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?
I have no idea what you mean with this. Of course spells only persist for their duration.
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?
I've never claimed you change the duration. Your insistence that that is my stance is just weird bro. The duration is the duration. But, spells don't always last their full duration. The spell would only persist for an instant because its requisite concentration isn't provided to maintain it for its duration. All of this is RAW. I'm not even sure you know what you disagree with you're just disagreeing.
It works exactly the same as a spellcaster interrupting their concentration with the casting of the concentration spell. No concentration: It only lasted for a split second, an instant.
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.
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.
I understand what they're saying. That if: Concentration is duration, then if concentration is impossible there is no duration.
I've said as much since page one. This would be a NULL response. No valid answer. Missing entry. Not even a zero, null.
If that were the case, and Concentration IS the duration, then the spell would simply fail if you were unable to provide concentration entirely.
I understand their argument perfectly. It is perfectly valid ifconcentration is theduration.
But...
Here's the catch. The rules don't ever, strictly speaking, ever say that concentration is duration. Their entire argument revolves around this fact being True but, yet, it isn't ever stated as much in the rules that it is true. That's why I keep coming back to it. Their argument is true if this is true.
But I can't find a single things that says Concentration IS duration. Instead, it explicitly doesn't say that. It seems to go out of its way to not say that. It says duration is: round/minute/hour etc. It says that concentration is required to maintain a spell to its full duration. But it always stops short of ever saying that concentration IS the duration.
And because of this, their argument is false. I see how close to true it is, it is very close, and based on sound reasoning up until this one central missing element. So unless concentration IS duration, it remains false.
So it really just depends on if you believe rules are the things printed in the handbook or if you think the rules are assumptions you've made along the way.
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.
All I can do is LOL at the absurdity of this thread, really. The spell description shows the duration to be tied to concentration. EVERY single mechanic surrounding a concentration spell shows the direct link between the 2 yet he still trolls people by pretending to not understand and argue that the rule as written isn't valid, because "concentration" the word, isn't listed in a section describing duration.
Since I don't actually believe anyone could be quite that thick and still manage to remeber to breathe, I will let him keep trolling y'all and move along. Won't unsubscribe. as it's funny to read. Enjoy.
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 spell description shows the duration to be tied to concentration.
Yes
EVERY single mechanic surrounding a concentration spell shows the direct link between the 2
Yes
pretending to not understand and argue that the rule as written isn't valid, because "concentration" the word, isn't listed in a section describing duration.
Rules are either written in the book or they're not rules. You may have homebrewed it this way or held a misunderstanding for so long you're surprised and taken aback, even in disbelief that you could possibly have invented something like this. But here we are, with people all fever dreaming the same thing.
Since I don't actually believe anyone could be quite that thick and still manage to remeber to breathe, I will let him keep trolling y'all and move along.
Thick because I only use rules if they're printed in the rule books?
Won't unsubscribe. as it's funny to read. Enjoy.
Happy to have you! One more set of eyes looking for the mythical text that tells us concentration is duration.
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.
Rav, I don't think I've weighed in on this specific debate, but here's my two cents: The rules for Concentration (under the Duration section of spellcasting) say:
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).
(bolded emphasis mine)
If the time listed in the duration for concentration spells is the specified max time "you can concentrate on it", then the duration is in fact concentration, because the duration of the spell is always the time you spend concentrating (with concentration ending naturally at the max time). the spell isn't ending due to the expiration of its duration, it is ending because you can no longer concentrate on that spell.
This is backed up in the actual text (in the actual book, not the D&D Beyond tools) for each concentration spell, which reads as follows (in this case for alter self)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
in full format, that translates to: The duration is concentration, up to 1 hour. Grammatically, there is no other way to write it out where the shorthand version would skip "concentration" and specify the object as the time (the time is a modifier in the above sentence rather than the object). For that to be true, the above would have to read: Duration: 1 hour (concentration), or Duration: 1 hour, maintained by concentration. Both of those would place concentration as the modifier, and 1 hour as the object. But as that is not the case, the grammar supports the rule text I quoted above that spells out that concentration spell duration is concentration, and the time is only the maximum amount of time you can hold concentration.
Rav, I don't think I've weighed in on this specific debate, but here's my two cents: The rules for Concentration (under the Duration section of spellcasting) say:
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).
(bolded emphasis mine)
If the time listed in the duration for concentration spells is the specified max time "you can concentrate on it", then the duration is in fact concentration, because the duration of the spell is always the time you spend concentrating (with concentration ending naturally at the max time). the spell isn't ending due to the expiration of its duration, it is ending because you can no longer concentrate on that spell.
This is backed up in the actual text (in the actual book, not the D&D Beyond tools) for each concentration spell, which reads as follows (in this case for alter self)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
in full format, that translates to: The duration is concentration, up to 1 hour. Grammatically, there is no other way to write it out where the shorthand version would skip "concentration" and specify the object as the time (the time is a modifier in the above sentence rather than the object). For that to be true, the above would have to read: Duration: 1 hour (concentration), or Duration: 1 hour, maintained by concentration. Both of those would place concentration as the modifier, and 1 hour as the object. But as that is not the case, the grammar supports the rule text I quoted above that spells out that concentration spell duration is concentration, and the time is only the maximum amount of time you can hold concentration.
I 100% understand you, and thank you for writing it out neatly and concisely. But I'm not going to be convinced by this line of reasoning, its been tried. I do understand the appeal of seeing the spell entry and just assuming that concentration is duration. But I'm convinced the rules don't work in that order, and that that it is a backwards approach. See, the rules text should tell us what something like the duration entry is and means, and those rules text explanations are law. All of the other Spell entry headers do this. All of them do. But... for concentration there simply isn't anything that says it is a valid "duration" in the Spellcasting section of the rules. Without that: It isn't a rule.
Level:
Spell Level
Every spell has a level from 0 to 9... ...Cantrips -- simple but powerful spells that characters can cast almost by rote -- are level 0.
Casting Time:
Casting Time
Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.
Range:
Range
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Components:
Components
A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components.
Duration:
missing any statement that concentration is a duration
School:
THE SCHOOLS OF MAGIC
Academies of magic group spells into eight categories called schools of magic. Scholars, particularly wizards, apply these categories to all spells, believing that all magic functions in essentially the same way, whether it derives from rigorous study or is bestowed by a deity.
The schools of magic help describe spells; they have no rules of their own, although some rules refer to the schools.
Abjuration spells are protective in nature, though some of them have aggressive uses. They create magical barriers, negate harmful effects, harm trespassers, or banish creatures to other planes of existence.
Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster's side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.
Divination spells reveal information, whether in the form of secrets long forgotten, glimpses of the future, the locations of hidden things, the truth behind illusions, or visions of distant people or places.
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds.
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.
Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life.
Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.
Transmutation spells change the properties of a creature, object, or environment. They might turn an enemy into a harmless creature, bolster the strength of an ally, make an object move at the caster's command, or enhance a creature's innate healing abilities to rapidly recover from injury.
Attack/Save:
Saving Throws
Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
Bonus: Area of Effect
Areas of Effect
A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere.
...
Like, how can you read all these RULES and then see an absence of a similar rule for "Concentration=Duration" and think... YOLO still counts?
If the rules don't say it is, then it isn't. They went OUT of their way to avoid saying. Reread this again and tell me it wouldn't have been easier to simply say concentration is a duration than all this mess....
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
Concentration
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).
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
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.
They really go out of their way here with concentration, to explicitly NOT call it duration.
Why, in all of the various Spell Entry sections of the spellcasting section is this the one time they explicitly avoid calling it the thing it is associated with?
All that the rule says about concentration is that is required it'll be annotated in the duration entry. Not that it is duration. The rules make this distinction.
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?
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".
Not at all. I am asking because if one side doesn't provide any support for there claims, there really is no discussion. They're just making stuff up.
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.
No interpretation, RAW. There's a difference. Even when I do present my interpretations, it is based on the RAW and not just made up.
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.
It's not to "put down" someone by asking them to back up their claims. I would, of course, stop repeating the question if the question was actually answered. Which it has yet to be. Quite simple.
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.
Yeah. I'm getting pretty bored of Rav not providing anything to back up his claims as well. The last few replies shows that they really don't have anything to bring to the discussion...
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".
Not at all. I am asking because if one side doesn't provide any support for there claims, there really is no discussion. They're just making stuff up.
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.
No interpretation, RAW. There's a difference. Even when I do present my interpretations, it is based on the RAW and not just made up.
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.
It's not to "put down" someone by asking them to back up their claims. I would, of course, stop repeating the question if the question was actually answered. Which it has yet to be. Quite simple.
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.
Yeah. I'm getting pretty bored of Rav not providing anything to back up his claims as well. The last few replies shows that they really don't have anything to bring to the discussion...
Cheers!
I really didn't want to be dragged back into this but:
"No interpretation, RAW. There's a difference.'
5e is written in natural language, which means there will sometimes be more than one way to read it. I have stated this several times, but you refuse to accept that any reading of the written rules is RAW except your own, doggedly insisting that nobody else can possibly be correct even with many pages of explanation. You have not refuted the arguments of others, many of which directly reference the rules.
Were I to follow your logic, I would now be calling you a troll. I'm not, I understand that you are stuck in a confirmation bias loop where you cannot see the validity of others' arguments.
Not at all. I am asking because if one side doesn't provide any support for there claims, there really is no discussion. They're just making stuff up.
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.
No interpretation, RAW. There's a difference. Even when I do present my interpretations, it is based on the RAW and not just made up.
You haven't quoted or referenced rules text. ALL you have is baseless claims and speculation, it isn't even qualified to be called interpretation at this point. Other people have bothered to make intelligible arguments however.
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.
It's not to "put down" someone by asking them to back up their claims. I would, of course, stop repeating the question if the question was actually answered. Which it has yet to be. Quite simple.
You're not even asking a question. You can't be repeating a question when you're not even asking one.
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.
Yeah. I'm getting pretty bored of Rav not providing anything to back up his claims as well. The last few replies shows that they really don't have anything to bring to the discussion...
Cheers!
Address my last post then.
Spellcasting rules tell you what the Spell Entries mean, not the other way around.
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.
Like, how can you read all these RULES and then see an absence of a similar rule for "Concentration=Duration" and think... YOLO still counts?
If the rules don't say it is, then it isn't. They went OUT of their way to avoid saying. Reread this again and tell me it wouldn't have been easier to simply say concentration is a duration than all this mess....
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
Concentration
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).
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
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.
They really go out of their way here with concentration, to explicitly NOT call it duration.
Why, in all of the various Spell Entry sections of the spellcasting section is this the one time they explicitly avoid calling it the thing it is associated with?
All that the rule says about concentration is that is required it'll be annotated in the duration entry. Not that it is duration. The rules make this distinction.
The rules do say it though, when describing "special cases" which include the subheadings of instantaneous spells and Concentration spells. And you wanting it to say it explicitly woul actually exempt other durations from validity as well. See below (broken down)
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
The red is the actual definition of duration. The remaining text here is explanatory for the most common examples of how this is addressed. Note that the word "can" is not exclusive. "can only" would be. just because other durations (and kinds of durations) are not listed does not mean they are not valid. Some spells list durations of days, are those invalid because they aren't listed?. Next the "special cases" are listed, each with its own subheading.
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
This is the first "special case", special because the time is too short to be measured in standard game units (the shortest of which is a round of 6 seconds). Note that it is given equal formatting to concentration below. Note that the text does not specifically say that "the duration of some spells are instantaneous" which seems to be a requirement of yours for concentration. You are using a double standard here to say one is valid and the other not despite neither explicitly stating what you want it to state.
Concentration
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).
Concentration is given the same formatted heading as Instantaneous. This is a conscious decision to give them both the same standing as possible durations. If "Instantaneous" is a duration, then it can be inferred that "concentration" is too. If you say "concentration" isn't, then neither is "instantaneous". The bolded and red text is the statement that says concentration is a duration. It states that concentration appears in the duration entry (as does Instantaneous, and any other "standard" time), and that the referenced time is the maximum time you can concentrate. In no case does it say that time is the duration, it explicitly says it is the maximum concentration time. If there is no time separate from concentration, then the only duration listed for those spells is concentration
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
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.
The rest of this is explanatory for how concentration works and ends.
I know it is hard to admit you are wrong when you have invested so much effort in proving you are right, but by plain english, grammar, and formatting you are wrong here. This will be my last response to your opinion. I can't change your mind for you, but hopefully for others that read this thread they will understand which interpretation is correct.
Like, how can you read all these RULES and then see an absence of a similar rule for "Concentration=Duration" and think... YOLO still counts?
If the rules don't say it is, then it isn't. They went OUT of their way to avoid saying. Reread this again and tell me it wouldn't have been easier to simply say concentration is a duration than all this mess....
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
Concentration
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).
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
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.
They really go out of their way here with concentration, to explicitly NOT call it duration.
Why, in all of the various Spell Entry sections of the spellcasting section is this the one time they explicitly avoid calling it the thing it is associated with?
All that the rule says about concentration is that is required it'll be annotated in the duration entry. Not that it is duration. The rules make this distinction.
The rules do say it though, when describing "special cases" which include the subheadings of instantaneous spells and Concentration spells. And you wanting it to say it explicitly woul actually exempt other durations from validity as well. See below (broken down)
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
The red is the actual definition of duration. The remaining text here is explanatory for the most common examples of how this is addressed. Note that the word "can" is not exclusive. "can only" would be. just because other durations (and kinds of durations) are not listed does not mean they are not valid. Some spells list durations of days, are those invalid because they aren't listed?. Next the "special cases" are listed, each with its own subheading.
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
This is the first "special case", special because the time is too short to be measured in standard game units (the shortest of which is a round of 6 seconds). Note that it is given equal formatting to concentration below. Note that the text does not specifically say that "the duration of some spells are instantaneous" which seems to be a requirement of yours for concentration. You are using a double standard here to say one is valid and the other not despite neither explicitly stating what you want it to state.
Concentration
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).
Concentration is given the same formatted heading as Instantaneous. This is a conscious decision to give them both the same standing as possible durations. If "Instantaneous" is a duration, then it can be inferred that "concentration" is too. If you say "concentration" isn't, then neither is "instantaneous". The bolded and red text is the statement that says concentration is a duration. It states that concentration appears in the duration entry (as does Instantaneous, and any other "standard" time), and that the referenced time is the maximum time you can concentrate. In no case does it say that time is the duration, it explicitly says it is the maximum concentration time. If there is no time separate from concentration, then the only duration listed for those spells is concentration
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
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.
The rest of this is explanatory for how concentration works and ends.
I know it is hard to admit you are wrong when you have invested so much effort in proving you are right, but by plain english, grammar, and formatting you are wrong here. This will be my last response to your opinion. I can't change your mind for you, but hopefully for others that read this thread they will understand which interpretation is correct.
You are still missing an explanation which fits with the description of Concentration, which has been mentioned several times and never adequately addressed:
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active.
If concentration is required to keep the magic active, this strongly implies that the magic is already active when you start concentrating. It certainly never says that concentration is required for the magic to become active.
It is therefore, IMHO, a perfectly valid reading that the magic activates whether you are able to concentrate or not. If there are any effects (as described in the spell description) which occur immediately, just because the spell has become active, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that these effects would occur. However, that magic cannot continue beyond that first instant, because it requires that you "maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active". So, after that first "instantaneous" activation (used in plain English meaning, not as a reference to the duration special case or "changing duration", before certain others try to demand rules which are not necessary), the magic cannot stay active, but it did become active on casting.
Note also that there are so many places where the rules are worded very awkwardly, and a much more natural wording would make this very clear. It's as though the writers were specifically trying to avoid saying that concentration was required to begin casting or to activate the magic. This has the potential to speak to RAI as well as being a reasonable reading of RAW.
All of which has dragged me back into a debate about something which cannot happen by RAW with any official content, to repeat once again: There are (at least) 2 valid ways to read the rules on this, and it is down to the DM to make a call on which one he believes to apply to the homebrew situation in which this occurs. Given it would have to be a homebrew effect anyway, the DM just needs to decide how he wants it to work.
Like, how can you read all these RULES and then see an absence of a similar rule for "Concentration=Duration" and think... YOLO still counts?
If the rules don't say it is, then it isn't. They went OUT of their way to avoid saying. Reread this again and tell me it wouldn't have been easier to simply say concentration is a duration than all this mess....
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
Concentration
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).
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
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.
They really go out of their way here with concentration, to explicitly NOT call it duration.
Why, in all of the various Spell Entry sections of the spellcasting section is this the one time they explicitly avoid calling it the thing it is associated with?
All that the rule says about concentration is that is required it'll be annotated in the duration entry. Not that it is duration. The rules make this distinction.
The rules do say it though, when describing "special cases" which include the subheadings of instantaneous spells and Concentration spells. And you wanting it to say it explicitly woul actually exempt other durations from validity as well. See below (broken down)
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
The red is the actual definition of duration. The remaining text here is explanatory for the most common examples of how this is addressed. Note that the word "can" is not exclusive. "can only" would be. just because other durations (and kinds of durations) are not listed does not mean they are not valid. Some spells list durations of days, are those invalid because they aren't listed?. Next the "special cases" are listed, each with its own subheading.
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
This is the first "special case", special because the time is too short to be measured in standard game units (the shortest of which is a round of 6 seconds). Note that it is given equal formatting to concentration below. Note that the text does not specifically say that "the duration of some spells are instantaneous" which seems to be a requirement of yours for concentration. You are using a double standard here to say one is valid and the other not despite neither explicitly stating what you want it to state.
Concentration
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).
Concentration is given the same formatted heading as Instantaneous. This is a conscious decision to give them both the same standing as possible durations. If "Instantaneous" is a duration, then it can be inferred that "concentration" is too. If you say "concentration" isn't, then neither is "instantaneous". The bolded and red text is the statement that says concentration is a duration. It states that concentration appears in the duration entry (as does Instantaneous, and any other "standard" time), and that the referenced time is the maximum time you can concentrate. In no case does it say that time is the duration, it explicitly says it is the maximum concentration time. If there is no time separate from concentration, then the only duration listed for those spells is concentration
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
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.
The rest of this is explanatory for how concentration works and ends.
I know it is hard to admit you are wrong when you have invested so much effort in proving you are right, but by plain english, grammar, and formatting you are wrong here. This will be my last response to your opinion. I can't change your mind for you, but hopefully for others that read this thread they will understand which interpretation is correct.
You are still missing an explanation which fits with the description of Concentration, which has been mentioned several times and never adequately addressed:
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active.
If concentration is required to keep the magic active, this strongly implies that the magic is already active when you start concentrating. It certainly never says that concentration is required for the magic to become active.
It is therefore, IMHO, a perfectly valid reading that the magic activates whether you are able to concentrate or not. If there are any effects (as described in the spell description) which occur immediately, just because the spell has become active, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that these effects would occur. However, that magic cannot continue beyond that first instant, because it requires that you "maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active". So, after that first "instantaneous" activation (used in plain English meaning, not as a reference to the duration special case or "changing duration", before certain others try to demand rules which are not necessary), the magic cannot stay active, but it did become active on casting.
Note also that there are so many places where the rules are worded very awkwardly, and a much more natural wording would make this very clear. It's as though the writers were specifically trying to avoid saying that concentration was required to begin casting or to activate the magic. This has the potential to speak to RAI as well as being a reasonable reading of RAW.
All of which has dragged me back into a debate about something which cannot happen by RAW with any official content, to repeat once again: There are (at least) 2 valid ways to read the rules on this, and it is down to the DM to make a call on which one he believes to apply to the homebrew situation in which this occurs. Given it would have to be a homebrew effect anyway, the DM just needs to decide how he wants it to work.
My point was not to address that issue, it is to address Rav's misconception that the duration of concentration spells is not concentration. If and when WotC decides to publish a game effect that would cause this question to legitimately arise, we can revisit, but for now, grammar, formatting, and plain english says that the duration of concentration spells is concentration, with the time listed only explaining the maximum concentration time (as defined in the Concentration rules almost verbatim)
I do think the concentration rules are a mess. There are so many ways they could have been made significantly simpler and clearer. The duration bit is one: the description in the rules only says it would be noted that concentration was required, which would lead me to expect something along the lines of "Duration: 1 hour (Concentration)" to appear on the spells. There fact that they then word it as "Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour" means that one or the other is worded badly. They have not just noted a need for concentration, they have made it the foremost part of the duration, with the rest only appearing to be a limit.
That said, it doesn't actually matter for the purposes of any official content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have no idea what you mean with this. Of course spells only persist for their duration.
I've never claimed you change the duration. Your insistence that that is my stance is just weird bro. The duration is the duration. But, spells don't always last their full duration. The spell would only persist for an instant because its requisite concentration isn't provided to maintain it for its duration. All of this is RAW. I'm not even sure you know what you disagree with you're just disagreeing.
It works exactly the same as a spellcaster interrupting their concentration with the casting of the concentration spell. No concentration: It only lasted for a split second, an instant.
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.
I understand what they're saying. That if: Concentration is duration, then if concentration is impossible there is no duration.
I've said as much since page one. This would be a NULL response. No valid answer. Missing entry. Not even a zero, null.
If that were the case, and Concentration IS the duration, then the spell would simply fail if you were unable to provide concentration entirely.
I understand their argument perfectly. It is perfectly valid if concentration is the duration.
But...
Here's the catch. The rules don't ever, strictly speaking, ever say that concentration is duration. Their entire argument revolves around this fact being True but, yet, it isn't ever stated as much in the rules that it is true. That's why I keep coming back to it. Their argument is true if this is true.
But I can't find a single things that says Concentration IS duration. Instead, it explicitly doesn't say that. It seems to go out of its way to not say that. It says duration is: round/minute/hour etc. It says that concentration is required to maintain a spell to its full duration. But it always stops short of ever saying that concentration IS the duration.
And because of this, their argument is false. I see how close to true it is, it is very close, and based on sound reasoning up until this one central missing element. So unless concentration IS duration, it remains false.
So it really just depends on if you believe rules are the things printed in the handbook or if you think the rules are assumptions you've made along the way.
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.
All I can do is LOL at the absurdity of this thread, really. The spell description shows the duration to be tied to concentration. EVERY single mechanic surrounding a concentration spell shows the direct link between the 2 yet he still trolls people by pretending to not understand and argue that the rule as written isn't valid, because "concentration" the word, isn't listed in a section describing duration.
Since I don't actually believe anyone could be quite that thick and still manage to remeber to breathe, I will let him keep trolling y'all and move along. Won't unsubscribe. as it's funny to read. Enjoy.
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.
Yes
Yes
Rules are either written in the book or they're not rules. You may have homebrewed it this way or held a misunderstanding for so long you're surprised and taken aback, even in disbelief that you could possibly have invented something like this. But here we are, with people all fever dreaming the same thing.
Thick because I only use rules if they're printed in the rule books?
Happy to have you! One more set of eyes looking for the mythical text that tells us concentration is duration.
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.
Rav, I don't think I've weighed in on this specific debate, but here's my two cents: The rules for Concentration (under the Duration section of spellcasting) say:
(bolded emphasis mine)
If the time listed in the duration for concentration spells is the specified max time "you can concentrate on it", then the duration is in fact concentration, because the duration of the spell is always the time you spend concentrating (with concentration ending naturally at the max time). the spell isn't ending due to the expiration of its duration, it is ending because you can no longer concentrate on that spell.
This is backed up in the actual text (in the actual book, not the D&D Beyond tools) for each concentration spell, which reads as follows (in this case for alter self)
in full format, that translates to: The duration is concentration, up to 1 hour. Grammatically, there is no other way to write it out where the shorthand version would skip "concentration" and specify the object as the time (the time is a modifier in the above sentence rather than the object). For that to be true, the above would have to read: Duration: 1 hour (concentration), or Duration: 1 hour, maintained by concentration. Both of those would place concentration as the modifier, and 1 hour as the object. But as that is not the case, the grammar supports the rule text I quoted above that spells out that concentration spell duration is concentration, and the time is only the maximum amount of time you can hold concentration.
I 100% understand you, and thank you for writing it out neatly and concisely. But I'm not going to be convinced by this line of reasoning, its been tried. I do understand the appeal of seeing the spell entry and just assuming that concentration is duration. But I'm convinced the rules don't work in that order, and that that it is a backwards approach. See, the rules text should tell us what something like the duration entry is and means, and those rules text explanations are law. All of the other Spell entry headers do this. All of them do. But... for concentration there simply isn't anything that says it is a valid "duration" in the Spellcasting section of the rules. Without that: It isn't a rule.
Level:
Casting Time:
Range:
Components:
Duration:
School:
Attack/Save:
Bonus: Area of Effect
...
Like, how can you read all these RULES and then see an absence of a similar rule for "Concentration=Duration" and think... YOLO still counts?
If the rules don't say it is, then it isn't. They went OUT of their way to avoid saying. Reread this again and tell me it wouldn't have been easier to simply say concentration is a duration than all this mess....
They really go out of their way here with concentration, to explicitly NOT call it duration.
Why, in all of the various Spell Entry sections of the spellcasting section is this the one time they explicitly avoid calling it the thing it is associated with?
All that the rule says about concentration is that is required it'll be annotated in the duration entry. Not that it is duration. The rules make this distinction.
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.
Not at all. I am asking because if one side doesn't provide any support for there claims, there really is no discussion. They're just making stuff up.
No interpretation, RAW. There's a difference. Even when I do present my interpretations, it is based on the RAW and not just made up.
It's not to "put down" someone by asking them to back up their claims. I would, of course, stop repeating the question if the question was actually answered. Which it has yet to be. Quite simple.
Yeah. I'm getting pretty bored of Rav not providing anything to back up his claims as well. The last few replies shows that they really don't have anything to bring to the discussion...
Cheers!
I really didn't want to be dragged back into this but:
"No interpretation, RAW. There's a difference.'
5e is written in natural language, which means there will sometimes be more than one way to read it. I have stated this several times, but you refuse to accept that any reading of the written rules is RAW except your own, doggedly insisting that nobody else can possibly be correct even with many pages of explanation. You have not refuted the arguments of others, many of which directly reference the rules.
Were I to follow your logic, I would now be calling you a troll. I'm not, I understand that you are stuck in a confirmation bias loop where you cannot see the validity of others' arguments.
You haven't quoted or referenced rules text. ALL you have is baseless claims and speculation, it isn't even qualified to be called interpretation at this point. Other people have bothered to make intelligible arguments however.
You're not even asking a question. You can't be repeating a question when you're not even asking one.
Address my last post then.
Spellcasting rules tell you what the Spell Entries mean, not the other way around.
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 rules do say it though, when describing "special cases" which include the subheadings of instantaneous spells and Concentration spells. And you wanting it to say it explicitly woul actually exempt other durations from validity as well. See below (broken down)
The red is the actual definition of duration. The remaining text here is explanatory for the most common examples of how this is addressed. Note that the word "can" is not exclusive. "can only" would be. just because other durations (and kinds of durations) are not listed does not mean they are not valid. Some spells list durations of days, are those invalid because they aren't listed?. Next the "special cases" are listed, each with its own subheading.
This is the first "special case", special because the time is too short to be measured in standard game units (the shortest of which is a round of 6 seconds). Note that it is given equal formatting to concentration below. Note that the text does not specifically say that "the duration of some spells are instantaneous" which seems to be a requirement of yours for concentration. You are using a double standard here to say one is valid and the other not despite neither explicitly stating what you want it to state.
Concentration is given the same formatted heading as Instantaneous. This is a conscious decision to give them both the same standing as possible durations. If "Instantaneous" is a duration, then it can be inferred that "concentration" is too. If you say "concentration" isn't, then neither is "instantaneous". The bolded and red text is the statement that says concentration is a duration. It states that concentration appears in the duration entry (as does Instantaneous, and any other "standard" time), and that the referenced time is the maximum time you can concentrate. In no case does it say that time is the duration, it explicitly says it is the maximum concentration time. If there is no time separate from concentration, then the only duration listed for those spells is concentration
The rest of this is explanatory for how concentration works and ends.
I know it is hard to admit you are wrong when you have invested so much effort in proving you are right, but by plain english, grammar, and formatting you are wrong here. This will be my last response to your opinion. I can't change your mind for you, but hopefully for others that read this thread they will understand which interpretation is correct.
You are still missing an explanation which fits with the description of Concentration, which has been mentioned several times and never adequately addressed:
If concentration is required to keep the magic active, this strongly implies that the magic is already active when you start concentrating. It certainly never says that concentration is required for the magic to become active.
It is therefore, IMHO, a perfectly valid reading that the magic activates whether you are able to concentrate or not. If there are any effects (as described in the spell description) which occur immediately, just because the spell has become active, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that these effects would occur. However, that magic cannot continue beyond that first instant, because it requires that you "maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active". So, after that first "instantaneous" activation (used in plain English meaning, not as a reference to the duration special case or "changing duration", before certain others try to demand rules which are not necessary), the magic cannot stay active, but it did become active on casting.
Note also that there are so many places where the rules are worded very awkwardly, and a much more natural wording would make this very clear. It's as though the writers were specifically trying to avoid saying that concentration was required to begin casting or to activate the magic. This has the potential to speak to RAI as well as being a reasonable reading of RAW.
All of which has dragged me back into a debate about something which cannot happen by RAW with any official content, to repeat once again: There are (at least) 2 valid ways to read the rules on this, and it is down to the DM to make a call on which one he believes to apply to the homebrew situation in which this occurs. Given it would have to be a homebrew effect anyway, the DM just needs to decide how he wants it to work.
My point was not to address that issue, it is to address Rav's misconception that the duration of concentration spells is not concentration. If and when WotC decides to publish a game effect that would cause this question to legitimately arise, we can revisit, but for now, grammar, formatting, and plain english says that the duration of concentration spells is concentration, with the time listed only explaining the maximum concentration time (as defined in the Concentration rules almost verbatim)
Fair enough, apologies there.
I do think the concentration rules are a mess. There are so many ways they could have been made significantly simpler and clearer. The duration bit is one: the description in the rules only says it would be noted that concentration was required, which would lead me to expect something along the lines of "Duration: 1 hour (Concentration)" to appear on the spells. There fact that they then word it as "Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour" means that one or the other is worded badly. They have not just noted a need for concentration, they have made it the foremost part of the duration, with the rest only appearing to be a limit.
That said, it doesn't actually matter for the purposes of any official content.