If you want to be pedantic, "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time. It means an infinitesimally small amount of time (and without delay). (source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instant). infinitesimally small =/= 0 no matter how you slice it, it is always > 0. If you can't concentrate, then the duration of the spell is actually 0, not instantaneous, so there is no time in which the spell effect is validly active.
I rule that a concentration spell cast without the ability to concentrate results in an actual 0 duration, and no effect (basically the casting occurs but the spell fails before any effect manifests). Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears. If you could concentrate, I would agree with your statement that the wall would deal the damage instantly, but without concentration the duration is actually 0, and as "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time per its plain English definition, the wall never appears to cause the damage; it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
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.
If you want to be pedantic, "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time. It means an infinitesimally small amount of time (and without delay). (source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instant). infinitesimally small =/= 0 no matter how you slice it, it is always > 0. If you can't concentrate, then the duration of the spell is actually 0, not instantaneous, so there is no time in which the spell effect is validly active.
I rule that a concentration spell cast without the ability to concentrate results in an actual 0 duration, and no effect (basically the casting occurs but the spell fails before any effect manifests). Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears. If you could concentrate, I would agree with your statement that the wall would deal the damage instantly, but without concentration the duration is actually 0, and as "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time per its plain English definition, the wall never appears to cause the damage; it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
Edit:
From your linked definition:
the point of time
without any interval of time
Way to cherry-pick, friend. the full line is "Succeeding without any interval of time, prompt, immediate" which in full context means no time between a preceding action/trigger and the effect. All that means translated to the example we've been discussing is that there is no delay between trigger and effect (similar to the noun usage above it); it does not define the length of the effect itself (which is defined in noun definition 1). You also ignore that a "point" in time is very ill-defined by itself, and in no way resembles the geometric "point" in any way shape or form (because there is no way to measure "0" time, see the discussion with Lyxen that followed this post). The colloquial "4PM" could mean the minute between 4:00 and 4:01, the second between 4:00:00 and 4:00:01, or any smaller fraction, down to the infinitesimal. But it is still not 0 if it can be called an "instant", at least as I understand every definition I have read of that word.
I've already agreed with Lyxen that there are multiple valid interpretations here due to the fact that this condition simply doesn't exist in the RAW. I see mine as valid, based on common english definitions, physics, etc. You are free to disagree (just not at my table, lol)
This is a 'lost in the weeds' tangent but what you're looking for is the distinction between zero and null.
This has nothing to do with null vs zero. This is just pointing out the fact that, as Lyxen has just pointed out, the duration of a spell is important. Some spells have "concentration" as the duration, other spells have "instantenous" as the duration. Nowhere in the RAW does it state that concentrating for zero time changes the duration from "concetration" to "instantenous".
Well, if you concentrate for zero seconds, and the spell duration is concentration... then, your concentration was itself instantaneous, and so therefore so too was the duration.
Check the work:
Zero seconds = Instantaneous
Duration = Concentration
zero second concentration = instantaneous concentration = instantaneous duration
Can you quote the number of the page that says that concentrating for zero time turns the spell's duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous"? Because if we go by RAW, those two are not the same.
Check. The. Work.
zero seconds = instantaneous
duration = concentration
zero second concentration = instantaneous concentration = instantaneous duration
This is simple substitution. Which of these three points is the part you're stuck on? 1, 2, or 3?
As has been pointed out ...
Zero seconds is NOT instantaneous. Instantaneous is within an instant or infinitesmal of time ... an infinitesmal or instant is a unit of time approaching but not equal to zero. So the first step of your logic chain is incorrect and invalidates the rest.
"Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires 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)."
Some spells have both immediate magical effects and those that last over time. However, for spells that require concentration, concentrations is REQUIRED to keep their magic active. Since both immediate and longer term effects are magical, without concentration, neither type of magic remains active and the spell has no effect.
XGtE 5
"CONCENTRATION As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly."
Xanathar's clarifies that concentration begins as soon as you start casting a spell NOT when the spell is cast. Thus it is impossible to cast a spell that requires concentration without concentrating on it for at least an instant of time.
Could you cast a concentration spell in order to obtain its immediate magical effects but then not continue to concentrate on the spell? Absolutely YES. However, in order to cast this spell in the first place, the character must use their concentration in order to cast it. You could cast a Wall of Fire for example but if you were concentrating on a Wall of Force that would end as soon as you start casting Wall of Fire.
Finally, as noted above ... an instant of time is NOT equal to zero time in case anyone's argument is based on that fallacy.
Xanathars doesn't actually say you need concentration to cast, just that concentration on another spell ends. They wouldn't need to say that if concentration started when the spell started to be cast (and it would be much easier to say it that way).
Xanathars doesn't actually say you need concentration to cast, just that concentration on another spell ends. They wouldn't need to say that if concentration started when the spell started to be cast (and it would be much easier to say it that way).
The Xanathar's rules for spellcasting expand and clarify the general PH rules (per the start of the Xanathars spellcasting section). The original PH rule is as follows: You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Xanathar's expands and clarifies that by saying that concentration ends when you start casting the second spell. It isn't an "isolated" rule if it is expanding or clarifying another. So, going back to the PH rule, If the concentration ends at the start of casting, and the baseline rules' reason it ends is "you can't concentrate on two spells at once", then it follows that you start concentrating on concentration spells from the start of their casting, no matter how long the casting time or duration.
If you have to concentrate to cast the spell, then the inability to concentrate would actually mean the spell is unable to be cast, and the rest of the argument regarding the duration being set to zero time is moot. I do agree it could be worded better, but again, we are talking about a situation that doesn't currently exist in the game. They don't format the rules to best address situations that don't exist.
"Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires 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)."
Some spells have both immediate magical effects and those that last over time. However, for spells that require concentration, concentrations is REQUIRED to keep their magic active. Since both immediate and longer term effects are magical, without concentration, neither type of magic remains active and the spell has no effect.
XGtE 5
"CONCENTRATION As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly."
Xanathar's clarifies that concentration begins as soon as you start casting a spell NOT when the spell is cast.
No, it does not say that, as that would be contradictory with the rules from the PH that you cited above. It just says that when you start casting a spell that requires concentration, it ends the previous one, but does not say that this is because you start concentrating, you just start casting a specific kind of spell. This is the only explanation that reconciles all the various sentences.
Lyxen, It does say that, directly in the text (its a quote). You are trying to treat the rules in the PH and Xanathars as separate rules, but the Xanathar's rules are written as clarifications/expansions of the PH rules, not as standalones (it says so in the spellcasting intro in Xanathar's). The rules are linked. The PH rule says that the reason concentration ends when you cast a spell is that you can't concentrate on two spells at once. The Xanathar's rules clarify that to say that the moment the ending occurs is at the start of casting, not the completion of casting (which is a possible interpretation of the PH rule standalone as it is not that specific). The reasoning for both is still the same (you can't have concentration going on two spells at once). If having concentration on two spells at once would happen if the concentration on the first spell continued through the casting of the second, then concentration of the second spell (and concentration spells in general) must begin at the start of the casting.
Logically, it follows then that the switch of concentration happens at the start of casting. If then you can't concentrate, you can't start casting a concentration spell, so the spell never is cast to begin with and the resulting effects never come into being. Using the combined rule (Base + Clarification, which is the correct way to interpret them due to the intro in Xanathar's) Concentration both starts and maintains the spell, rather than just maintaining it.
If you want to be pedantic, "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time. It means an infinitesimally small amount of time (and without delay). (source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instant). infinitesimally small =/= 0 no matter how you slice it, it is always > 0. If you can't concentrate, then the duration of the spell is actually 0, not instantaneous, so there is no time in which the spell effect is validly active.
I rule that a concentration spell cast without the ability to concentrate results in an actual 0 duration, and no effect (basically the casting occurs but the spell fails before any effect manifests). Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears. If you could concentrate, I would agree with your statement that the wall would deal the damage instantly, but without concentration the duration is actually 0, and as "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time per its plain English definition, the wall never appears to cause the damage; it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
Edit:
From your linked definition:
the point of time
without any interval of time
Way to cherry-pick, friend. the full line is "Succeeding without any interval of time, prompt, immediate" which in full context means no time between a preceding action/trigger and the effect. All that means translated to the example we've been discussing is that there is no delay between trigger and effect (similar to the noun usage above it); it does not define the length of the effect itself (which is defined in noun definition 1). You also ignore that a "point" in time is very ill-defined by itself, and in no way resembles the geometric "point" in any way shape or form (because there is no way to measure "0" time, see the discussion with Lyxen that followed this post). The colloquial "4PM" could mean the minute between 4:00 and 4:01, the second between 4:00:00 and 4:00:01, or any smaller fraction, down to the infinitesimal. But it is still not 0 if it can be called an "instant", at least as I understand every definition I have read of that word.
I've already agreed with Lyxen that there are multiple valid interpretations here due to the fact that this condition simply doesn't exist in the RAW. I see mine as valid, based on common english definitions, physics, etc. You are free to disagree (just not at my table, lol)
I'm not even discussing the ruling at this point. You're just wrong about what "instantaneous" is...
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.
If you want to be pedantic, "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time. It means an infinitesimally small amount of time (and without delay). (source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instant). infinitesimally small =/= 0 no matter how you slice it, it is always > 0. If you can't concentrate, then the duration of the spell is actually 0, not instantaneous, so there is no time in which the spell effect is validly active.
I rule that a concentration spell cast without the ability to concentrate results in an actual 0 duration, and no effect (basically the casting occurs but the spell fails before any effect manifests). Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears. If you could concentrate, I would agree with your statement that the wall would deal the damage instantly, but without concentration the duration is actually 0, and as "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time per its plain English definition, the wall never appears to cause the damage; it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
Edit:
From your linked definition:
the point of time
without any interval of time
Way to cherry-pick, friend. the full line is "Succeeding without any interval of time, prompt, immediate" which in full context means no time between a preceding action/trigger and the effect. All that means translated to the example we've been discussing is that there is no delay between trigger and effect (similar to the noun usage above it); it does not define the length of the effect itself (which is defined in noun definition 1). You also ignore that a "point" in time is very ill-defined by itself, and in no way resembles the geometric "point" in any way shape or form (because there is no way to measure "0" time, see the discussion with Lyxen that followed this post). The colloquial "4PM" could mean the minute between 4:00 and 4:01, the second between 4:00:00 and 4:00:01, or any smaller fraction, down to the infinitesimal. But it is still not 0 if it can be called an "instant", at least as I understand every definition I have read of that word.
I've already agreed with Lyxen that there are multiple valid interpretations here due to the fact that this condition simply doesn't exist in the RAW. I see mine as valid, based on common english definitions, physics, etc. You are free to disagree (just not at my table, lol)
I'm not even discussing the ruling at this point. You're just wrong about what "instantaneous" is...
Get with the times buddy, this whole portion of the argument is moot after what David42 found in xanathars...also, unless you have recently discovered a new realm of physics, I’m not wrong.
This is a 'lost in the weeds' tangent but what you're looking for is the distinction between zero and null.
This has nothing to do with null vs zero. This is just pointing out the fact that, as Lyxen has just pointed out, the duration of a spell is important. Some spells have "concentration" as the duration, other spells have "instantenous" as the duration. Nowhere in the RAW does it state that concentrating for zero time changes the duration from "concetration" to "instantenous".
Well, if you concentrate for zero seconds, and the spell duration is concentration... then, your concentration was itself instantaneous, and so therefore so too was the duration.
Check the work:
Zero seconds = Instantaneous
Duration = Concentration
zero second concentration = instantaneous concentration = instantaneous duration
Can you quote the number of the page that says that concentrating for zero time turns the spell's duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous"? Because if we go by RAW, those two are not the same.
Check. The. Work.
zero seconds = instantaneous
duration = concentration
zero second concentration = instantaneous concentration = instantaneous duration
This is simple substitution. Which of these three points is the part you're stuck on? 1, 2, or 3?
As has been pointed out ...
Zero seconds is NOT instantaneous. Instantaneous is within an instant or infinitesmal of time ... an infinitesmal or instant is a unit of time approaching but not equal to zero. So the first step of your logic chain is incorrect and invalidates the rest.
I wrote and rewrote several replies to this but honestly I'm too tilted by the disregard for basic definitions of words to really reply civility to this wild tangent any more. It has nothing to do with the answer to the question and you've demonstrated a complete unwillingness to learn, so if you can't stick to the defined use of words here please take this weird irrelevant "instant" debate to another thread? I don't really know why it started or why you're so fixated on it but it's derailed this post for a while now.
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.
If you want to be pedantic, "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time. It means an infinitesimally small amount of time (and without delay). (source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instant). infinitesimally small =/= 0 no matter how you slice it, it is always > 0. If you can't concentrate, then the duration of the spell is actually 0, not instantaneous, so there is no time in which the spell effect is validly active.
I rule that a concentration spell cast without the ability to concentrate results in an actual 0 duration, and no effect (basically the casting occurs but the spell fails before any effect manifests). Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears. If you could concentrate, I would agree with your statement that the wall would deal the damage instantly, but without concentration the duration is actually 0, and as "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time per its plain English definition, the wall never appears to cause the damage; it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
Edit:
From your linked definition:
the point of time
without any interval of time
Way to cherry-pick, friend. the full line is "Succeeding without any interval of time, prompt, immediate" which in full context means no time between a preceding action/trigger and the effect. All that means translated to the example we've been discussing is that there is no delay between trigger and effect (similar to the noun usage above it); it does not define the length of the effect itself (which is defined in noun definition 1). You also ignore that a "point" in time is very ill-defined by itself, and in no way resembles the geometric "point" in any way shape or form (because there is no way to measure "0" time, see the discussion with Lyxen that followed this post). The colloquial "4PM" could mean the minute between 4:00 and 4:01, the second between 4:00:00 and 4:00:01, or any smaller fraction, down to the infinitesimal. But it is still not 0 if it can be called an "instant", at least as I understand every definition I have read of that word.
I've already agreed with Lyxen that there are multiple valid interpretations here due to the fact that this condition simply doesn't exist in the RAW. I see mine as valid, based on common english definitions, physics, etc. You are free to disagree (just not at my table, lol)
I'm not even discussing the ruling at this point. You're just wrong about what "instantaneous" is...
Get with the times buddy, this whole portion of the argument is moot after what David42 found in xanathars...also, unless you have recently discovered a new realm of physics, I’m not wrong.
Yeah you are wrong, but it is offtopic, whether you understand what an instant is or not is more a 'you' problem.
On topic, if that Xanathars rule is taken at face value, and I'm not sure it should be since rules are typically in the rule books, not supplements...
But if we take it as RAW, then you cannot hold a concentration spell as a readied action. Because you can't concentrate on maintaining it while also concentrating on holding its energy back from be released after casting it on your turn. So if that's your argument...
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.
If you want to be pedantic, "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time. It means an infinitesimally small amount of time (and without delay). (source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instant). infinitesimally small =/= 0 no matter how you slice it, it is always > 0. If you can't concentrate, then the duration of the spell is actually 0, not instantaneous, so there is no time in which the spell effect is validly active.
I rule that a concentration spell cast without the ability to concentrate results in an actual 0 duration, and no effect (basically the casting occurs but the spell fails before any effect manifests). Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears. If you could concentrate, I would agree with your statement that the wall would deal the damage instantly, but without concentration the duration is actually 0, and as "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time per its plain English definition, the wall never appears to cause the damage; it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
Edit:
From your linked definition:
the point of time
without any interval of time
Way to cherry-pick, friend. the full line is "Succeeding without any interval of time, prompt, immediate" which in full context means no time between a preceding action/trigger and the effect. All that means translated to the example we've been discussing is that there is no delay between trigger and effect (similar to the noun usage above it); it does not define the length of the effect itself (which is defined in noun definition 1). You also ignore that a "point" in time is very ill-defined by itself, and in no way resembles the geometric "point" in any way shape or form (because there is no way to measure "0" time, see the discussion with Lyxen that followed this post). The colloquial "4PM" could mean the minute between 4:00 and 4:01, the second between 4:00:00 and 4:00:01, or any smaller fraction, down to the infinitesimal. But it is still not 0 if it can be called an "instant", at least as I understand every definition I have read of that word.
I've already agreed with Lyxen that there are multiple valid interpretations here due to the fact that this condition simply doesn't exist in the RAW. I see mine as valid, based on common english definitions, physics, etc. You are free to disagree (just not at my table, lol)
I'm not even discussing the ruling at this point. You're just wrong about what "instantaneous" is...
Get with the times buddy, this whole portion of the argument is moot after what David42 found in xanathars...also, unless you have recently discovered a new realm of physics, I’m not wrong.
Yeah you are wrong, but it is offtopic, whether you understand what an instant is or not is more a 'you' problem.
On topic, if that Xanathars rule is taken at face value, and I'm not sure it should be since rules are typically in the rule books, not supplements...
But if we take it as RAW, then you cannot hold a concentration spell as a readied action. Because you can't concentrate on maintaining it while also concentrating on holding its energy back from be released after casting it on your turn. So if that's your argument...
umm...you can...at no point does the process overlap...first you cast, then you hold the energy (this is how the readied spell is described in the text) then you maintain after casting. It’s a flow from one to the other, with no overlap.
If you want to be pedantic, "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time. It means an infinitesimally small amount of time (and without delay). (source https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instant). infinitesimally small =/= 0 no matter how you slice it, it is always > 0. If you can't concentrate, then the duration of the spell is actually 0, not instantaneous, so there is no time in which the spell effect is validly active.
I rule that a concentration spell cast without the ability to concentrate results in an actual 0 duration, and no effect (basically the casting occurs but the spell fails before any effect manifests). Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears. If you could concentrate, I would agree with your statement that the wall would deal the damage instantly, but without concentration the duration is actually 0, and as "instantaneous" does not mean 0 time per its plain English definition, the wall never appears to cause the damage; it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
Edit:
From your linked definition:
the point of time
without any interval of time
Way to cherry-pick, friend. the full line is "Succeeding without any interval of time, prompt, immediate" which in full context means no time between a preceding action/trigger and the effect. All that means translated to the example we've been discussing is that there is no delay between trigger and effect (similar to the noun usage above it); it does not define the length of the effect itself (which is defined in noun definition 1). You also ignore that a "point" in time is very ill-defined by itself, and in no way resembles the geometric "point" in any way shape or form (because there is no way to measure "0" time, see the discussion with Lyxen that followed this post). The colloquial "4PM" could mean the minute between 4:00 and 4:01, the second between 4:00:00 and 4:00:01, or any smaller fraction, down to the infinitesimal. But it is still not 0 if it can be called an "instant", at least as I understand every definition I have read of that word.
I've already agreed with Lyxen that there are multiple valid interpretations here due to the fact that this condition simply doesn't exist in the RAW. I see mine as valid, based on common english definitions, physics, etc. You are free to disagree (just not at my table, lol)
I'm not even discussing the ruling at this point. You're just wrong about what "instantaneous" is...
Get with the times buddy, this whole portion of the argument is moot after what David42 found in xanathars...also, unless you have recently discovered a new realm of physics, I’m not wrong.
Yeah you are wrong, but it is offtopic, whether you understand what an instant is or not is more a 'you' problem.
On topic, if that Xanathars rule is taken at face value, and I'm not sure it should be since rules are typically in the rule books, not supplements...
But if we take it as RAW, then you cannot hold a concentration spell as a readied action. Because you can't concentrate on maintaining it while also concentrating on holding its energy back from be released after casting it on your turn. So if that's your argument...
umm...you can...at no point does the process overlap...first you cast, then you hold the energy (this is how the readied spell is described in the text) then you maintain after casting. It’s a flow from one to the other, with no overlap.
...
You're arguing my argument now.
...
If you take the ruling from Xanathars, that casting the spell takes concentration... right... what you're proposing is the definitive answer...right. That's your stance. That 'casting' takes concentration.
IF we follow that logic, then when you ready a spell that takes concentration, you must use your concentration when you start casting it, which starts on your turn when you take the Ready action. BUT you ALSO need to use your concentration to hold the spell from releasing, all the way until you use your reaction to unleash it.
That's concentrating on 2 things. Your spell. And holding the spell.
It doesn't make any sense to do it that way. AND if you did do it that way you forbid readying concentration spells in the process.
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.
Yeah you are wrong, but it is offtopic, whether you understand what an instant is or not is more a 'you' problem.
On topic, if that Xanathars rule is taken at face value, and I'm not sure it should be since rules are typically in the rule books, not supplements...
But if we take it as RAW, then you cannot hold a concentration spell as a readied action. Because you can't concentrate on maintaining it while also concentrating on holding its energy back from be released after casting it on your turn. So if that's your argument...
umm...you can...at no point does the process overlap...first you cast, then you hold the energy (this is how the readied spell is described in the text) then you maintain after casting. It’s a flow from one to the other, with no overlap.
...
You're arguing my argument now.
...
If you take the ruling from Xanathars, that casting the spell takes concentration... right... what you're proposing is the definitive answer...right. That's your stance. That 'casting' takes concentration.
IF we follow that logic, then when you ready a spell that takes concentration, you must use your concentration when you start casting it, which starts on your turn when you take the Ready action. BUT you ALSO need to use your concentration to hold the spell from releasing, all the way until you use your reaction to unleash it.
That's concentrating on 2 things. Your spell. And holding the spell.
It doesn't make any sense to do it that way. AND if you did do it that way you forbid readying concentration spells in the process.
Here is the full text from Basic Rules:
When you ready a spell, you cast it as normalbut hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration
So where is the overlap? You cast as normal, so your action is spent casting the spell and the casting ceases after your action completes. Then you hold the energy until you release via reaction....still don't see an overlap; the spell effect hasn't started yet, the casting is complete...no overlap. Then after you take your reaction, the hold is released and the spell takes effect, maintained by concentration.....still don't see an overlap.
Also from the Basic Rules:
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends.
After the spell is cast and takes effect, concentration keeps it going. Nothing is stated in this section regarding when concentration starts; that is derived from the Xanathar's rule. But the clear reading of the ready rules indicate that there is a gap between casting, which completes as normal, and the spell effect activating (thus requiring maintenance via concentration). All the ready rules are saying is that concentration must be maintained inside the gap. In the gap, there is no spell effect, nor casting effort. There are no 2 instances of concentration, Its one instance of concentration, flowing from casting, to holding, and to maintaining the effect.
I will also point out that the rule for no simultaneous concentration says: "You can't concentrate on two spells at once" At no point when you are holding a spell via the Ready action are you concentrating on two anything's, but certainly not on two separate spells. Even if you could prove the Ready action is describing an overlap of concentration (and you can't, because it isn't), the rule doesn't actually say you can't hold concentration on two different things, just not on two different spells. That's why other non-spell instances of concentration always have to say "as if concentrating on a spell" or similar...it ties it to the RAW of that rule.
Yeah you are wrong, but it is offtopic, whether you understand what an instant is or not is more a 'you' problem.
On topic, if that Xanathars rule is taken at face value, and I'm not sure it should be since rules are typically in the rule books, not supplements...
But if we take it as RAW, then you cannot hold a concentration spell as a readied action. Because you can't concentrate on maintaining it while also concentrating on holding its energy back from be released after casting it on your turn. So if that's your argument...
umm...you can...at no point does the process overlap...first you cast, then you hold the energy (this is how the readied spell is described in the text) then you maintain after casting. It’s a flow from one to the other, with no overlap.
...
You're arguing my argument now.
...
If you take the ruling from Xanathars, that casting the spell takes concentration... right... what you're proposing is the definitive answer...right. That's your stance. That 'casting' takes concentration.
IF we follow that logic, then when you ready a spell that takes concentration, you must use your concentration when you start casting it, which starts on your turn when you take the Ready action. BUT you ALSO need to use your concentration to hold the spell from releasing, all the way until you use your reaction to unleash it.
That's concentrating on 2 things. Your spell. And holding the spell.
It doesn't make any sense to do it that way. AND if you did do it that way you forbid readying concentration spells in the process.
Here is the full text from Basic Rules:
When you ready a spell, you cast it as normalbut hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration
So where is the overlap? You cast as normal, so your action is spent casting the spell and the casting ceases after your action completes. Then you hold the energy until you release via reaction....still don't see an overlap; the spell effect hasn't started yet, the casting is complete...no overlap. Then after you take your reaction, the hold is released and the spell takes effect, maintained by concentration.....still don't see an overlap.
Also from the Basic Rules:
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends.
After the spell is cast and takes effect, concentration keeps it going. Nothing is stated in this section regarding when concentration starts; that is derived from the Xanathar's rule. But the clear reading of the ready rules indicate that there is a gap between casting, which completes as normal, and the spell effect activating (thus requiring maintenance via concentration). All the ready rules are saying is that concentration must be maintained inside the gap. In the gap, there is no spell effect, nor casting effort. There are no 2 instances of concentration, Its one instance of concentration, flowing from casting, to holding, and to maintaining the effect.
I will also point out that the rule for no simultaneous concentration says: "You can't concentrate on two spells at once" At no point when you are holding a spell via the Ready action are you concentrating on two anything's, but certainly not on two separate spells. Even if you could prove the Ready action is describing an overlap of concentration (and you can't, because it isn't), the rule doesn't actually say you can't hold concentration on two different things, just not on two different spells. That's why other non-spell instances of concentration always have to say "as if concentrating on a spell" or similar...it ties it to the RAW of that rule.
Yeah you're just arguing my argument.
Concentration isn't necessary to cast a concentration spell. It is necessary only to maintain it after it is cast (or released).
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.
So, on when concentration starts, I'm still with Lyxen (and I'm feeling peculiar about this, because I normally end up on the opposite side of "discussions" with him lol).
The PHB rules specifically call out that concentration is only required to keep magic active for a concentration spell. This means that, ignoring other rule sources, the spell must already have been cast for the magic to be active, and therefore to keep the magic active.
The PHB also says that you cannot concentrate on 2 spells at once. This would necessarily cause concentration to end on one spell as soon as you have cast another, but not necessarily when you start casting it.
If we then look at XGtE, it says: "As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly". This clarifies that your concentration ends when you start casting another concentration spell, closing off the loophole in the rule above. Note, however, that it specifically does not say that concentration on the second spell starts when you begin casting it, only that starting to cast the second ends concentration on the first.
This is a fairly long winded clarification. It would have been much easier to understand written as "Concentration on a spell begins when you start casting it". The fact that they didn't include this very simple rule, instead writing out a relatively complex clarification which carefully steps around saying this, is highly suggestive that they did not intend it to be read that way.
As nothing in the written rule specifically calls out that concentration starts when you begin casting, I think there is enough evidence to justify the interpretation that concentration only starts when the spell is cast, not at the start of casting. I do, however, think that it is also reasonable to read it the other way. As it doesn't actually matter for the purposes of any official content I am aware of, it doesn't really matter which it is unless you are introducing a homebrew effect, and how that effect works in this situation will need to be decided by those creating said effect.
Note: When it comes to readying a concentration spell, I think there are still 2 ways to look at it. It would come down to whether you consider readying a spell to be a "special ability". If you do, and you accept the interpretation that concentration begins at the start of casting, this would disallow readying a concentration spell as concentration on the spell would end as soon as you began concentrating on keeping it held. If you do not consider it a "special ability", it is reasonable to to assume that holding it would be just extending the concentration you were already using. I think that my common sense would say it's not a special ability, it's an action available to all spellcasters, and it makes sense for concentration to just be maintained... But then again I would also rule that it doesn't matter, because concentration for the spell is only required when the magic becomes active and that is when the ready trigger occurs, at which point your concentration on holding the spell ends anyway.
What are the conditions for ending concentration listed in the PHB?
"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."
These are the three conditions specified in the PHB that will end a concentration spell. Unfortunately, the PHB does not specify whether concentration begins when you start casting the spell or when the spell is completed.
Longer casting time spells makes clear that concentration DOES start at least in some cases before the spell is complete. Concentration is NOT just a mechanic to "maintain the spell" it is an integral part of casting the spell.
"LONGER CASTING TIMES Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see "Concentration" below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over."
This clearly indicates that concentration starts when casting a spell at least for a certain class of spells.
The text is Xanathar's is NOT a new rule. It is not a clarification, it is clearly indicated as a restatement of rules present in the PHB.
"TEN RULES TO REMEMBER A few rules in the core rulebooks sometimes trip up a new player or DM. Here are ten of those rules. Keeping them in mind will help you interpret the options in this book
CONCENTRATION As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly."
Since this is clearly referring to rules already present in the PHB - it can only be referring to the rules stating that concentration on a spell ends when you cast another spell requiring concentration. This is NOT a new rule. It is not a fourth condition. It is a clarification that concentration BEGINS when you start casting a spell or using an effect requiring concentration and this instantly ends any other effect currently requiring concentration.
This is not a new condition ... i.e. You could read this to mean that when you start casting a spell that requires concentration then concentration on something else ends instantly BUT you aren't actually concentrating on anything until after the spell completes. The rule does NOT say that, it lacks the additional clause that some people are trying to interpret as being implicit.
Since this is clearly a clarification for "a new player or DM." and obviously experienced ones too ... it isn't creating a new rule on the sly - it is making clear that concentration on a spell requiring concentration to cast begins when you start casting that spell and as a consequence ends any previous concentration effects.
Of course, as Lyxen loves to say, the rules are entirely up to the DM so if you want to play it otherwise - you do you - but honestly this isn't worth arguing about further. When a character begins using any effect or spell that requires concentration - any existing concentration effects end instantly.
Of course, as Lyxen loves to say, the rules are entirely up to the DM so if you want to play it otherwise - you do you - but honestly this isn't worth arguing about further. When a character begins using any effect or spell that requires concentration - any existing concentration effects end instantly.
I agree with you, on your whole point but especially the bolded. Both sides have had ample space to make their argument, no one is being convinced to change positions, and remember; this argument is about an entirely hypothetical situation currently; no published effect currently stops a player from concentrating without any other limitations on spellcasting. Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that such an effect will ever be published, because most of the rules and conditions that would in theory effect concentration skip to preventing spellcasting in full (think conditions like stunned or incapacitated). However, if WoTC ever does publish an effect that only stops concentration, I'd love to revisit this. Cheers to all (both sides).
That is true, but still zero proof that concentration begins as you start casting the spell. You are, again, not reading all the rules, in particular the PH. Once more, it's extremely clear: "Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active." Is the magic active when you start casting the spell ? No, I double dare you to explain to me that the magic of the spell is active before the casting is complete.
While I agree with you, Lyxen, that your interpretation is completely valid, I will play devils advocate and supply 2 points which could be used to interpret this the opposite way (which I do think is also a completely valid interpretation of the written rules).
It could be argued that the magic begins at the point you begin casting the spell. That magic may be internal to the caster at that point, but it is active. The effects of the spell are not active, but there is active magic present and building in the caster.
In just the same way you argue that the wording is "to keep their magic active", the wording also says that you must "maintain concentration". In order to maintain it, it could be argued that you must have started concentrating before that point.
I'm going to drop out of this now, though, because:
a) Neither side is convincing the other
b) While it was an interesting topic to begin with, when we keep going over the same thing over and over it becomes pointless
c) Point (b) is doubly so when there is no official way for this situation to occur
Yea I have to end up with Lyxen and Urth here tbh. I see nothing that says that you need to concentrate during the casting of a spell (Longer Casting Times excepted because it has a specific exception). And I think that it creates wonky effects if you where to require it, as Ravnodaus showed with readied spells.
.
I'd also suggest that the clarification in XgtE is not about language logic but rather about game balance.
.
And one last thing. Concentration is NOT a duration as some has claimed. Concentration is something you need to maintain (for some spells) during the duration.
Two things, instantaneous is a point, not a span. And, even if it were an "infinitesimally" small span, that's still not a span because infinitesimal IS ZERO. If you understand Limits even a little, you know this. When discussing numbers, and something says "approaching"... that means "is". A "value approaching zero" is zero.
But, again, instantaneous isn't a span. It isn't the time between two points. it is the time of a single point. It has no duration, it last none time, it is a fixed point in time.
Examples: 4pm, the exact moment of 4pm is a fixed point. The hour of 4pm is a duration based on a fixed point start. Between 4 and 5 pm is the same, but with an unnecessarily defined end point. But the moment of exactly 4pm is instantaneous. There is no duration of it being exactly 4pm. It is a point.
This is like discussing the difference between lines and points. One dimension or Two dimensions. Instantaneous is only a fixed point in time. Not a span. Not a line, not two dimensions. Just a single point.
Edit:
From your linked definition:
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.
Way to cherry-pick, friend. the full line is "Succeeding without any interval of time, prompt, immediate" which in full context means no time between a preceding action/trigger and the effect. All that means translated to the example we've been discussing is that there is no delay between trigger and effect (similar to the noun usage above it); it does not define the length of the effect itself (which is defined in noun definition 1). You also ignore that a "point" in time is very ill-defined by itself, and in no way resembles the geometric "point" in any way shape or form (because there is no way to measure "0" time, see the discussion with Lyxen that followed this post). The colloquial "4PM" could mean the minute between 4:00 and 4:01, the second between 4:00:00 and 4:00:01, or any smaller fraction, down to the infinitesimal. But it is still not 0 if it can be called an "instant", at least as I understand every definition I have read of that word.
I've already agreed with Lyxen that there are multiple valid interpretations here due to the fact that this condition simply doesn't exist in the RAW. I see mine as valid, based on common english definitions, physics, etc. You are free to disagree (just not at my table, lol)
As has been pointed out ...
Zero seconds is NOT instantaneous. Instantaneous is within an instant or infinitesmal of time ... an infinitesmal or instant is a unit of time approaching but not equal to zero. So the first step of your logic chain is incorrect and invalidates the rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant
PHB 203
"Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires 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)."
Some spells have both immediate magical effects and those that last over time. However, for spells that require concentration, concentrations is REQUIRED to keep their magic active. Since both immediate and longer term effects are magical, without concentration, neither type of magic remains active and the spell has no effect.
XGtE 5
"CONCENTRATION
As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly."
Xanathar's clarifies that concentration begins as soon as you start casting a spell NOT when the spell is cast. Thus it is impossible to cast a spell that requires concentration without concentrating on it for at least an instant of time.
Could you cast a concentration spell in order to obtain its immediate magical effects but then not continue to concentrate on the spell? Absolutely YES. However, in order to cast this spell in the first place, the character must use their concentration in order to cast it. You could cast a Wall of Fire for example but if you were concentrating on a Wall of Force that would end as soon as you start casting Wall of Fire.
Finally, as noted above ... an instant of time is NOT equal to zero time in case anyone's argument is based on that fallacy.
Xanathars doesn't actually say you need concentration to cast, just that concentration on another spell ends. They wouldn't need to say that if concentration started when the spell started to be cast (and it would be much easier to say it that way).
The Xanathar's rules for spellcasting expand and clarify the general PH rules (per the start of the Xanathars spellcasting section). The original PH rule is as follows: You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Xanathar's expands and clarifies that by saying that concentration ends when you start casting the second spell. It isn't an "isolated" rule if it is expanding or clarifying another. So, going back to the PH rule, If the concentration ends at the start of casting, and the baseline rules' reason it ends is "you can't concentrate on two spells at once", then it follows that you start concentrating on concentration spells from the start of their casting, no matter how long the casting time or duration.
If you have to concentrate to cast the spell, then the inability to concentrate would actually mean the spell is unable to be cast, and the rest of the argument regarding the duration being set to zero time is moot. I do agree it could be worded better, but again, we are talking about a situation that doesn't currently exist in the game. They don't format the rules to best address situations that don't exist.
Lyxen, It does say that, directly in the text (its a quote). You are trying to treat the rules in the PH and Xanathars as separate rules, but the Xanathar's rules are written as clarifications/expansions of the PH rules, not as standalones (it says so in the spellcasting intro in Xanathar's). The rules are linked. The PH rule says that the reason concentration ends when you cast a spell is that you can't concentrate on two spells at once. The Xanathar's rules clarify that to say that the moment the ending occurs is at the start of casting, not the completion of casting (which is a possible interpretation of the PH rule standalone as it is not that specific). The reasoning for both is still the same (you can't have concentration going on two spells at once). If having concentration on two spells at once would happen if the concentration on the first spell continued through the casting of the second, then concentration of the second spell (and concentration spells in general) must begin at the start of the casting.
Logically, it follows then that the switch of concentration happens at the start of casting. If then you can't concentrate, you can't start casting a concentration spell, so the spell never is cast to begin with and the resulting effects never come into being. Using the combined rule (Base + Clarification, which is the correct way to interpret them due to the intro in Xanathar's) Concentration both starts and maintains the spell, rather than just maintaining it.
I'm not even discussing the ruling at this point. You're just wrong about what "instantaneous" 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.
Get with the times buddy, this whole portion of the argument is moot after what David42 found in xanathars...also, unless you have recently discovered a new realm of physics, I’m not wrong.
I wrote and rewrote several replies to this but honestly I'm too tilted by the disregard for basic definitions of words to really reply civility to this wild tangent any more. It has nothing to do with the answer to the question and you've demonstrated a complete unwillingness to learn, so if you can't stick to the defined use of words here please take this weird irrelevant "instant" debate to another thread? I don't really know why it started or why you're so fixated on it but it's derailed this post for a while now.
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 you are wrong, but it is offtopic, whether you understand what an instant is or not is more a 'you' problem.
On topic, if that Xanathars rule is taken at face value, and I'm not sure it should be since rules are typically in the rule books, not supplements...
But if we take it as RAW, then you cannot hold a concentration spell as a readied action. Because you can't concentrate on maintaining it while also concentrating on holding its energy back from be released after casting it on your turn. So if that's your argument...
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.
umm...you can...at no point does the process overlap...first you cast, then you hold the energy (this is how the readied spell is described in the text) then you maintain after casting. It’s a flow from one to the other, with no overlap.
...
You're arguing my argument now.
...
If you take the ruling from Xanathars, that casting the spell takes concentration... right... what you're proposing is the definitive answer...right. That's your stance. That 'casting' takes concentration.
IF we follow that logic, then when you ready a spell that takes concentration, you must use your concentration when you start casting it, which starts on your turn when you take the Ready action. BUT you ALSO need to use your concentration to hold the spell from releasing, all the way until you use your reaction to unleash it.
That's concentrating on 2 things. Your spell. And holding the spell.
It doesn't make any sense to do it that way. AND if you did do it that way you forbid readying concentration spells in the process.
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.
Here is the full text from Basic Rules:
So where is the overlap? You cast as normal, so your action is spent casting the spell and the casting ceases after your action completes. Then you hold the energy until you release via reaction....still don't see an overlap; the spell effect hasn't started yet, the casting is complete...no overlap. Then after you take your reaction, the hold is released and the spell takes effect, maintained by concentration.....still don't see an overlap.
Also from the Basic Rules:
After the spell is cast and takes effect, concentration keeps it going. Nothing is stated in this section regarding when concentration starts; that is derived from the Xanathar's rule. But the clear reading of the ready rules indicate that there is a gap between casting, which completes as normal, and the spell effect activating (thus requiring maintenance via concentration). All the ready rules are saying is that concentration must be maintained inside the gap. In the gap, there is no spell effect, nor casting effort. There are no 2 instances of concentration, Its one instance of concentration, flowing from casting, to holding, and to maintaining the effect.
I will also point out that the rule for no simultaneous concentration says: "You can't concentrate on two spells at once" At no point when you are holding a spell via the Ready action are you concentrating on two anything's, but certainly not on two separate spells. Even if you could prove the Ready action is describing an overlap of concentration (and you can't, because it isn't), the rule doesn't actually say you can't hold concentration on two different things, just not on two different spells. That's why other non-spell instances of concentration always have to say "as if concentrating on a spell" or similar...it ties it to the RAW of that rule.
Yeah you're just arguing my argument.
Concentration isn't necessary to cast a concentration spell. It is necessary only to maintain it after it is cast (or released).
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.
So, on when concentration starts, I'm still with Lyxen (and I'm feeling peculiar about this, because I normally end up on the opposite side of "discussions" with him lol).
The PHB rules specifically call out that concentration is only required to keep magic active for a concentration spell. This means that, ignoring other rule sources, the spell must already have been cast for the magic to be active, and therefore to keep the magic active.
The PHB also says that you cannot concentrate on 2 spells at once. This would necessarily cause concentration to end on one spell as soon as you have cast another, but not necessarily when you start casting it.
If we then look at XGtE, it says: "As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly". This clarifies that your concentration ends when you start casting another concentration spell, closing off the loophole in the rule above. Note, however, that it specifically does not say that concentration on the second spell starts when you begin casting it, only that starting to cast the second ends concentration on the first.
This is a fairly long winded clarification. It would have been much easier to understand written as "Concentration on a spell begins when you start casting it". The fact that they didn't include this very simple rule, instead writing out a relatively complex clarification which carefully steps around saying this, is highly suggestive that they did not intend it to be read that way.
As nothing in the written rule specifically calls out that concentration starts when you begin casting, I think there is enough evidence to justify the interpretation that concentration only starts when the spell is cast, not at the start of casting. I do, however, think that it is also reasonable to read it the other way. As it doesn't actually matter for the purposes of any official content I am aware of, it doesn't really matter which it is unless you are introducing a homebrew effect, and how that effect works in this situation will need to be decided by those creating said effect.
Note: When it comes to readying a concentration spell, I think there are still 2 ways to look at it. It would come down to whether you consider readying a spell to be a "special ability". If you do, and you accept the interpretation that concentration begins at the start of casting, this would disallow readying a concentration spell as concentration on the spell would end as soon as you began concentrating on keeping it held. If you do not consider it a "special ability", it is reasonable to to assume that holding it would be just extending the concentration you were already using. I think that my common sense would say it's not a special ability, it's an action available to all spellcasters, and it makes sense for concentration to just be maintained... But then again I would also rule that it doesn't matter, because concentration for the spell is only required when the magic becomes active and that is when the ready trigger occurs, at which point your concentration on holding the spell ends anyway.
What are the conditions for ending concentration listed in the PHB?
"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."
These are the three conditions specified in the PHB that will end a concentration spell. Unfortunately, the PHB does not specify whether concentration begins when you start casting the spell or when the spell is completed.
Longer casting time spells makes clear that concentration DOES start at least in some cases before the spell is complete. Concentration is NOT just a mechanic to "maintain the spell" it is an integral part of casting the spell.
"LONGER CASTING TIMES
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see "Concentration" below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over."
This clearly indicates that concentration starts when casting a spell at least for a certain class of spells.
The text is Xanathar's is NOT a new rule. It is not a clarification, it is clearly indicated as a restatement of rules present in the PHB.
"TEN RULES TO REMEMBER
A few rules in the core rulebooks sometimes trip up a new player or DM. Here are ten of those rules. Keeping them in mind will help you interpret the options in this book
CONCENTRATION
As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly."
Since this is clearly referring to rules already present in the PHB - it can only be referring to the rules stating that concentration on a spell ends when you cast another spell requiring concentration. This is NOT a new rule. It is not a fourth condition. It is a clarification that concentration BEGINS when you start casting a spell or using an effect requiring concentration and this instantly ends any other effect currently requiring concentration.
This is not a new condition ... i.e. You could read this to mean that when you start casting a spell that requires concentration then concentration on something else ends instantly BUT you aren't actually concentrating on anything until after the spell completes. The rule does NOT say that, it lacks the additional clause that some people are trying to interpret as being implicit.
Since this is clearly a clarification for "a new player or DM." and obviously experienced ones too ... it isn't creating a new rule on the sly - it is making clear that concentration on a spell requiring concentration to cast begins when you start casting that spell and as a consequence ends any previous concentration effects.
Of course, as Lyxen loves to say, the rules are entirely up to the DM so if you want to play it otherwise - you do you - but honestly this isn't worth arguing about further. When a character begins using any effect or spell that requires concentration - any existing concentration effects end instantly.
I agree with you, on your whole point but especially the bolded. Both sides have had ample space to make their argument, no one is being convinced to change positions, and remember; this argument is about an entirely hypothetical situation currently; no published effect currently stops a player from concentrating without any other limitations on spellcasting. Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that such an effect will ever be published, because most of the rules and conditions that would in theory effect concentration skip to preventing spellcasting in full (think conditions like stunned or incapacitated). However, if WoTC ever does publish an effect that only stops concentration, I'd love to revisit this. Cheers to all (both sides).
While I agree with you, Lyxen, that your interpretation is completely valid, I will play devils advocate and supply 2 points which could be used to interpret this the opposite way (which I do think is also a completely valid interpretation of the written rules).
I'm going to drop out of this now, though, because:
a) Neither side is convincing the other
b) While it was an interesting topic to begin with, when we keep going over the same thing over and over it becomes pointless
c) Point (b) is doubly so when there is no official way for this situation to occur
d) I should really be working right now....
Yea I have to end up with Lyxen and Urth here tbh. I see nothing that says that you need to concentrate during the casting of a spell (Longer Casting Times excepted because it has a specific exception). And I think that it creates wonky effects if you where to require it, as Ravnodaus showed with readied spells.
.
I'd also suggest that the clarification in XgtE is not about language logic but rather about game balance.
.
And one last thing. Concentration is NOT a duration as some has claimed. Concentration is something you need to maintain (for some spells) during the duration.