Man]

Split Concentration

You may maintain Concentration on two spells, instead of one. When maintaining Concentration on two spells, you have Disadvantage on all Constitution and Wisdom checks and saving throws, and cannot take Bonus Actions or Reactions.


(Also, I'm opposed to what I just wrote, because I think Concentration rules work just fine as-is and we shouldn't screw with them).

[Talderas]

Split Concentration

You may maintain Concentration on two spells, instead of one. When maintaining Concentration on two spells, you have Disadvantage on all Constitution and Wisdom checks and saving throws, and cannot take Bonus Actions or Reactions.


(Also, I'm opposed to what I just wrote, because I think Concentration rules work just fine as-is and we shouldn't screw with them).

My major problem with the concentration rules is that they're regressive for new players lacking system mastery and they favor debuff spells over buff spells due to the higher attrition rate on debuffs.

[Ralanr]

(Also, I'm opposed to what I just wrote, because I think Concentration rules work just fine as-is and we shouldn't screw with them).

Agreed. Course the OP asked for us to not bring that opinion up, but it's bound to come up eventually.

Up to everyone else to attack it, or ignore it and move on.

I wonder how long till the former happens?

[DivisibleByZero]

My major problem with the concentration rules is that they're regressive for new players lacking system mastery and they favor debuff spells over buff spells due to the higher attrition rate on debuffs.

Which is why the house rule that I would use, listed above, only works on allies. No split concentration on debuffs. I wouldn't do this, but if I *were* to do it, that's how it would be done.

- Only works on allies (thus, buffs)
- Includes an opportunity cost to share (bonus action from both parties)
- Counts as the ally's concentration (so he can't also buff himself)
- Uses the lowest of the two Con rolls (so it's easier to disrupt on a tank)
- Gets harder and harder to maintain as you add more, spread out among party members (so buffing the whole party basically means flicking the caster's ear will end the buffs)

[Pechvarry]

Not a single post adhering to the data I am after?

You have literally any other thread you could use to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of concentration as a system.

I am gathering information as to whether or not this works, and whether it works well. I appreciate your guys' input, really. But I'd rather you gave me what I asked for.

In a cooperative game, power is (in my current opinion) best analyzed as how much it enables build choices, and by how much it removes choice. For some very specific builds, a must-have feat isn't the end of the world. So the best guage would seem to be how many builds are given greater creative freedom from such an option vs how many builds are rendered irrelevant.

Tl;dr I'm not thinking about this from the same direction as you guys. Don't fix me. Work with me.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not a single post adhering to the data I am after?

Almost all of us answered the question you wanted answered, we just didn't do it by the numbered system that you arbitrarily created.

[SharkForce]

you haven't even told us what exactly you're trying to accomplish. how do you expect us to tell you whether it's going to work or not?

concentration is such a brutal limitation that on any character with a reasonable amount of focus on spells (so pretty much any full caster) i would want it. probably before my first ASI, because +2 casting stat is not as good at level 4 anyways, and no other feat is going to help as much as being able to use two or more concentration spells, even if they're lower level.

[Izha]

you haven't even told us what exactly you're trying to accomplish. how do you expect us to tell you whether it's going to work or not?

concentration is such a brutal limitation that on any character with a reasonable amount of focus on spells (so pretty much any full caster) i would want it. probably before my first ASI, because +2 casting stat is not as good at level 4 anyways, and no other feat is going to help as much as being able to use two or more concentration spells, even if they're lower level.

To answer your question, this feat is a 10 on your scale of 1-5 for every concept you listed.

Edit: Oops.. quoted the wrong person. Oh well.

[Talderas]

Not a single post adhering to the data I am after?

Tl;dr I'm not thinking about this from the same direction as you guys. Don't fix me. Work with me.

I did. The feat you proposed is non-functional. It does not behave as you think it would. Since it is non-functional, there's no point in addressing anything else you suggested.

[Pechvarry]

Ok, how about this:

I have presented hypothetical feat X (see OP).

Will you tell me how it would affect builds A, B, and C (See OP)? Please rate it according to a simple 1-5 system which I have defined (see OP). I have defined it so that it's clear and we can all be on the same page.

I will update the first post with this concise version of what I would like from my fellow contributors.

Talderas, you've now dedicated 2 entire posts to the fact that my wording isn't perfect. The spell level maximum only applies when you're holding multiple spells. Otherwise, see RAW.

[Finieous]

I only have experience with clerics and paladins, but it's a 5 for both. Bless + [guidance, divine favor, shield of faith, etc.] at 1st level. Bless + spirit guardians at 9th level. That's just the boring and obvious double-buffs, but then you can do debuff + save-or-suck (bane + hold person) or double save-or-suck (hold person + spirit guardians, etc.).

The limitation to spell slots = proficiency bonus means it generally won't be game-breaking, I think. This is not an endorsement of the design work you've done.

[Izha]

Ok, how about this:

I have presented hypothetical feat X (see OP).

Will you tell me how it would affect builds A, B, and C (See OP)? Please rate it according to a simple 1-5 system which I have defined (see OP). I have defined it so that it's clear and we can all be on the same page.

I will update the first post with this concise version of what I would like from my fellow contributors.

Talderas, you've now dedicated 2 entire posts to the fact that my wording isn't perfect. The spell level maximum only applies when you're holding multiple spells. Otherwise, see RAW.

The feat is a 5 (must have) for every single concept you listed except the last (Non-casters with magic initiate/racial spells) which its a 1 for.

[Eisenheim]

I did. The feat you proposed is non-functional. It does not behave as you think it would. Since it is non-functional, there's no point in addressing anything else you suggested.

It is completely obvious that the feat is not intended to prevent normal casting of and concentration on a single spell of any level. We're not computers, well at least I'm not.

How about you?

[Pechvarry]

I only have experience with clerics and paladins, but it's a 5 for both. Bless + [guidance, divine favor, shield of faith, etc.] at 1st level. Bless + spirit guardians at 9th level. That's just the boring and obvious double-buffs, but then you can do debuff + save-or-suck (bane + hold person) or double save-or-suck (hold person + spirit guardians, etc.).

The limitation to spell slots = proficiency bonus means it generally won't be game-breaking, I think.

Thank you for the input! This sort of combo isn't necessarily more potent than a single 5th level spell, but you make a good point. Spell combos like this would keep a caster's power level up higher longer.

This is not an endorsement of the design work you've done.

I think at this point, agreeing with me would constitute some sort of forum penalty.


The feat is a 5 (must have) for every single concept you listed except the last (Non-casters with magic initiate/racial spells) which its a 1 for.

Thank you for discarding your 10s. Thank you for contributions, but I want to make sure we're avoiding hyperbole. Do you believe every single Eldritch Knight build, or fire-specialist sorcerer, for example, should have this feat (were it allowed) by level 8 at the very latest? That this is better than maxing out Cha on a Warlock (on every single Warlock build)? I think you're still close to the mark -- that most of these build stubs come in at a 4 (should eventually grab). But if a compelling argument could be made that it's always better than, say, War caster for a sword/shield Paladin, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[MrStabby]

A lot of people have pointed out the problems, and there are potentially a lot but I do want to say that there are some aspects of it I do love.

As a fan of multiclassing I do like that this may open up more Gish type builds. A small addition of caster to a melee class may allow magically enhanced combat and the way that the ability scales with total level will help keep the build viable by not having to sacrifice too many martial levels for these abilities.

The reason I say this is that I think that there could be as much interest in the really low level spells as the mid level ones. Even simple things like being able to use Hex and still have the facility to use other spells as normal is pretty big.

Also, speaking of Hex, there may have to be wording accommodation given to Warlocks if at high levels they automatically use higher spell slots. Unless it is the base level of the spell and can be cast out of any slot... in which case I think that is a little bit over the top.

[Yagyujubei]

Not a single post adhering to the data I am after?

You have literally any other thread you could use to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of concentration as a system.

I am gathering information as to whether or not this works, and whether it works well. I appreciate your guys' input, really. But I'd rather you gave me what I asked for.

In a cooperative game, power is (in my current opinion) best analyzed as how much it enables build choices, and by how much it removes choice. For some very specific builds, a must-have feat isn't the end of the world. So the best guage would seem to be how many builds are given greater creative freedom from such an option vs how many builds are rendered irrelevant.

Tl;dr I'm not thinking about this from the same direction as you guys. Don't fix me. Work with me.

of course it works dude, why would you ask a blatantly obvious question? the feat you have created is so insanely broken that it would be literally required by every caster just to stay relevant if any other caster had it.

so to answer your post, it's a 5 in every situation, as if you didn't know. and HERE is the biggest problem, you mention all of these specicified builds like "fire specialist sorc, etc. etc." but they are now obsolete due to the existence of this feat. concentration builds will now be so strong comparatively that doing anything else will be worthless

[Finieous]

Thank you for the input! This sort of combo isn't necessarily more potent than a single 5th level spell, but you make a good point. Spell combos like this would keep a caster's power level up higher longer.


My biggest combo concerns would probably be around summoning spells, but I don't have experience with those classes. I'd look for double-summonings and invisibility + summoning, etc. I'm AFB, so maybe the summoning spells are high enough level that it wouldn't be that big a deal.

[Izha]

Do you believe every single Eldritch Knight build, or fire-specialist sorcerer, for example, should have this feat (were it allowed) by level 8 at the very latest?

Yes, I do think every eldritch knight or fire-specialist sorcerer should get it ASAP. EKs are best off using their spell slots for buffs and debuffs rather than damage. Being able to stack multiple buffs is a really big deal, as is being able to buff yourself while debuffing an opponent. I suppose you could make a fire-specialist sorcerer that did nothing but blow things up with fire, but it seems pretty non-optimal. Sorcerers get a lot of mileage out of buffs and debuffs as well.



That this is better than maxing out Cha on a Warlock (on every single Warlock build)?

It is entirely possible to build a warlock that wouldn't greatly benefit from this feat, but why would you? I suppose you could build a non-optimised character for concept reasons, but then why would you consider that when trying to determine how optimal this feat is?


I think you're still close to the mark -- that most of these build stubs come in at a 4 (should eventually grab). But if a compelling argument could be made that it's always better than, say, War caster for a sword/shield Paladin, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Depending how you rule on the holy symbol on the shield thing, War Caster could be an absolutely terrible feat for a Sword/Shield Paladin.

[Theodoxus]

For me, even niche builds - a warlock blaster (EB + Hex) would probably still use this, as Hex is so valuable, it's practically the only Concentration spell a Warlock generally takes, as they can't afford to cast any other. This feat would greatly expand options for any Warlock. (Though casting and holding 2 spells would force a short rest request after every combat until they get more spell slots...)

I'd also limit it to 1 Buff and additional debuffs - Limits the cheese of a Paladin Bless+Smite spells, while maintaining the power of a Cleric Bless + Hold Person, for instance.

As for your number rating, that's a lot harder, as people will have different ideas of what constitutes power (and whether PB or rolls are used at creation, house rules used, magic items available, etc.) If I'm building a debuffer, I'd prioritize getting 20 in my casting stat for maximum DC effect over multiple debuffs. So, the feat would be taken eventually, but not before I've maxed out my ASIs for my casting stat.

If I'm building a buffer/"less prioritized DC" caster - then I'd probably buy the feat earlier - depending on my primary source of combat damage; a Paladin, for instance, I'd probably grab warcaster before it.

I think though, I'd rather there be a number of Concentration feats - IF that was even a thing to consider - each doing a small alteration;

A feat to let another concentrate - some version of the ideas above.
A feat to Twin a concentration spell. (This would Quad a Twinned Metamagic Twin Concentration spell, and I'm ok with that - that'd be a LOT of sorcery points to give 4 people Haste, for instance.)
A feat to allow Two different spells to be held in concentration; that can be taken multiple times - the effects stack. Grab the feat twice, you can hold 3 spells, etc.

Not sure if these are full or half feats though...

[Finieous]

Do you believe every single Eldritch Knight build, or fire-specialist sorcerer, for example, should have this feat (were it allowed) by level 8 at the very latest?

The weird thing is, it's really better for EK than full casters, since their spell slots are lower but their prof bonus scales at the same rate as everyone else. The feat augments a greater portion of their spellcasting ability at a given level.

[Yagyujubei]

it would be fun to be able to haste yourself and cast slow on all the enemies though...

[weaseldust]

I looked at the spells for Clerics and Sorcerers.

For Clerics, the feat would make Resistance and Guidance a bit better. It would make Shield of Faith and Spirit Guardians absolutely amazing. Some buffs/debuffs don't stack particularly well because they grant advantage or disadvantage, but Bane and Bless can be added on top of anything, so they improve a lot with the feat. Protection from Energy would gain a new niche use in preventing the Cleric from losing a spell they're already holding concentration on in the face of damage of a particular type. Since the spells the feat most enhances are of low level, the Cleric would benefit from gaining the feat as early as possible, so I'd award them 5 on your scale (I'm kind of sceptical that using the scale will help you much, though).

You asked specifically about 'buff-centric' Clerics, but I doubt there are many in practice - most Clerics will have some buff spells and some others, because you don't need that many buff spells prepared at once. The class allows a lot of versatility anyway unless you have very low wisdom.

For Sorcerers, I expected True Strike to benefit but there aren't many concentration spells that require attack rolls. You could maybe use Friends and some illusion spells together, but otherwise the cantrips aren't much improved by taking the feat. I didn't notice any particularly impactful 1st level concentration spells either, so the Sorcerer would only really benefit from the feat when their proficiency bonus reached 4 and they could double up on level 2 spells. At that point, though, Alter Self, Blur, Invisibility and Levitate would all massively improve, especially in conjunction with Hold Person. I imagine DMs would tire of the 'turn invisible/hide underwater/hover out of reach and then paralyse enemies at will' trick pretty quickly. Fly would also improve at higher levels, and likewise Stoneskin, because taking less damage makes concentration checks easier. I'd give the Sorcerer a 4 on your scale, for what it's worth.

[eastmabl]

If I was playing any primary spellcaster, this would be one of the first feats that I take - maybe right after I take Resilient with Constitution so my Con save gets turned up to 11.

[Pechvarry]

Ok, thank you so far, all!

I'd like to provide some context to several of these build stubs, but please don't mistake this as defense. This hypothetical feat is only a starting point.

*I expect this to be a no-brainer for several CC and buff-oriented casters. I'm ok with this. I'm mostly interested in whether or not, in these cases, it's more important than maxing your stats (my gut reaction is: yes on party buffers, no for crowd-control). These casters don't really have a lot of interesting feat options anyway. So I'm expecting 4s and 5s, depending on build.

*My thoughts on Eldritch Knight in particular are that it is incredibly powerful for them. But I kinda feel like EK is a bit weak anyway, and I was hoping to tease out whether or not there are EK builds that don't rely on concentration spells (concentration checks in melee=bad, mirror image doesn't require concentration... seems like there should be some room for a non-concentrating build). It seems like it could swing between a 3 and a 5. Aside from melee feats, an EK/AT has some MAD to contend with, which should drive down the value of this feat as well.

*It seems wonderful on Warlocks, until I realized they spend most campaigns with only 2 spell slots per short rest. Add to this their auto-scaling spell level effect, and you would have to choose to weaken your spells to utilize this feat (though some at-will invocations may bring up its value). To this end, I have difficulty envisioning this as much more than a niche feat for Warlocks.

*I'm currently in a campaign with a blaster (though only levels 3-6 so far). He has yet to cast a concentration spell and I don't feel we're missing out. I would like to see if this matches the experiences of others. I also can't shake the feeling that "blasting is sub-optimal" is ingrained 3.5 talking. It's been wonderfully effective for us. We also have a very generalist-minded batman wizard in the party. Whether you want to read that as "letting the blaster get away with ignoring concentration" or "gives a benchmark for non-blasting performance", I leave up to you. But my gut feeling is a 3-4.

*I can't speak to Paladins very well. But I'm of the "Hunter's Mark should have been a Ranger class feature" school of thought. I don't mind a feat allowing it to become that (practically). But, again, I cannot see this feat being above Sharpshooter, and only occasionally more important than getting a stat to 20.

Maybe if I had started with my own estimations, I wouldn't have met so much resistance?

Remember what I said about that bathwater: I intend to iterate on this. Attaching Disadvantage on all concentration checks seems like a decent starting point. Due to some good points brought up, attaching a caveat to make it worse for summoners would be good, though I'd like to do so in a way that doesn't just make it a "no" choice for them.

[SharkForce]

Ok, thank you so far, all!

I'd like to provide some context to several of these build stubs, but please don't mistake this as defense. This hypothetical feat is only a starting point.

*I expect this to be a no-brainer for several CC and buff-oriented casters. I'm ok with this. I'm mostly interested in whether or not, in these cases, it's more important than maxing your stats (my gut reaction is: yes on party buffers, no for crowd-control). These casters don't really have a lot of interesting feat options anyway. So I'm expecting 4s and 5s, depending on build.

*My thoughts on Eldritch Knight in particular are that it is incredibly powerful for them. But I kinda feel like EK is a bit weak anyway, and I was hoping to tease out whether or not there are EK builds that don't rely on concentration spells (concentration checks in melee=bad, mirror image doesn't require concentration... seems like there should be some room for a non-concentrating build). It seems like it could swing between a 3 and a 5. Aside from melee feats, an EK/AT has some MAD to contend with, which should drive down the value of this feat as well.

*It seems wonderful on Warlocks, until I realized they spend most campaigns with only 2 spell slots per short rest. Add to this their auto-scaling spell level effect, and you would have to choose to weaken your spells to utilize this feat (though some at-will invocations may bring up its value). To this end, I have difficulty envisioning this as much more than a niche feat for Warlocks.

*I'm currently in a campaign with a blaster (though only levels 3-6 so far). He has yet to cast a concentration spell and I don't feel we're missing out. I would like to see if this matches the experiences of others. I also can't shake the feeling that "blasting is sub-optimal" is ingrained 3.5 talking. It's been wonderfully effective for us. We also have a very generalist-minded batman wizard in the party. Whether you want to read that as "letting the blaster get away with ignoring concentration" or "gives a benchmark for non-blasting performance", I leave up to you. But my gut feeling is a 3-4.

*I can't speak to Paladins very well. But I'm of the "Hunter's Mark should have been a Ranger class feature" school of thought. I don't mind a feat allowing it to become that (practically). But, again, I cannot see this feat being above Sharpshooter, and only occasionally more important than getting a stat to 20.

Maybe if I had started with my own estimations, I wouldn't have met so much resistance?

Remember what I said about that bathwater: I intend to iterate on this. Attaching Disadvantage on all concentration checks seems like a decent starting point. Due to some good points brought up, attaching a caveat to make it worse for summoners would be good, though I'd like to do so in a way that doesn't just make it a "no" choice for them.

it isn't really an issue with summoners at present. or at least, there is no danger of double summons, if that's what you're worried about.

there is precisely 1 summoning spell of level 3 or lower in the game. since you can't pick the same spell twice to concentrate on, the only way it even theoretically becomes a concern is if someone has the ioun stone that boosts proficiency bonus, and even then, not until level 17. at which point, getting 4 CR worth of crappy minions is the least of your concerns.

[Kane0]

Totally Rad Concentration (name is negotiable):
You may hold concentration on multiple spells at once. You can maintain concentration on a number of levels of spells equal to your proficiency bonus. Cantrips count as a 1st-level spell. You may not hold concentration on multiple "copies" of a spell. For example, you could not cast Guidance on 2 different allies.


Full casters (buffs/debuff/CC): 5-Fantastic at low levels BUT 1-Trap at mid-high levels*
Full casters (blasters/shifter druids): 2-Unnecessary/Situational, becomes 1-Useless/Trap at later levels*
Warlocks: -Unnecessary/Situational*
Half casters: 3-Cool/Solid
Partial casters: 3-Cool/Solid
Racial Features/Magic Initiates: 1-Worthless/Trap

* The feat actually restricts you from using concentration spells as you unlock higher spell levels/slots until your proficiency bonus catches up.

May I recommend an alternative?
Super awesome concentration:
You can focus on a second concurrent spell that requires concentration. This second spell cannot be of a level higher than half your proficiency bonus.
If you don't think that's good enough, make it a half-feat and add a +1 to a stat (either Int/Wis/Cha of their choice or Con). It should be good enough as is though, what with things like Bless and Enhance Ability being great low level buffs people always want.

[SharkForce]

why do people think taking this feat removes your regular ability to concentrate on a single spell of any level as normal?

the feat gives you an extra option. just like GWM does not FORCE you to take a penalty to hit for increased damage, this feat does not FORCE you to concentrate on two spells capped by your proficiency modifier in levels. you *can* do that. you have the option. but the regular option still exists.

and it is amazing at any level for basically any kind of caster, because even if you weren't going to use two concentration spells before, it's totally worthwhile to do so now any time you aren't specifically wanting to use a single high-level spell while concentrating. but, unless your plan is to do that for literally the entire day and never use your lower level spell slots for some reason, this feat is amazing, no matter what kind of caster you are.

[Yagyujubei]

why do people think taking this feat removes your regular ability to concentrate on a single spell of any level as normal?

the feat gives you an extra option. just like GWM does not FORCE you to take a penalty to hit for increased damage, this feat does not FORCE you to concentrate on two spells capped by your proficiency modifier in levels. you *can* do that. you have the option. but the regular option still exists.

and it is amazing at any level for basically any kind of caster, because even if you weren't going to use two concentration spells before, it's totally worthwhile to do so now any time you aren't specifically wanting to use a single high-level spell while concentrating. but, unless your plan is to do that for literally the entire day and never use your lower level spell slots for some reason, this feat is amazing, no matter what kind of caster you are.

the wording is kinda poor in this bit "You can maintain concentration on a number of levels of spells equal to your proficiency bonus." and could be interpreted such that even a single concentration spell would be limited to your proficiency bonus in levels.

but yeah, it's obviously not the intention.

[Talderas]

why do people think taking this feat removes your regular ability to concentrate on a single spell of any level as normal?

It's a specific ruling on how concentration works which would trump the general rule. There is no wording that makes it an option or limits the scope of its effect. The only limitation is that you cannot use it for two copies of the same spell. Even if it is an option, it gives no indication of whether it's an and or or option which is a very important factor. The original post simply does not contain sufficient information to accurately identify how it's supposed to function and there's at least three interpretations that can be made.

1. The feat replaces current concentration rules, which is how it's written. This makes 7th level concentration spells and spells with a casting time longer than 1 action, impossible to use.
2. The feat functions as an 'or' to the concentration rules. In which case you can concentrate on multiple spells as long as their combined levels do not exceed your proficiency. The written rules do not provide for this scenario.
3. The feat functions as an 'and' to the concentration rules. In which case you can concentrate on one spell plus an additional number of spells whose spell levels do not exceed your proficiency modifier. The written rules do no provide for this scenario.

[DivisibleByZero]

The original post simply does not contain sufficient information to accurately identify how it's supposed to function

Sure it does.
It's called context.
A homebrewed feat designed to allow a caster more leeway than the game intends for concentration spells will in no way lower the threshold of what can be concentrated on where single spells are concerned.
The idea was to widen the concentration rules, not to make them more narrow.
Context.
We are not bots, so we should all be able to understand that context.

[Person_Man]

why do people think taking this feat removes your regular ability to concentrate on a single spell of any level as normal?

Because if a more optimal choice exists, players who pay attention to such things will generally take it.

[AgentPaper]

I would suggest tying the maximum total levels of concentration spells you can concentrate on to the maximum level of spells you can cast. Simpler and more straightforwards, and makes it less crazy for partial casters. Also makes it less powerful early, sin e it doesn't actually do anything until at least level 3 when you get level 2 spell slots.

[Talderas]

Sure it does.
It's called context.
A homebrewed feat designed to allow a caster more leeway than the game intends for concentration spells will in no way lower the threshold of what can be concentrated on where single spells are concerned.
The idea was to widen the concentration rules, not to make them more narrow.
Context.
We are not bots, so we should all be able to understand that context.

Your context fails. As I conveniently pointed out, there's three interpretations. One RAW and two potential RAI. The two RAI serve the context your alleging but the feat description contains no text to identify which RAI might be correct. That information is crucial because #2 and #3 are interpretations where one is significantly stronger than the other.

[Pechvarry]

...

4 posts, now. I clarified after your 2nd. I'll update the op when i can. In the meantime, please move on.

[DivisibleByZero]

Your context fails. As I conveniently pointed out, there's three interpretations. One RAW and two potential RAI. The two RAI serve the context your alleging but the feat description contains no text to identify which RAI might be correct. That information is crucial because if you read #2 and #3 you would see that one interpretation is significantly stronger than the other.

Well then I guess it's a good thing that this isn't an official rule, and as such is not subject to your rules lawyering. Because the people that are at his table are going to understand it completely, so this argument is just a waste of text in this thread.

[Baptor]

@OP

For whatever reason, I misread the thread to your title as "Worshiping a Construct." Which, while clearly an error on my part, has enflamed my imagination about a religion that worships a machine for my D&D game.

Thank you sir, for being a muse. :)

[Gnomes2169]

I'm going to go with 5 for any caster that uses concentration on a regular basis. The ability to cast and hold multiple concentration spells is entirely more powerful than any of the other options presented at a given level; save DC's being 1 lower temporarily is not the end-all for a debuffer, other feats are not capable of assisting in versatility and raw dynamic encounter-shaping power, and there really is no current downside to using it.

Attaching disadvantage on concentration checks while maintaining two spells, rolling concentration on both effects simultaneously and making it so that failing the concentration check will end both effects would balance it out a bit more, especially on classes like the paladin and eldritch knight, who can expect to take damage rather consistently, and on certain variations of cleric who will be mixing it up in melee with their soldiers.