Personally I'm leaning more towards the camp of if you concentrate on the effects for a zero amount of time there is a zero amount of time that the spell can take effect which leads to zero effect.
And then zero time does not mean zero effect, see instantaneous spells.
Zero time is not the same as instantaneous, so that's irrelevant.
Actually, Instantaneous is exactly the definition of "zero time", according to Merriam-Webster: "occurring, or acting without any perceptible duration of time" and in math, Epsilon = zero for all intents and purpose. :D
I, sorry. I thought we were discussing RAW here. There is nothing in the RAW that says holding concentration for zero time turns the duration from "concentration" to "instantenous".
Since casting can be interrupted, it stands to reason that there is some element of concentrating going on during the actual casting (but again, we do have the 'plain language' issue).
"A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." A spell cannot be said to persist if it has not been cast yet, so the duration starts only after the spell has been cast, and concentration is required only during the duration.
And if a spell persists for zero time it has zero time to persist.
And then it does not need to persist, if some effect was done instantaneously, for example a fireball or a wall of fire popping up, see even the similarity of the spells.
Wall of fire doesn't have any effects that are instantenous. RAW is that the duration is "concentration up to 1 minute".
Anyone who has ever played Baldur's gate knows how satisfying it is to cast magic missile as soon as you see the baddy starting to cast som terrible spell. The 5E equivalent would be, for example, someone holding an attack "for when the spellcaster *starts* casting a spell". It's perfectly reasonable to call for a concentration roll if the held attack hits.
This is not in the rules, as pointed out above, the duration starts at the end of the casting, not at the start (see above, but also see spells with casting time greater than 1 action: In that case, you need concentration to maintain the casting, but the duration still starts after the actual casting). I'm not saying it's not a nice rule with BG and all, but for me it's not RAW.
I never claimed it was RAW but good for you. Also, if we go by your interpretation of RAW, if the effect only takes place during the duration of the spell and the duration of the spell is zero, there is no time for the effect to take place.
Again, see the definition of instantaneous. By your token, fireballs do not do damage...
No, since fireball doesn't have "concentration" as its duration. Nice strawman though. :)
Zero time is not the same as instantaneous, so that's irrelevant.
I would very much disagree. Instantaneous means occurring in an instant, and an instant is one specific point in time with no duration, which is the same as zero duration.
Both by RAW and grammatically you are wrong. An "instant" is still an amount of time which is not the same as "zero time". That part is irrelevant though since, as Lyxen pointed out, "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." If that amount of time is zero, it persists for zero time. There is nothing in the RAW that says that changing the duration of a spell's time to zero changes the duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous" as far as I know.
As Lyxen has pointed out, this is definitively not true. Instantaneous specifically means without duration. If you ask for the instantaneous velocity of an object which is accelerating, there is no single value if you include a non-zero duration.
If someone says "the water appears instantly", it doesn't take 1s or 1ms or 1ns to gradually appear, it suddenly appears in zero time.
Now, just because the spell lasts zero time, doesn't mean that there are no effects caused by that which would persist beyond that in spite of the spell having ended. If the water above has been created in zero time, the water remains afterwards. The same for fire created in an instant, or damage done to a creature or object. However, just because something caused by the spell remains afterwards doesn't change the fact that the spell's effect occurred instantly, in zero time.
Zero time is not the same as instantaneous, so that's irrelevant.
I would very much disagree. Instantaneous means occurring in an instant, and an instant is one specific point in time with no duration, which is the same as zero duration.
Both by RAW and grammatically you are wrong. An "instant" is still an amount of time which is not the same as "zero time". That part is irrelevant though since, as Lyxen pointed out, "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." If that amount of time is zero, it persists for zero time. There is nothing in the RAW that says that changing the duration of a spell's time to zero changes the duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous" as far as I know.
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".
As a side note. I'm curious as to what brought this question on in the first place. What would cause someone to be unable to concentrate on a spell but still allow spellcasting?
Zero time is not the same as instantaneous, so that's irrelevant.
I would very much disagree. Instantaneous means occurring in an instant, and an instant is one specific point in time with no duration, which is the same as zero duration.
Both by RAW and grammatically you are wrong. An "instant" is still an amount of time which is not the same as "zero time". That part is irrelevant though since, as Lyxen pointed out, "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." If that amount of time is zero, it persists for zero time. There is nothing in the RAW that says that changing the duration of a spell's time to zero changes the duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous" as far as I know.
As Lyxen has pointed out, this is definitively not true. Instantaneous specifically means without duration.
I suggest you read the rules on spellcasting in the PHB. There are no rules for changing the duration of spell from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a zero amount of time. :)
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
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.
This leads me to believe that concentration starts the moment you start casting which is therefore before the effect could possibly take place in any form.
This leads me to believe that concentration starts the moment you start casting which is therefore before the effect could possibly take place in any form.
I can see this both ways, but this looks like it could be a specific rule which beats the general rule. If concentration starts when you start to cast the spell, there would be no reason to say that concentration on the previous spell ends.
I wouldn't argue with a DM who ruled either way, but my own ruling would be that (except in the case of a readied/held spell, which has specific rules regardless of whether the spell requires concentration) concentration starts immediately after the spell has been cast. This is all because of the concentration rule which says you must "maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active", which by natural language necessitates that the magic is already active before you start concentrating. There is no magic to keep active unless it is already active when you start concentrating on it.
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.
Or whether or not an effect can occur without a time in which it exists. Or how you could possibly stop concentrating at anytime without being required to start.
Yeah this is a null vs zero distinction you're making here, which might very well be a valid one. And I would love if you could point to what you're referencing in the rules, it would be great insight into your rationale to know what rules you're talking about. It can be hard to follow someone's rules rationale when they don't tell you what they're referencing. That's a large body of work, just "the rules".
Ok. I'll try once more, then I'm out.
This is not a zero vs null distinction, this is a zero vs greater than zero distinction. The duration of concentration spells is the length of time you concentrate on it up to a max time. If you do not concentrate on a concentration spell at all the duration is 0. Duration as defined in the dictionary is "the span of time in which something exists or persists." If a spell effect has a duration of 0, it can never exist. Compared to a duration of instantaneous which by definition lasts for an instant, which is defined as an infinitesimal period of time. Infinitesimal is greater than 0, so an effect with an instantaneous duration has a period of time in which it exists. If you want to cast a concentration spell as an instantaneous spell, you have to concentrate for an instant. That is the plain language argument.
Now that we've covered the basic logic of "0 effect duration means no effect occurs," let's look at how the rules heavily imply that we should already know that. "If you lose concentration, such a spell ends," and "You can end concentration at any time," never mentions when concentration starts. That is because the rules assume you know concentration starts automatically when you cast the spell. It further clarifies that you automatically lose concentration when you "cast" another concentration spell, not when you "concentrate" on another spell, because again the rules assume you know concentration spells require concentration.
Also, it just plain calls these spells "a spell that requires concentration." "Requires."
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?
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.
Zero time is not the same as instantaneous, so that's irrelevant.
I would very much disagree. Instantaneous means occurring in an instant, and an instant is one specific point in time with no duration, which is the same as zero duration.
Both by RAW and grammatically you are wrong. An "instant" is still an amount of time which is not the same as "zero time". That part is irrelevant though since, as Lyxen pointed out, "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." If that amount of time is zero, it persists for zero time. There is nothing in the RAW that says that changing the duration of a spell's time to zero changes the duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous" as far as I know.
As Lyxen has pointed out, this is definitively not true. Instantaneous specifically means without duration.
I suggest you read the rules on spellcasting in the PHB. There are no rules for changing the duration of spell from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a zero amount of time. :)
True, but to me the magic must already be active at the instant you start concentrating, because you must concentrate to keep the magic active. If the magic is already active but you cannot maintain concentration, then anything instantaneous effect would happen, but anything which is not instantaneous would not. Most concentration spells do not have any effects which would work instantaneously, but where they reasonably would I see no reason the effect should not apply.
That said, I would find it perfectly acceptable for a DM to rule your way, too. The rules certainly are not clear.
Or whether or not an effect can occur without a time in which it exists. Or how you could possibly stop concentrating at anytime without being required to start.
Yeah this is a null vs zero distinction you're making here, which might very well be a valid one. And I would love if you could point to what you're referencing in the rules, it would be great insight into your rationale to know what rules you're talking about. It can be hard to follow someone's rules rationale when they don't tell you what they're referencing. That's a large body of work, just "the rules".
Ok. I'll try once more, then I'm out.
This is not a zero vs null distinction, this is a zero vs greater than zero distinction. The duration of concentration spells is the length of time you concentrate on it up to a max time. If you do not concentrate on a concentration spell at all the duration is 0. Duration as defined in the dictionary is "the span of time in which something exists or persists." If a spell effect has a duration of 0, it can never exist.
You're arguing against the existence of all instantaneous spells.
Compared to a duration of instantaneous which by definition lasts for an instant, which is defined as an infinitesimal period of time. Infinitesimal is greater than 0, so an effect with an instantaneous duration has a period of time in which it exists. If you want to cast a concentration spell as an instantaneous spell, you have to concentrate for an instant. That is the plain language argument.
An instant is a point. Not a span. A point...
Zero is a point.
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.
I, sorry. I thought we were discussing RAW here. There is nothing in the RAW that says holding concentration for zero time turns the duration from "concentration" to "instantenous".
Look at the game effects from 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."
Since you cast the spell, the wall appears, when it appears, exactly when it appears, and instantaneously, damage is taken. It does not matter if it's gone instantly as well. At the instant of its appearance (which, again, occurs since the spell was cast), damage was dealt. This is exactly the same as fireball.
Well, that goes against your statement that spells on persists during its duration. The wall doesn't appear if the duration is zero. Nor does a duration of zero mean that the duration is changed from C to I. That is just your interpretation of the RAW. Which is fine, but it's not RAW. :)
Wall of fire doesn't have any effects that are instantenous. RAW is that the duration is "concentration up to 1 minute".
Read the spell, and remember that specific beats general. Independently of its duration, when the spell is cast, the wall appears and deals damage.
There isn't anything specific that changes the duration of the Wall of Firefrom C to I. Or are you retracting your previous statement that spells only persist during their duration?
Anyway, tangents about the definition of instantaneous aside. The answer was straightforward once you consider the ramifications of holding a spell.
You can't both concentrate on holding the spell energy back and also concentrate on the spell, since it was cast on your Ready action already. So the spell concentration must necessarily happen for maintaining the effect, not casting the spell. Otherwise you'd have to concentrate on holding it back and also concentrate on maintaining, which you can't do.
Unless the argument evolves into holding a concentration spell is now impossible per RAW... then we have our answer.
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.
Zero time is not the same as instantaneous, so that's irrelevant.
I would very much disagree. Instantaneous means occurring in an instant, and an instant is one specific point in time with no duration, which is the same as zero duration.
Both by RAW and grammatically you are wrong. An "instant" is still an amount of time which is not the same as "zero time". That part is irrelevant though since, as Lyxen pointed out, "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." If that amount of time is zero, it persists for zero time. There is nothing in the RAW that says that changing the duration of a spell's time to zero changes the duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous" as far as I know.
As Lyxen has pointed out, this is definitively not true. Instantaneous specifically means without duration.
I suggest you read the rules on spellcasting in the PHB. There are no rules for changing the duration of spell from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a zero amount of time. :)
True, but to me the magic must already be active at the instant you start concentrating, because you must concentrate to keep the magic active.
Yup, not RAW. If you want interpret the rules differently, that's fine. It's not RAW, though. :)
Zero time is not the same as instantaneous, so that's irrelevant.
I would very much disagree. Instantaneous means occurring in an instant, and an instant is one specific point in time with no duration, which is the same as zero duration.
Both by RAW and grammatically you are wrong. An "instant" is still an amount of time which is not the same as "zero time". That part is irrelevant though since, as Lyxen pointed out, "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." If that amount of time is zero, it persists for zero time. There is nothing in the RAW that says that changing the duration of a spell's time to zero changes the duration from "Concentration" to "Instantenous" as far as I know.
As Lyxen has pointed out, this is definitively not true. Instantaneous specifically means without duration.
I suggest you read the rules on spellcasting in the PHB. There are no rules for changing the duration of spell from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a zero amount of time. :)
True, but to me the magic must already be active at the instant you start concentrating, because you must concentrate to keep the magic active.
Yup, not RAW. If you want interpret the rules differently, that's fine. It's not RAW, though. :)
Actually, very much RAW:
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active.
You cannot keep something active which is not already active. Hence the magic of a concentration spell is already active when you start concentrating on it.
I, sorry. I thought we were discussing RAW here. There is nothing in the RAW that says holding concentration for zero time turns the duration from "concentration" to "instantenous".
Look at the game effects from 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."
Since you cast the spell, the wall appears, when it appears, exactly when it appears, and instantaneously, damage is taken. It does not matter if it's gone instantly as well. At the instant of its appearance (which, again, occurs since the spell was cast), damage was dealt. This is exactly the same as fireball.
Well, that goes against your statement that spells on persists during its duration. The wall doesn't appear if the duration is zero. Nor does a duration of zero mean that the duration is changed from C to I. That is just your interpretation of the RAW. Which is fine, but it's not RAW. :)
Wall of fire doesn't have any effects that are instantenous. RAW is that the duration is "concentration up to 1 minute".
Read the spell, and remember that specific beats general. Independently of its duration, when the spell is cast, the wall appears and deals damage.
There isn't anything specific that changes the duration of the Wall of Firefrom C to I. Or are you retracting your previous statement that spells only persist during their duration?
I have not said that it changes the duration,
Well, that's the point you're arguing. That the effects of WoF (for example) are instantenous. RAW, they're not.
I'm just applying the exact wording of that specific spell. The question are simple:
Is the spell cast ? YES
Is the wall created ? YES, because the spell starts with "You create a wall of fire"
Does the wall appear ? YES, see above
Is damage dealt ? YES, because the spell says "When the wall appears..."
Now, for me, it is very suspiciously like a fireball, which has a duration of instantaneous and does about the same thing. You might want to say it differently, but the reasoning above is absolutely RAW and incontroversible.
Well, that is your interpretation of the rules but RAW they are completely different since one spell is Concentration and the other is Instantenous. You can check for yourself on pages 241 and 285 of the PHB.
As a side note. I'm curious as to what brought this question on in the first place. What would cause someone to be unable to concentrate on a spell but still allow spellcasting?
I don't think it was something specific, but it's not an uninteresting magical effect that could occur, for example in a very distracting area, or near to a Far Realm portal, etc. I might consider including it in an adventure.
In all the hullabaloo I missed this bit, it was in a game I'm a player in. There was an effect one of the players failed a save on. I didn't recognize the effect or the spell. And, well, I'm the party wizard so it got me all sorts of concerned. We never got an answer in-game because that player didn't even try to cast a spell, let alone a concentration one. It just got me thinking that I had no idea what would happen or how that even really works in the nuts and bolts of it all, so came here. Its possible it could come up again... maybe. Now, if it is some home brew concoction? Yeah he's just going to hand wave it to work however he wanted it to either way. I'm not sure if it is though, I mean, it could be? I don't recognize it from any spell I know of. But maybe a module npc or magic item has an effect that does it? Dunno.
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 rules could have been significantly simplified just by changing the line in the PHB spellcasting section to read
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to cast them.
The fact they chose a longer and more complex wording, with a bunch of clarifications, strongly suggests that this was not the intent.
Of course, it could just be down to the notoriously bad wording of the D&D rules...
It is down to the bad wording of the rules.
If you take the XGtE rule which says concentration is broken on an old spell the moment you start casting another concentration spell - to stop a character being able to get the benefits on one concentration spell while casting another. They wouldn't have even needed to add the XGtE rule if the PHB/Basic Rules rules on concentration were written properly to begin with.
I mean - I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are two very valid interpretations of RAW. One is that concentration starts the moment you start casting (I'm in this camp) and the other is that concentration starts when you finish casting. Now one side or the other may argue that the other isn't valid - but in truth - they both are valid per RAW. And I really hate that - because they are mutually exclusive. And this comes up in nearly every aspect of the rules. It's infuriating.
I, sorry. I thought we were discussing RAW here. There is nothing in the RAW that says holding concentration for zero time turns the duration from "concentration" to "instantenous".
Wall of fire doesn't have any effects that are instantenous. RAW is that the duration is "concentration up to 1 minute".
No, since fireball doesn't have "concentration" as its duration. Nice strawman though. :)
As Lyxen has pointed out, this is definitively not true. Instantaneous specifically means without duration. If you ask for the instantaneous velocity of an object which is accelerating, there is no single value if you include a non-zero duration.
If someone says "the water appears instantly", it doesn't take 1s or 1ms or 1ns to gradually appear, it suddenly appears in zero time.
Now, just because the spell lasts zero time, doesn't mean that there are no effects caused by that which would persist beyond that in spite of the spell having ended. If the water above has been created in zero time, the water remains afterwards. The same for fire created in an instant, or damage done to a creature or object. However, just because something caused by the spell remains afterwards doesn't change the fact that the spell's effect occurred instantly, in zero time.
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".
As a side note. I'm curious as to what brought this question on in the first place. What would cause someone to be unable to concentrate on a spell but still allow spellcasting?
I suggest you read the rules on spellcasting in the PHB. There are no rules for changing the duration of spell from Concentration to Instantenous just because you concentrate for a zero amount of time. :)
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
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.
Is nobody going to quote the rule from XGtE?
This leads me to believe that concentration starts the moment you start casting which is therefore before the effect could possibly take place in any form.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I can see this both ways, but this looks like it could be a specific rule which beats the general rule. If concentration starts when you start to cast the spell, there would be no reason to say that concentration on the previous spell ends.
I wouldn't argue with a DM who ruled either way, but my own ruling would be that (except in the case of a readied/held spell, which has specific rules regardless of whether the spell requires concentration) concentration starts immediately after the spell has been cast. This is all because of the concentration rule which says you must "maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active", which by natural language necessitates that the magic is already active before you start concentrating. There is no magic to keep active unless it is already active when you start concentrating on it.
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.
Ok. I'll try once more, then I'm out.
This is not a zero vs null distinction, this is a zero vs greater than zero distinction. The duration of concentration spells is the length of time you concentrate on it up to a max time. If you do not concentrate on a concentration spell at all the duration is 0. Duration as defined in the dictionary is "the span of time in which something exists or persists." If a spell effect has a duration of 0, it can never exist. Compared to a duration of instantaneous which by definition lasts for an instant, which is defined as an infinitesimal period of time. Infinitesimal is greater than 0, so an effect with an instantaneous duration has a period of time in which it exists. If you want to cast a concentration spell as an instantaneous spell, you have to concentrate for an instant. That is the plain language argument.
Now that we've covered the basic logic of "0 effect duration means no effect occurs," let's look at how the rules heavily imply that we should already know that. "If you lose concentration, such a spell ends," and "You can end concentration at any time," never mentions when concentration starts. That is because the rules assume you know concentration starts automatically when you cast the spell. It further clarifies that you automatically lose concentration when you "cast" another concentration spell, not when you "concentrate" on another spell, because again the rules assume you know concentration spells require concentration.
Also, it just plain calls these spells "a spell that requires concentration." "Requires."
Check. The. Work.
This is simple substitution. Which of these three points is the part you're stuck on? 1, 2, or 3?
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.
True, but to me the magic must already be active at the instant you start concentrating, because you must concentrate to keep the magic active. If the magic is already active but you cannot maintain concentration, then anything instantaneous effect would happen, but anything which is not instantaneous would not. Most concentration spells do not have any effects which would work instantaneously, but where they reasonably would I see no reason the effect should not apply.
That said, I would find it perfectly acceptable for a DM to rule your way, too. The rules certainly are not clear.
You're arguing against the existence of all instantaneous spells.
An instant is a point. Not a span. A point...
Zero is a point.
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.
There isn't anything specific that changes the duration of the Wall of Firefrom C to I. Or are you retracting your previous statement that spells only persist during their duration?
Anyway, tangents about the definition of instantaneous aside. The answer was straightforward once you consider the ramifications of holding a spell.
You can't both concentrate on holding the spell energy back and also concentrate on the spell, since it was cast on your Ready action already. So the spell concentration must necessarily happen for maintaining the effect, not casting the spell. Otherwise you'd have to concentrate on holding it back and also concentrate on maintaining, which you can't do.
Unless the argument evolves into holding a concentration spell is now impossible per RAW... then we have our answer.
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.
Yup, not RAW. If you want interpret the rules differently, that's fine. It's not RAW, though. :)
Actually, very much RAW:
You cannot keep something active which is not already active. Hence the magic of a concentration spell is already active when you start concentrating on it.
Well, that's the point you're arguing. That the effects of WoF (for example) are instantenous. RAW, they're not.
Well, that is your interpretation of the rules but RAW they are completely different since one spell is Concentration and the other is Instantenous. You can check for yourself on pages 241 and 285 of the PHB.
In all the hullabaloo I missed this bit, it was in a game I'm a player in. There was an effect one of the players failed a save on. I didn't recognize the effect or the spell. And, well, I'm the party wizard so it got me all sorts of concerned. We never got an answer in-game because that player didn't even try to cast a spell, let alone a concentration one. It just got me thinking that I had no idea what would happen or how that even really works in the nuts and bolts of it all, so came here. Its possible it could come up again... maybe. Now, if it is some home brew concoction? Yeah he's just going to hand wave it to work however he wanted it to either way. I'm not sure if it is though, I mean, it could be? I don't recognize it from any spell I know of. But maybe a module npc or magic item has an effect that does it? Dunno.
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.
OK, how about a little tangential logic.
The rules could have been significantly simplified just by changing the line in the PHB spellcasting section to read
The fact they chose a longer and more complex wording, with a bunch of clarifications, strongly suggests that this was not the intent.
Of course, it could just be down to the notoriously bad wording of the D&D rules...
It is down to the bad wording of the rules.
If you take the XGtE rule which says concentration is broken on an old spell the moment you start casting another concentration spell - to stop a character being able to get the benefits on one concentration spell while casting another.
They wouldn't have even needed to add the XGtE rule if the PHB/Basic Rules rules on concentration were written properly to begin with.
I mean - I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are two very valid interpretations of RAW.
One is that concentration starts the moment you start casting (I'm in this camp) and the other is that concentration starts when you finish casting. Now one side or the other may argue that the other isn't valid - but in truth - they both are valid per RAW. And I really hate that - because they are mutually exclusive. And this comes up in nearly every aspect of the rules. It's infuriating.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).