Well, you are still wrong even if you don't care to admit it. If the actually text in the book is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is.
But I take it that your current stance means that you are disagreeing with Lyxen's claim that spells only persist during their duration?
This doesn't seem like a meaningful contribution to the topic. Declaring people "are wrong" with only vague reference to "the book" is quite literally the opposite of helpful.
Edit; And no, I agree with Lyxen that spells only persist for their duration. Though things can of course end them earlier.
So, I don't think anyone's references have been all that vague
They replied after 3 days and essentially said "Nu-uh you wrong, book says so"
That's the post you're saying isn't vague?? Please.
Every.
Single.
One.
Concentration is explicitly listed as a duration alongside (but distinct from) "Instantaneous" as one of the two durations that require more explanation than the simple "x rounds/minutes/hours/etc."
Yeah, the rules tell us that if a spell requires concentration that it'll be annotating that fact in the duration section of the spell's entry. It DOESN'T say that concentration IS the duration. Ever. Anywhere. Ever. Like, really, never.
The book is unbelievably clear about this.
It is. Especially when it says "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years." You just quoted it. You keep quoting it without reading it. It's very simple.
The duration, is, the: round. minutes. hours. or years.
That is the duration. Super simple. You've quoted it yourself. You know full well that is what "the book" says, and it isn't vague about it.
Quote where it says that the duration IS concentration? Can't do it, because it never says it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Okay buddy, I give up. You are deliberately ignoring black and white text that I highlighted for you for the sake of stirring up trouble, and I’m not participating anymore. I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you want to troll, troll someone else.
Well, you are still wrong even if you don't care to admit it. If the actually text in the book is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is.
But I take it that your current stance means that you are disagreeing with Lyxen's claim that spells only persist during their duration?
This doesn't seem like a meaningful contribution to the topic. Declaring people "are wrong" with only vague reference to "the book" is quite literally the opposite of helpful.
Edit; And no, I agree with Lyxen that spells only persist for their duration. Though things can of course end them earlier.
So, I don't think anyone's references have been all that vague
They replied after 3 days and essentially said "Nu-uh you wrong, book says so"
Why do you feel the need to lie all the time? If you read my posts in this trhead you will see that I have made numerous references to rules and even page numbers. As for having a life outside of this forum that prevents me from posting replies as soon as you comment, I don't know, sorry?
That's the post you're saying isn't vague?? Please.
Every.
Single.
One.
Concentration is explicitly listed as a duration alongside (but distinct from) "Instantaneous" as one of the two durations that require more explanation than the simple "x rounds/minutes/hours/etc."
Yeah, the rules tell us that if a spell requires concentration that it'll be annotating that fact in the duration section of the spell's entry. It DOESN'T say that concentration IS the duration. Ever. Anywhere. Ever. Like, really, never.
The book is unbelievably clear about this.
It is. Especially when it says "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years." You just quoted it. You keep quoting it without reading it. It's very simple.
The duration, is, the: round. minutes. hours. or years.
That is the duration. Super simple. You've quoted it yourself. You know full well that is what "the book" says, and it isn't vague about it.
Quote where it says that the duration IS concentration? Can't do it, because it never says it.
It's honestly quite amazing that you have the rules right in front of you and you still deny them. But hey, as soon as you can show us the rules that changes "duration: concentration" to "duration: instantenous" I will be the first to admit that you are correct.
I can see why you'd think this. I would point out, though, that you have also deliberately ignored black and white text.
The only thing which is clear on this whole thing is that none of our is clear. There are 2 perfectly valid but contradictory readings of the rules. Everyone who is saying that there is one and only one valid readings is ignoring or dismissing some part of the written rules. Confirmation bias is also playing a large role.
So, I'm not going to get back into this argument itself (there are already 7 pages of arguments about a situation which can only exist by a homebrew effect), but I would caution you to carefully examine both sides of the argument with an open mind before calling someone who disagrees with you a troll.
Well, you are still wrong even if you don't care to admit it. If the actually text in the book is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is.
But I take it that your current stance means that you are disagreeing with Lyxen's claim that spells only persist during their duration?
This doesn't seem like a meaningful contribution to the topic. Declaring people "are wrong" with only vague reference to "the book" is quite literally the opposite of helpful.
Edit; And no, I agree with Lyxen that spells only persist for their duration. Though things can of course end them earlier.
So, I don't think anyone's references have been all that vague
They replied after 3 days and essentially said "Nu-uh you wrong, book says so"
Why do you feel the need to lie all the time? If you read my posts in this trhead you will see that I have made numerous references to rules and even page numbers. As for having a life outside of this forum that prevents me from posting replies as soon as you comment, I don't know, sorry?
You wrote, out of the blue, after 3 days:
"Well, you are still wrong even if you don't care to admit it. If the actually text in the book is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is."
No context. No elaboration. No quotes or arguments. Just...
...
...
...
Like why? How am I lying by pointing out that's unhelpful???
It's honestly quite amazing that you have the rules right in front of you and you still deny them. But hey, as soon as you can show us the rules that changes "duration: concentration" to "duration: instantenous" I will be the first to admit that you are correct.
Quote, once, just once, a rule that actually says Concentration IS duration.
I dare any of you.
One quote from any book.
You can't because you're wrong.
It isn't. And you can flip out and make all the claims you want, that "I'm" ignoring the rules.
But at least I'm not making up shit that isn't in the books and pretending it is. Your emperor has no clothes, don't get mad at me for pointing it out.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
As with others, I am confounded how you can read a spell description, that states in plain English, Duration: Concentration, up to x minutes, then ask someone to show you where that very text is. Really? Everyone HAS shown you and you still can't see it. The duration is the concentration time because it's "up to" which tells you that the spell ends when concentration ends OR X minutes, whichever comes first.
7 bloody pages. wow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The only thing which is clear on this whole thing is that none of our is clear.
The rules for the duration of spells are very clear. There is a very clear mechanical distinction between duration "concentration" and duration "instantenous". If that difference have any practical effect on what happens if you only concentrate for an instant is a completely different matter but RAW, the distinction is clear.
As for the actual situation in the OP you are absolutely right in that it basically comes down to DM's choice.
Well, you are still wrong even if you don't care to admit it. If the actually text in the book is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is.
But I take it that your current stance means that you are disagreeing with Lyxen's claim that spells only persist during their duration?
This doesn't seem like a meaningful contribution to the topic. Declaring people "are wrong" with only vague reference to "the book" is quite literally the opposite of helpful.
Edit; And no, I agree with Lyxen that spells only persist for their duration. Though things can of course end them earlier.
So, I don't think anyone's references have been all that vague
They replied after 3 days and essentially said "Nu-uh you wrong, book says so"
Why do you feel the need to lie all the time? If you read my posts in this trhead you will see that I have made numerous references to rules and even page numbers. As for having a life outside of this forum that prevents me from posting replies as soon as you comment, I don't know, sorry?
You wrote, out of the blue, after 3 days:
Not sure what the fact that I spend my time on other things than just hanging around an internet forum has to do with anything...
"Well, you are still wrong even if you don't care to admit it. If the actually text in the book is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is."
No context. No elaboration. No quotes or arguments. Just...
...
...
...
Like why? How am I lying by pointing out that's unhelpful???
You are lying when you claim that I haven't provided sources for my claims. If you take the time to read my other posts you will see that I have.
It's honestly quite amazing that you have the rules right in front of you and you still deny them. But hey, as soon as you can show us the rules that changes "duration: concentration" to "duration: instantenous" I will be the first to admit that you are correct.
Quote, once, just once, a rule that actually says Concentration IS duration.
I dare any of you.
One quote from any book.
You can't because you're wrong.
It isn't. And you can flip out and make all the claims you want, that "I'm" ignoring the rules.
But at least I'm not making up shit that isn't in the books and pretending it is. Your emperor has no clothes, don't get mad at me for pointing it out.
Well, we can, and we have. SagaTympana even highlighted the important bits for you. I think the emperor you are looking at might be your own reflection...
But I tell you what, now that I and others have shown you what you have asked for, how about you showing us the rules for changing the durations of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a really short time? Or should we take the fact that you haven't as admission that there isn't such a rule?
As with others, I am confounded how you can read a spell description, that states in plain English, Duration: Concentration, up to x minutes, then ask someone to show you where that very text is. Really? Everyone HAS shown you and you still can't see it. The duration is the concentration time because it's "up to" which tells you that the spell ends when concentration ends OR X minutes, whichever comes first.
7 bloody pages. wow.
Because the rules don't say that is the duration. You're just assuming it is.
What the actual rules are:
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends.
If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry, and the spell specifies how long you can concentrate on it. You can end concentration at any time (no action required).
This doesn't say that the duration IS concentration. Only that if the spell requires concentration it'll be noted in the spell's duration entry.
The thing everyone points to as "proof it is duration" isn't proof it is duration. This is the rule that tells us we can find concentration there, and this rule nowhere, at all, ever, says it IS duration.
Duration is:
A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
As for the actual situation in the OP you are absolutely right in that it basically comes down to DM's choice.
Yeah I've since chatted with him and he was doing a continuous version of:
The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.
But agreed it'd be easier to adjudicate if this check was just made more like a Sleet Storm effect such as:
If a creature starts its turn in the spell's area and is concentrating on a spell, the creature must make a successful Constitution saving throw against your spell save DC or lose concentration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Quote, once, just once, a rule that actually says Concentration IS duration.
I dare any of you.
One quote from any book.
You can't because you're wrong.
It isn't. And you can flip out and make all the claims you want, that "I'm" ignoring the rules.
But at least I'm not making up shit that isn't in the books and pretending it is. Your emperor has no clothes, don't get mad at me for pointing it out.
Well, we can, and we have. SagaTympana even highlighted the important bits for you. I think the emperor you are looking at might be your own reflection...
Saying you have quoted it and actually quoting it are two different things...
Just, quote it.
Aren't doing it now. Curious.
But I tell you what, now that I and others have shown you what you have asked for, how about you showing us the rules for changing the durations of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a really short time? Or should we take the fact that you haven't as admission that there isn't such a rule?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That certainly isn't my argument so I'm not sure why you want me to support it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But I tell you what, now that I and others have shown you what you have asked for, how about you showing us the rules for changing the durations of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a really short time? Or should we take the fact that you haven't as admission that there isn't such a rule?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That certainly isn't my argument so I'm not sure why you want me to support it.
Okay after thinking this over I think I understand what you think I've been saying, but... I can assure you that's not what I've been saying. The duration of the spell it the duration of the spell. It doesn't "become" instantaneous. BUT a spell CAN end early. For all sorts of reasons. Losing concentration is for sure one of those reasons.
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
Similarly, if you cast some other concentration spell, let's say you Bless you party. Bu then 3 rounds later get thwap'd on the head and take damage, and fail the save. The duration of Bless is 1 minute. But it is going to last for 1 minute? No, it only lasted for 3 rounds. Again, descriptive... not mechanical. The spell effect existed for 3 rounds. You're not scratching out the spell duration on your sheet and writing in 3 rounds...
You see the difference?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A beam of crackling, blue energy lances out toward a creature within range, forming a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target. Make a ranged spell attack against that creature.On a hit, the target takes 1d12 lightning damage, and on each of your turns for the duration, you can use your action to deal 1d12 lightning damage to the target automatically. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. The spell also ends if the target is ever outside the spell’s range or if it has total cover from you.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the initial damage increases by 1d12 for each slot level above 1st.
* - (a twig from a tree that has been struck by lightning)
Quote, once, just once, a rule that actually says Concentration IS duration.
I dare any of you.
One quote from any book.
You can't because you're wrong.
It isn't. And you can flip out and make all the claims you want, that "I'm" ignoring the rules.
But at least I'm not making up shit that isn't in the books and pretending it is. Your emperor has no clothes, don't get mad at me for pointing it out.
Well, we can, and we have. SagaTympana even highlighted the important bits for you. I think the emperor you are looking at might be your own reflection...
Saying you have quoted it and actually quoting it are two different things...
Except I haven't just said it, I actually have. That you can't be bothered to read what other people write doesn't change that.
Just, quote it.
Again, if you can't follow common courtesy and read what other people have already written, why should I adher to your demands in any way? Especially since you can't do the smae thing that you demand of others.
Aren't doing it now. Curious.
Who's doing what now?
But I tell you what, now that I and others have shown you what you have asked for, how about you showing us the rules for changing the durations of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a really short time? Or should we take the fact that you haven't as admission that there isn't such a rule?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That certainly isn't my argument so I'm not sure why you want me to support it.
But I tell you what, now that I and others have shown you what you have asked for, how about you showing us the rules for changing the durations of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a really short time? Or should we take the fact that you haven't as admission that there isn't such a rule?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That certainly isn't my argument so I'm not sure why you want me to support it.
Okay after thinking this over I think I understand what you think I've been saying, but... I can assure you that's not what I've been saying. The duration of the spell it the duration of the spell. It doesn't "become" instantaneous. BUT a spell CAN end early. For all sorts of reasons. Losing concentration is for sure one of those reasons.
No-one has disputed that.
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
No it wasn't. Not mechanically. Do you still not know the difference? The point that has been argued and that you have, at least seemingly, argued against is that RAW, spells only persist during their duration. This example is totally different than the original one.
Similarly, if you cast some other concentration spell, let's say you Bless you party. Bu then 3 rounds later get thwap'd on the head and take damage, and fail the save. The duration of Bless is 1 minute. But it is going to last for 1 minute? No, it only lasted for 3 rounds. Again, descriptive... not mechanical. The spell effect existed for 3 rounds. You're not scratching out the spell duration on your sheet and writing in 3 rounds...
You see the difference?
Both of those examples are irrelevant. The first one has nothing to do with the scenario presented in the first post, the second is just a non sequitur.
But honestly, I'm feeling much like SagaTympana and a lot of other people in this thread. We can only show you the evidence and the facts, we can't force you to understand them or accept them. You have 8 pages of arguments and rules quotes. ST even highlighted the relevant parts for you. If that doesn't help, I'm not sure what would. And since you seem very reluctant to present anything supporting your stance I don't see why I should spend any more time replying to you basically repeating the same thing over and over again.
The only thing they highlighted was a spell card with the duration entry highlighted. That isn't rules text explaining what you claim. Nor is proof of anything.
As I've said, the rules do tell us we can find whether a spell requires concentration to maintain its effect in the spell's duration entry. What they don't say, explicitly do NOT say, is that concentration IS the duration.
I've address this point.
See: "If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry"
Don't see: Concentration is duration
See: "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years."
Don't See: Concentration is duration
Again, if you can't follow common courtesy and read what other people have already written, why should I adher to your demands in any way?
I've taken the time to reread every post you've made here and you have not posted a rules quote that states: concentration is duration. In fact, no one has, because one doesn't exist. You can claim that you posted it, but you haven't. Claiming over and over to have posted something that you haven't posted is the weirdest hill to take a stand on. If it existed, how easy would it be to just post it right now and make me look like a total idiot? It'd be super easy.
You're not doing it because there is no such rule.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You keep quoting me and saying incorrect things when you do so. So I respond and address the inaccuracies.
This for example:
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
No it wasn't. Not mechanically. Do you still not know the difference? The point that has been argued and that you have, at least seemingly, argued against is that RAW, spells only persist during their duration. This example is totally different than the original one.
How is this not virtually the same thing?
The spell itself immediately triggering a loss of concentration on itself the moment it is created. That's a duration spell that only lasts instantaneously.
That is exactly what we have been talking about.
The duration is still 1 minute. It just ends early. Functionally an instantaneous spell. I'm not saying it is an instantaneous spell. I'm saying it is functionally like one. Descriptive. Language. Not. Prescriptive. Language.
That's as relevant an example as you're going to find. I've never argued that the duration changes. I've only argued that the duration ends immediately and the effect is functionally instantaneous. Exactly the way this wall of fire example plays out. Functionally instantaneous.
You parse the spell text. You end the spell effect. No time between these two thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only thing they highlighted was a spell card with the duration entry highlighted. That isn't rules text explaining what you claim. Nor is proof of anything.
As I've said, the rules do tell us we can find whether a spell requires concentration to maintain its effect in the spell's duration entry. What they don't say, explicitly do NOT say, is that concentration IS the duration.
I've address this point.
See: "If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry"
Don't see: Concentration is duration
See: "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years."
Don't See: Concentration is duration
Again, if you can't follow common courtesy and read what other people have already written, why should I adher to your demands in any way?
I've taken the time to reread every post you've made here and you have not posted a rules quote that states: concentration is duration. In fact, no one has, because one doesn't exist. You can claim that you posted it, but you haven't. Claiming over and over to have posted something that you haven't posted is the weirdest hill to take a stand on. If it existed, how easy would it be to just post it right now and make me look like a total idiot? It'd be super easy.
You're not doing it because there is no such rule.
You yourself has aknowledged the relevant rule which is that spells only persists during their duration. Why do you keep lying about this?
You keep quoting me and saying incorrect things when you do so. So I respond and address the inaccuracies.
This for example:
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
No it wasn't. Not mechanically. Do you still not know the difference? The point that has been argued and that you have, at least seemingly, argued against is that RAW, spells only persist during their duration. This example is totally different than the original one.
How is this not virtually the same thing?
Because they are two completely different rules with different mechanics. We've been over this already.
The spell itself immediately triggering a loss of concentration on itself the moment it is created. That's a duration spell that only lasts instantaneously.
That is exactly what we have been talking about.
The duration is still 1 minute. It just ends early. Functionally an instantaneous spell. I'm not saying it is an instantaneous spell. I'm saying it is functionally like one. Descriptive. Language. Not. Prescriptive. Language.
That's as relevant an example as you're going to find. I've never argued that the duration changes. I've only argued that the duration ends immediately and the effect is functionally instantaneous. Exactly the way this wall of fire example plays out. Functionally instantaneous.
You parse the spell text. You end the spell effect. No time between these two thing.
Which is still not the same as the duration changing from C to I. You are simply wrong in your claims.
But again, could you either just show the rules you base your claims on or at least admit that there isn't such a rule? Otherwise I'm just gonna refer back to my latest reply. Unless you can provide us with the relevant text, I'm just going to assume that you don't have anything relevant to bring to this discussion. There, the ball is in your court. Can you provide evidence for your claims or shall we assume that you don't have any?
The only thing they highlighted was a spell card with the duration entry highlighted. That isn't rules text explaining what you claim. Nor is proof of anything.
As I've said, the rules do tell us we can find whether a spell requires concentration to maintain its effect in the spell's duration entry. What they don't say, explicitly do NOT say, is that concentration IS the duration.
I've address this point.
See: "If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry"
Don't see: Concentration is duration
See: "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years."
Don't See: Concentration is duration
Again, if you can't follow common courtesy and read what other people have already written, why should I adher to your demands in any way?
I've taken the time to reread every post you've made here and you have not posted a rules quote that states: concentration is duration. In fact, no one has, because one doesn't exist. You can claim that you posted it, but you haven't. Claiming over and over to have posted something that you haven't posted is the weirdest hill to take a stand on. If it existed, how easy would it be to just post it right now and make me look like a total idiot? It'd be super easy.
You're not doing it because there is no such rule.
You yourself has aknowledged the relevant rule which is that spells only persists during their duration. Why do you keep lying about this?
You keep quoting me and saying incorrect things when you do so. So I respond and address the inaccuracies.
This for example:
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
No it wasn't. Not mechanically. Do you still not know the difference? The point that has been argued and that you have, at least seemingly, argued against is that RAW, spells only persist during their duration. This example is totally different than the original one.
How is this not virtually the same thing?
Because they are two completely different rules with different mechanics. We've been over this already.
The spell itself immediately triggering a loss of concentration on itself the moment it is created. That's a duration spell that only lasts instantaneously.
That is exactly what we have been talking about.
The duration is still 1 minute. It just ends early. Functionally an instantaneous spell. I'm not saying it is an instantaneous spell. I'm saying it is functionally like one. Descriptive. Language. Not. Prescriptive. Language.
That's as relevant an example as you're going to find. I've never argued that the duration changes. I've only argued that the duration ends immediately and the effect is functionally instantaneous. Exactly the way this wall of fire example plays out. Functionally instantaneous.
You parse the spell text. You end the spell effect. No time between these two thing.
Which is still not the same as the duration changing from C to I. You are simply wrong in your claims.
But again, could you either just show the rules you base your claims on or at least admit that there isn't such a rule? Otherwise I'm just gonna refer back to my latest reply. Unless you can provide us with the relevant text, I'm just going to assume that you don't have anything relevant to bring to this discussion. There, the ball is in your court. Can you provide evidence for your claims or shall we assume that you don't have any?
Multiple people have quoted multiple relevant rules. They don't need to "change the duration of the spell" for these other rules to work in the way suggested, so repeatedly calling for them to do so is of no relevance.
I suggest you look back through this thread. There are several parts supporting the alternative reading of the rules which haven't been sufficiently addressed by either you or anyone else. You have not come even close to completely disproving the alternative viewpoint, just as nobody has come close to completely disproving yours.
This is because both viewpoints are valid and the rules are not sufficiently clear. There are 2 ways to read the rules, both of which are legitimate interpretations of RAW. This is completely understandable, seeing as there is no official way to trigger a situation in which concentration is impossible but spellcasting is still possible. Therefore, I suspect the designers never thought it necessary to clarify something which could never come up in a game... Except through a homebrew effect, which would need to make this clarification itself.
Now, can we please move on? There are now 8 pages of theoretical discussion with neither side being convinced by the other, mostly not even listening to the other.
The only thing they highlighted was a spell card with the duration entry highlighted. That isn't rules text explaining what you claim. Nor is proof of anything.
As I've said, the rules do tell us we can find whether a spell requires concentration to maintain its effect in the spell's duration entry. What they don't say, explicitly do NOT say, is that concentration IS the duration.
I've address this point.
See: "If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry"
Don't see: Concentration is duration
See: "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years."
Don't See: Concentration is duration
Again, if you can't follow common courtesy and read what other people have already written, why should I adher to your demands in any way?
I've taken the time to reread every post you've made here and you have not posted a rules quote that states: concentration is duration. In fact, no one has, because one doesn't exist. You can claim that you posted it, but you haven't. Claiming over and over to have posted something that you haven't posted is the weirdest hill to take a stand on. If it existed, how easy would it be to just post it right now and make me look like a total idiot? It'd be super easy.
You're not doing it because there is no such rule.
You yourself has aknowledged the relevant rule which is that spells only persists during their duration. Why do you keep lying about this?
You keep quoting me and saying incorrect things when you do so. So I respond and address the inaccuracies.
This for example:
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
No it wasn't. Not mechanically. Do you still not know the difference? The point that has been argued and that you have, at least seemingly, argued against is that RAW, spells only persist during their duration. This example is totally different than the original one.
How is this not virtually the same thing?
Because they are two completely different rules with different mechanics. We've been over this already.
The spell itself immediately triggering a loss of concentration on itself the moment it is created. That's a duration spell that only lasts instantaneously.
That is exactly what we have been talking about.
The duration is still 1 minute. It just ends early. Functionally an instantaneous spell. I'm not saying it is an instantaneous spell. I'm saying it is functionally like one. Descriptive. Language. Not. Prescriptive. Language.
That's as relevant an example as you're going to find. I've never argued that the duration changes. I've only argued that the duration ends immediately and the effect is functionally instantaneous. Exactly the way this wall of fire example plays out. Functionally instantaneous.
You parse the spell text. You end the spell effect. No time between these two thing.
Which is still not the same as the duration changing from C to I. You are simply wrong in your claims.
But again, could you either just show the rules you base your claims on or at least admit that there isn't such a rule? Otherwise I'm just gonna refer back to my latest reply. Unless you can provide us with the relevant text, I'm just going to assume that you don't have anything relevant to bring to this discussion. There, the ball is in your court. Can you provide evidence for your claims or shall we assume that you don't have any?
Multiple people have quoted multiple relevant rules. They don't need to "change the duration of the spell" for these other rules to work in the way suggested, so repeatedly calling for them to do so is of no relevance.
I suggest you look back through this thread. There are several parts supporting the alternative reading of the rules which haven't been sufficiently addressed by either you or anyone else. You have not come even close to completely disproving the alternative viewpoint, just as nobody has come close to completely disproving yours.
Except that I'm not talking about interpretations, I'm talking about RAW. That's the difference.
This is because both viewpoints are valid and the rules are not sufficiently clear. There are 2 ways to read the rules, both of which are legitimate interpretations of RAW. This is completely understandable, seeing as there is no official way to trigger a situation in which concentration is impossible but spellcasting is still possible. Therefore, I suspect the designers never thought it necessary to clarify something which could never come up in a game... Except through a homebrew effect, which would need to make this clarification itself.
Now, can we please move on? There are now 8 pages of theoretical discussion with neither side being convinced by the other, mostly not even listening to the other.
Absolutely, I'd love to move on. Especially since Rav doesn't seem to be able to provide the asked for evidence. Let's see if they can move on as well or if they'll just repeat themself. :)
The only thing they highlighted was a spell card with the duration entry highlighted. That isn't rules text explaining what you claim. Nor is proof of anything.
As I've said, the rules do tell us we can find whether a spell requires concentration to maintain its effect in the spell's duration entry. What they don't say, explicitly do NOT say, is that concentration IS the duration.
I've address this point.
See: "If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry"
Don't see: Concentration is duration
See: "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years."
Don't See: Concentration is duration
Again, if you can't follow common courtesy and read what other people have already written, why should I adher to your demands in any way?
I've taken the time to reread every post you've made here and you have not posted a rules quote that states: concentration is duration. In fact, no one has, because one doesn't exist. You can claim that you posted it, but you haven't. Claiming over and over to have posted something that you haven't posted is the weirdest hill to take a stand on. If it existed, how easy would it be to just post it right now and make me look like a total idiot? It'd be super easy.
You're not doing it because there is no such rule.
You yourself has aknowledged the relevant rule which is that spells only persists during their duration. Why do you keep lying about this?
You keep quoting me and saying incorrect things when you do so. So I respond and address the inaccuracies.
This for example:
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
No it wasn't. Not mechanically. Do you still not know the difference? The point that has been argued and that you have, at least seemingly, argued against is that RAW, spells only persist during their duration. This example is totally different than the original one.
How is this not virtually the same thing?
Because they are two completely different rules with different mechanics. We've been over this already.
The spell itself immediately triggering a loss of concentration on itself the moment it is created. That's a duration spell that only lasts instantaneously.
That is exactly what we have been talking about.
The duration is still 1 minute. It just ends early. Functionally an instantaneous spell. I'm not saying it is an instantaneous spell. I'm saying it is functionally like one. Descriptive. Language. Not. Prescriptive. Language.
That's as relevant an example as you're going to find. I've never argued that the duration changes. I've only argued that the duration ends immediately and the effect is functionally instantaneous. Exactly the way this wall of fire example plays out. Functionally instantaneous.
You parse the spell text. You end the spell effect. No time between these two thing.
Which is still not the same as the duration changing from C to I. You are simply wrong in your claims.
But again, could you either just show the rules you base your claims on or at least admit that there isn't such a rule? Otherwise I'm just gonna refer back to my latest reply. Unless you can provide us with the relevant text, I'm just going to assume that you don't have anything relevant to bring to this discussion. There, the ball is in your court. Can you provide evidence for your claims or shall we assume that you don't have any?
Multiple people have quoted multiple relevant rules. They don't need to "change the duration of the spell" for these other rules to work in the way suggested, so repeatedly calling for them to do so is of no relevance.
I suggest you look back through this thread. There are several parts supporting the alternative reading of the rules which haven't been sufficiently addressed by either you or anyone else. You have not come even close to completely disproving the alternative viewpoint, just as nobody has come close to completely disproving yours.
Except that I'm not talking about interpretations, I'm talking about RAW. That's the difference.
This is because both viewpoints are valid and the rules are not sufficiently clear. There are 2 ways to read the rules, both of which are legitimate interpretations of RAW. This is completely understandable, seeing as there is no official way to trigger a situation in which concentration is impossible but spellcasting is still possible. Therefore, I suspect the designers never thought it necessary to clarify something which could never come up in a game... Except through a homebrew effect, which would need to make this clarification itself.
Now, can we please move on? There are now 8 pages of theoretical discussion with neither side being convinced by the other, mostly not even listening to the other.
Absolutely, I'd love to move on. Especially since Rav doesn't seem to be able to provide the asked for evidence. Let's see if they can move on as well or if they'll just repeat themself. :)
You say this as if him being unable or unwilling to provide what you ask will mean you "win". You are doggedly hanging on to your own interpretation, demanding that it be refuted, when it doesn't need to be. Your interpretation is valid, but so is the alternative.
You also put down someone else for repeating themselves, when pretty much all you have done for at least the past couple of pages is repeat your demands for the same irrelevant information.
There is no winner here, nobody can win here, except by backing down same recognising that there is no way to win.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this topic now, as I fully expect that my advice will not be taken. Instead, I expect there will be several more pages of "yes it is", "no it isn't" with neither side taking any notice of anything the other has to say.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They replied after 3 days and essentially said "Nu-uh you wrong, book says so"
That's the post you're saying isn't vague?? Please.
Yeah, the rules tell us that if a spell requires concentration that it'll be annotating that fact in the duration section of the spell's entry. It DOESN'T say that concentration IS the duration. Ever. Anywhere. Ever. Like, really, never.
It is. Especially when it says "A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years." You just quoted it. You keep quoting it without reading it. It's very simple.
The duration, is, the: round. minutes. hours. or years.
That is the duration. Super simple. You've quoted it yourself. You know full well that is what "the book" says, and it isn't vague about it.
Quote where it says that the duration IS concentration? Can't do it, because it never says it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Okay buddy, I give up. You are deliberately ignoring black and white text that I highlighted for you for the sake of stirring up trouble, and I’m not participating anymore. I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you want to troll, troll someone else.
Why do you feel the need to lie all the time? If you read my posts in this trhead you will see that I have made numerous references to rules and even page numbers. As for having a life outside of this forum that prevents me from posting replies as soon as you comment, I don't know, sorry?
It's honestly quite amazing that you have the rules right in front of you and you still deny them. But hey, as soon as you can show us the rules that changes "duration: concentration" to "duration: instantenous" I will be the first to admit that you are correct.
I can see why you'd think this. I would point out, though, that you have also deliberately ignored black and white text.
The only thing which is clear on this whole thing is that none of our is clear. There are 2 perfectly valid but contradictory readings of the rules. Everyone who is saying that there is one and only one valid readings is ignoring or dismissing some part of the written rules. Confirmation bias is also playing a large role.
So, I'm not going to get back into this argument itself (there are already 7 pages of arguments about a situation which can only exist by a homebrew effect), but I would caution you to carefully examine both sides of the argument with an open mind before calling someone who disagrees with you a troll.
You wrote, out of the blue, after 3 days:
"Well, you are still wrong even if you don't care to admit it. If the actually text in the book is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is."
No context. No elaboration. No quotes or arguments. Just...
...
...
...
Like why? How am I lying by pointing out that's unhelpful???
Quote, once, just once, a rule that actually says Concentration IS duration.
I dare any of you.
One quote from any book.
You can't because you're wrong.
It isn't. And you can flip out and make all the claims you want, that "I'm" ignoring the rules.
But at least I'm not making up shit that isn't in the books and pretending it is. Your emperor has no clothes, don't get mad at me for pointing it out.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
As with others, I am confounded how you can read a spell description, that states in plain English, Duration: Concentration, up to x minutes, then ask someone to show you where that very text is. Really? Everyone HAS shown you and you still can't see it. The duration is the concentration time because it's "up to" which tells you that the spell ends when concentration ends OR X minutes, whichever comes first.
7 bloody pages. wow.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The rules for the duration of spells are very clear. There is a very clear mechanical distinction between duration "concentration" and duration "instantenous". If that difference have any practical effect on what happens if you only concentrate for an instant is a completely different matter but RAW, the distinction is clear.
As for the actual situation in the OP you are absolutely right in that it basically comes down to DM's choice.
Not sure what the fact that I spend my time on other things than just hanging around an internet forum has to do with anything...
Well, we can, and we have. SagaTympana even highlighted the important bits for you. I think the emperor you are looking at might be your own reflection...
But I tell you what, now that I and others have shown you what you have asked for, how about you showing us the rules for changing the durations of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a really short time? Or should we take the fact that you haven't as admission that there isn't such a rule?
Because the rules don't say that is the duration. You're just assuming it is.
What the actual rules are:
This doesn't say that the duration IS concentration. Only that if the spell requires concentration it'll be noted in the spell's duration entry.
The thing everyone points to as "proof it is duration" isn't proof it is duration. This is the rule that tells us we can find concentration there, and this rule nowhere, at all, ever, says it IS duration.
Duration is:
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah I've since chatted with him and he was doing a continuous version of:
But agreed it'd be easier to adjudicate if this check was just made more like a Sleet Storm effect such as:
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Saying you have quoted it and actually quoting it are two different things...
Just, quote it.
Aren't doing it now. Curious.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That certainly isn't my argument so I'm not sure why you want me to support it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Okay after thinking this over I think I understand what you think I've been saying, but... I can assure you that's not what I've been saying. The duration of the spell it the duration of the spell. It doesn't "become" instantaneous. BUT a spell CAN end early. For all sorts of reasons. Losing concentration is for sure one of those reasons.
Hmm, let's see. What's a good example... Wall of Fire.
Let's say, hypothetically, your spellcaster is really bad at spacial awareness and plops the wall down and he himself is in the area of effect. Let's also assume he'll fail the concentration check and save.
How would you adjudicate the spell?
Well, the duration is 1 minute, and it requires concentration. Will it last the whole duration?
No. No it won't.
Because immediately when it appears it deals damage, and the caster takes that damage and fails his concentration check, losing the spell
So, the effect only existed instantaneously. This is descriptive, not mechanical. You don't cross out the spell duration and write in Instantaneous. But is was instantaneous.
Similarly, if you cast some other concentration spell, let's say you Bless you party. Bu then 3 rounds later get thwap'd on the head and take damage, and fail the save. The duration of Bless is 1 minute. But it is going to last for 1 minute? No, it only lasted for 3 rounds. Again, descriptive... not mechanical. The spell effect existed for 3 rounds. You're not scratching out the spell duration on your sheet and writing in 3 rounds...
You see the difference?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A beam of crackling, blue energy lances out toward a creature within range, forming a sustained arc of lightning between you and the target. Make a ranged spell attack against that creature.On a hit, the target takes 1d12 lightning damage, and on each of your turns for the duration, you can use your action to deal 1d12 lightning damage to the target automatically. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. The spell also ends if the target is ever outside the spell’s range or if it has total cover from you.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the initial damage increases by 1d12 for each slot level above 1st.
* - (a twig from a tree that has been struck by lightning)Except I haven't just said it, I actually have. That you can't be bothered to read what other people write doesn't change that.
Again, if you can't follow common courtesy and read what other people have already written, why should I adher to your demands in any way? Especially since you can't do the smae thing that you demand of others.
Who's doing what now?
So why are you even arguing?
No-one has disputed that.
No it wasn't. Not mechanically. Do you still not know the difference? The point that has been argued and that you have, at least seemingly, argued against is that RAW, spells only persist during their duration. This example is totally different than the original one.
Both of those examples are irrelevant. The first one has nothing to do with the scenario presented in the first post, the second is just a non sequitur.
But honestly, I'm feeling much like SagaTympana and a lot of other people in this thread. We can only show you the evidence and the facts, we can't force you to understand them or accept them. You have 8 pages of arguments and rules quotes. ST even highlighted the relevant parts for you. If that doesn't help, I'm not sure what would. And since you seem very reluctant to present anything supporting your stance I don't see why I should spend any more time replying to you basically repeating the same thing over and over again.
Take care, have fun.
The only thing they highlighted was a spell card with the duration entry highlighted. That isn't rules text explaining what you claim. Nor is proof of anything.
As I've said, the rules do tell us we can find whether a spell requires concentration to maintain its effect in the spell's duration entry. What they don't say, explicitly do NOT say, is that concentration IS the duration.
I've taken the time to reread every post you've made here and you have not posted a rules quote that states: concentration is duration. In fact, no one has, because one doesn't exist. You can claim that you posted it, but you haven't. Claiming over and over to have posted something that you haven't posted is the weirdest hill to take a stand on. If it existed, how easy would it be to just post it right now and make me look like a total idiot? It'd be super easy.
You're not doing it because there is no such rule.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You keep quoting me and saying incorrect things when you do so. So I respond and address the inaccuracies.
This for example:
How is this not virtually the same thing?
The spell itself immediately triggering a loss of concentration on itself the moment it is created. That's a duration spell that only lasts instantaneously.
That is exactly what we have been talking about.
The duration is still 1 minute. It just ends early. Functionally an instantaneous spell. I'm not saying it is an instantaneous spell. I'm saying it is functionally like one. Descriptive. Language. Not. Prescriptive. Language.
That's as relevant an example as you're going to find. I've never argued that the duration changes. I've only argued that the duration ends immediately and the effect is functionally instantaneous. Exactly the way this wall of fire example plays out. Functionally instantaneous.
You parse the spell text. You end the spell effect. No time between these two thing.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You yourself has aknowledged the relevant rule which is that spells only persists during their duration. Why do you keep lying about this?
Because they are two completely different rules with different mechanics. We've been over this already.
Which is still not the same as the duration changing from C to I. You are simply wrong in your claims.
But again, could you either just show the rules you base your claims on or at least admit that there isn't such a rule? Otherwise I'm just gonna refer back to my latest reply. Unless you can provide us with the relevant text, I'm just going to assume that you don't have anything relevant to bring to this discussion. There, the ball is in your court. Can you provide evidence for your claims or shall we assume that you don't have any?
Multiple people have quoted multiple relevant rules. They don't need to "change the duration of the spell" for these other rules to work in the way suggested, so repeatedly calling for them to do so is of no relevance.
I suggest you look back through this thread. There are several parts supporting the alternative reading of the rules which haven't been sufficiently addressed by either you or anyone else. You have not come even close to completely disproving the alternative viewpoint, just as nobody has come close to completely disproving yours.
This is because both viewpoints are valid and the rules are not sufficiently clear. There are 2 ways to read the rules, both of which are legitimate interpretations of RAW. This is completely understandable, seeing as there is no official way to trigger a situation in which concentration is impossible but spellcasting is still possible. Therefore, I suspect the designers never thought it necessary to clarify something which could never come up in a game... Except through a homebrew effect, which would need to make this clarification itself.
Now, can we please move on? There are now 8 pages of theoretical discussion with neither side being convinced by the other, mostly not even listening to the other.
Except that I'm not talking about interpretations, I'm talking about RAW. That's the difference.
Absolutely, I'd love to move on. Especially since Rav doesn't seem to be able to provide the asked for evidence. Let's see if they can move on as well or if they'll just repeat themself. :)
You say this as if him being unable or unwilling to provide what you ask will mean you "win". You are doggedly hanging on to your own interpretation, demanding that it be refuted, when it doesn't need to be. Your interpretation is valid, but so is the alternative.
You also put down someone else for repeating themselves, when pretty much all you have done for at least the past couple of pages is repeat your demands for the same irrelevant information.
There is no winner here, nobody can win here, except by backing down same recognising that there is no way to win.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this topic now, as I fully expect that my advice will not be taken. Instead, I expect there will be several more pages of "yes it is", "no it isn't" with neither side taking any notice of anything the other has to say.