How many ways to "Concentrate"?

[Jack_Simth]

OK, so... you can:

Fully works:
Concentrate on a spell normally
Have another "Concentration" spell running via Sonorous Hum (Spell Compendium)
Have your familiar concentrate on something via the Familiar Concentration feat (Lost Empires of Faerun - goes well with Extra Familiar, I imagine)
With Psionics in the mix, there's Solicit Psicrystal.
Spirit Shaman-10: Spirit can concentrate for you.

Have someone else do it:
Intelligent magic items using their own abilities which require concentration.
Ring of Spell Storing (DMG) to have an ally cast a spell you've stored.
Imbue With Spell Ability (PHB) to have an arbitrary-ish ally cast and maintain specific spells.
Imbue Familiar with spell ability (Spell Compendium) to have your familiar cast and maintain spells. Has some limits.
Allied Spellcaster who can use their own spell & action to maintain.
Incantatrix-6's ability to steal a concentration spell of yours.
Spelltheif (Complete Adventurer )'s Steal Spell - take a slot of yours, cast, and maintain it.


Doesn't quite work:
Extraordinary Concentration (Complete Adventurer) reduces the action cost of concentrating, but doesn't let you concentrate on more (does say it lets you cast, though).
The Swift Concentration Skill Trick (Complete Scoundrel) lets you concentrate as a Swift action once per encounter (but again, doesn't let you concentrate on more than one at a time).
Spells modified with Persistent Spell metamagic that would normally require concentration stick around without it (but don't necessarily have full effect - see the entry)
Melodic Casting (Complete Mage): Can use spells, command word items, spell completion items while using Bardic music (doesn't change action costs, however). Can also use Perform in place of Concentration.

Debatable interpretation:
Share Spells on (Greater) Arcane fusion (Complete Mage) with your familiar (debate seems to center around who's considered the caster of the sub-spells when it's "you cast" there)

How many other ways are there to Concentrate on spells and powers?

Spoiler: Contributors

Show

Gruftzwerg
The Viscount
Doctor Despair
Biggus
Crake
St Fan

And last (possibly least): Myself.

[Crake]

Generally the easiest way is to just have someone else cast and concentrate for you. Probably the most simple solution is an intelligent magic item who's sole purpose is to concentrate on a spell you want.

Edit: They also do the casting of course.

Edit Edit: Unless they're a level 6 incantatrix, in which case they can take over concentrating for you on a spell you cast, automatically if you're willing, or with a check if unwilling.

[Biggus]

If you don't want to spend a feat on Familiar Concentration, the spell Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability (S/W6, SpC) allows your familiar to cast (and thus concentrate on) spells of up to 5th level for you.

Imbue With Spell Ability (C4, SRD) allows you to do the same with any ally, but only with 1st and 2nd-level spells.

[Doctor Despair]

Is Melodic Casting worth mentioning for the fact that it allows you to cast while concentrating on your bardic music? Not exactly on topic, but topic-adjacent

[The Viscount]

10 levels of spirit shaman will make your spirit guide concentrate on spells for you.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ring of Spellstoring on your familiar/ally/npc can be a workaround too imho.

[Jack_Simth]

@Gruftzwerg, The Viscount, Doctor Despair, Biggus, Crake

Added 'em in.

[Gruftzwerg]

Another workaround:

Sorcerer: (Greater) Arcane Fusion is a personal spell that can be shared with your familiar. Abuse to let your familiar cast any spell too. You can ignore your own spells concentration and let your familiar concentrate on the shared one.

[Jack_Simth]

Another workaround:

Sorcerer: (Greater) Arcane Fusion is a personal spell that can be shared with your familiar. Abuse to let your familiar cast any spell too. You can ignore your own spells concentration and let your familiar concentrate on the shared one.

Does your familiar know spells?

[Gruftzwerg]

Does your familiar know spells?

The familiar doesn't cast the spell, thus doesn't determine the spell specifics. You share the effect after all decision (cast) have been made. You don't chose anything for the familiar while sharing. All your choices (for yourself) carry over to the familiar.

[Jack_Simth]

The familiar doesn't cast the spell, thus doesn't determine the spell specifics. You share the effect after all decision (cast) have been made. You don't chose anything for the familiar while sharing. All your choices (for yourself) carry over to the familiar.

Per Arcane Fusion: "When you cast this spell, choose any 1st-level sorcerer spell you know and any 4th-level or lower sorcerer spell you know."
Consider how share spells works at a table, using, say, Arcane Sight:

This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.

You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight. An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning level or an item’s caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + one-half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use.

Arcane sight can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

(Emphasis added)

As it's played at most tables, when you cast it on your familiar via Share Spells, your familiar is the one who can see magical auras, make spellcraft checks to ID schools, and concentrate on a creature to see if it has magical abilities. Despite all the references being "you". So my conclusion is that most tables play "you" as being "the Share Spells target" when Share Spells is in use.

This interpretation breaks your plan. If you share Arcane Fusion with your familiar, then "spells you know" becomes "spells your familiar knows" - and generally speaking, your familiar doesn't know any (some exceptions apply at Epic levels, or with certain feats and spells).

Thinking about it though, even without that interpretation (and thus, "you" remains "your character" rather than "your familiar"), it still doesn't do what you want, because of a later instance of "you": "Both spells take effect in the order you choose, as if you had cast them one after the other using only one standard action" (Emphasis and Emphasis added). If "you" does not become "your familiar" when you use Share Spells on your familiar, then it's not your familiar casting them, which means "you" are treated as casting them, so your familiar can't concentrate to maintain them.

Am I missing anything?

[Gruftzwerg]

Per Arcane Fusion: "When you cast this spell, choose any 1st-level sorcerer spell you know and any 4th-level or lower sorcerer spell you know."
Consider how share spells works at a table, using, say, Arcane Sight:(Emphasis added)

....

Am I missing anything?

"When you cast this spell, choose any 1st-level sorcerer spell you know and any 4th-level or lower sorcerer spell you know."

1. The familiar is not the one casting the spell.

2. "When you cast" adds an additional condition to the "cast" of the spell. While this part of the text is normally defined as effect of the spell, the rule text calls out a specific exception that adds another condition to the casting of the spell, not to its effect. If the bold part of the text wouldn't be there, your assumption would be correct. But that is not the chase here.

3. "you cast" refers clearly to the caster, while sole "you" (as in Arcane Sight) refers to the person having/wielding the effect.

4. You share the spells effect, not the cast to the familiar

I hope I could clear any possible doubts.?

[St Fan]

A Spellthief can also steal and cast one of your spell on your behalf, and thus concentrate on it.

[Jack_Simth]

Let's get the full text here:

You weave two spells together in your mind and release them in a single burst of magic.

When you cast this spell, choose any 1st-level sorcerer spell you know and any 4th-level or lower sorcerer spell you know. Neither spell chosen can have a casting time longer than 1 standard action. Both spells take effect in the order you choose, as if you had cast them one after the other using only one standard action, but you don't expend any additional spell slots to cast those spells. Effectively, you cast two other spells using this spell's 5th-level spell slot. Each of the chosen spells has its normal effect, including range, target, area, duration, saving throw, and spell resistance as appropriate to the spell's level.

If applying a metamagic feat to a spell, use the adjusted spell level and casting time for purposes of determining eligibility for arcane fusion.

If either spell requires a material component, focus, XP cost, or other special cost, these must be used or paid as part of the casting of arcane fusion.

1. The familiar is not the one casting the spell.

If the familiar isn't casting the proxy'd Wall of Fire, then the familiar can't concentrate on it in that manner.

2. "When you cast" adds an additional condition to the "cast" of the spell. While this part of the text is normally defined as effect of the spell, the rule text calls out a specific exception that adds another condition to the casting of the spell, not to its effect. If the bold part of the text wouldn't be there, your assumption would be correct. But that is not the chase here.

You have extremely similar language in the other sections - "as if you had cast them" "Effectively, you cast two other spells using this spell's 5th-level spell slot." (emphasis added)
The "cast" modifier (if it works that way) is present elsewhere as well. If the PC is the "you" in regards to casting... it's still not your familiar casting, so it's not your familiar maintaining, as it's the same language.

3. "you cast" refers clearly to the caster, while sole "you" (as in Arcane Sight) refers to the person having/wielding the effect.

OK, so it's not the best example. Still, you're changing definitions of "you" in use partway through things.

4. You share the spells effect, not the cast to the familiar

It's the same basic phrasing on the sub-spells.

I hope I could clear any possible doubts.?

Apparently not. We're reading this interaction very differently. I suppose I can add a "debatable interpretation" section.

[Darg]

The disconnect, I think, is that Gruftzwerg is thinking of it like it were cast as a touch spell as described in the description of share spells:

Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.

As it is a touch range spell, the specifics of the spell are decided before touching the familiar as the specifics are determined when the spell is cast. Not when it comes into effect:

When you cast this spell, choose any 1st-level sorcerer spell you know and any 4th-level or lower sorcerer spell you know.

In the case of personal range spells with the target of "you" as part of sharing spells the familiar is not the one casting the original spell.

The only problem with Gruftzwerg's assertion I can come up with is that the familiar did not cast the spell and therefore the effect is ineffectual as everything after the first 5 words requires the beneficiary to be the caster.

I have to say that the RAW can literally go either way on this, but personally I am leaning toward arcane fusion works as if you cast it just so that the spell isn't a dud when cast on the familiar.

[Gruftzwerg]

Let's get the full text here:



If the familiar isn't casting the proxy'd Wall of Fire, then the familiar can't concentrate on it in that manner.

casting and concentrating are 2 different things. Concentrating is not part of the cast. The one wielding the effect starts to concentrate after the round the spell has been cast. Thus Concentrate is part of the effect. It doesn't have the "When you cast.." call out. It talks about "you" the one wielding the effect. Keep in mind that "sharing a spell" creates a specific exception where the familiar also gains the effect (and thus wields the effect) but doesn't cast the spell.

You have extremely similar language in the other sections - "as if you had cast them" "Effectively, you cast two other spells using this spell's 5th-level spell slot." (emphasis added)
The "cast" modifier (if it works that way) is present elsewhere as well. If the PC is the "you" in regards to casting... it's still not your familiar casting, so it's not your familiar maintaining, as it's the same language.

"as if you had cast them" = in reality you didn't cast them, the effect is just emulates this. It doesn't say that the effect holder/wielder is casting those spells.

OK, so it's not the best example. Still, you're changing definitions of "you" in use partway through things.

As said, sharing is specific. Normally, when "you" cast a personal (!) spell, you are the caster and the effect holder. But when you share it, you have already cast it and sole share the effect. This is the reason why you have to differentiate when the text is referring to the effect wielder and when it is adding additional casting conditions.

The disconnect, I think, is that Gruftzwerg is thinking of it like it were cast as a touch spell as described in the description of share spells:



As it is a touch range spell, the specifics of the spell are decided before touching the familiar as the specifics are determined when the spell is cast. Not when it comes into effect:



In the case of personal range spells with the target of "you" as part of sharing spells the familiar is not the one casting the original spell.

Almost..^^ see below

The only problem with Gruftzwerg's assertion I can come up with is that the familiar did not cast the spell and therefore the effect is ineffectual as everything after the first 5 words requires the beneficiary to be the caster.

I have to say that the RAW can literally go either way on this, but personally I am leaning toward arcane fusion works as if you cast it just so that the spell isn't a dud when cast on the familiar.

As said, you have to differentiate between the caster and the effect holder. Normally, for a personal spell this is the same person/target.

But due to sharing, you copy sole the effect of the spell, not the casting. Thus the familiar is only affected by the effect of the spell.


Have a look at how the spell text is defined:

This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description included "see text," this is where the explanation is found.

"what the spell does" = effect of the spell
"how it works" = possible additional casting information (infos for spell components, additional choices to be made while casting...)

The "Descriptive Text" of a spell ain't sole the effect. It also contains how it works (additional casting information).