Well, that's the point you're arguing. That the effects of WoF (for example) are instantenous. RAW, they're not.
No one is arguing that the 'duration changes". Really. No one is arguing what you're saying.
Stop and read what we've actually been saying. Really, read these 3 points and tell me specifically which you disagree with. This will help identify the disconnect.
If Duration = Concentration
And Concentration = Instantaneous
Then Duration = Instantaneous
I'll even rephrase it so you can see what's happening. Let's use a different length of concentration, let's say he concentrates for 1 round.
If Duration = Concentration
And Concentration = 1 round
Then Duration = 1 round
You see? Yes/no? Which part?
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.
Well, that's the point you're arguing. That the effects of WoF (for example) are instantenous. RAW, they're not.
No one is arguing that the 'duration changes". Really. No one is arguing what you're saying.
Well, you do. Quite literally in the following paragraphs. And that goes against RAW.
Stop and read what we've actually been saying. Really, read these 3 points and tell me specifically which you disagree with. This will help identify the disconnect.
If Duration = Concentration
And Concentration = Instantaneous
Then Duration = Instantaneous
I'll even rephrase it so you can see what's happening. Let's use a different length of concentration, let's say he concentrates for 1 round.
If Duration = Concentration
And Concentration = 1 round
Then Duration = 1 round
You see? Yes/no? Which part?
The two examples you give are obviously not the same. Is it that fact that you can't tell the difference between the rule "Instantenous" and the word as it is used in everyday language that confuses you? Because those aren't the same. It's all explained in the section on spellcasting in the PHB.
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.
This is pretty much where I sit: There are 2 perfectly valid interpretations of the rules. Both have their complications, but neither is obviously right or obviously wrong based on either the written rule or "common sense". I know which way I would go if I had to rule on this, but I would find it perfectly acceptable for it to be taken the other way.
I do very much agree also that it is infuriating how many rules end up like this in 5e. However, it's how it is, and luckily there is one rule which "fixes" it: The DM is always right has the final say. It is frustrating as hell, but when we meet issues like this, we just have to let the DM decide which way to go.
The two examples you give are obviously not the same. Is it that fact that you can't tell the difference between the rule "Instantenous" and the word as it is used in everyday language that confuses you? Because those aren't the same. It's all explained in the section on spellcasting in the PHB.
The word "instantaneous" in everyday language means "lasting for an instant".
The word "Instantaneous" in the spellcasting rules means "its magic exists only for an instant".
I cannot see a meaningful difference between those definitions. I'd be grateful if you could explain what you believe the difference is.
This is pretty much where I sit: There are 2 perfectly valid interpretations of the rules. Both have their complications, but neither is obviously right or obviously wrong based on either the written rule or "common sense". I know which way I would go if I had to rule on this, but I would find it perfectly acceptable for it to be taken the other way.
I agree, and I've explained the multiple reasons for me leaning one way, in particular the fact that it's more interesting to play.
I do very much agree also that it is infuriating how many rules end up like this in 5e. However, it's how it is, and luckily there is one rule which "fixes" it: The DM is always right has the final say. It is frustrating as hell, but when we meet issues like this, we just have to let the DM decide which way to go.
It is not frustrating, it's wonderful ! The designers have realised what a number of us always knew (and our main frustration with 4e), that no set of rules could cover all the cases in a TTRPG. When you add more rules, you do not make the game better and complete, it's impossible due to its very nature. The only thing that you do is make it more "ruleslawyerable" which is a very negative effect on game play.
By realising that you will always need a DM to describe and interpret because the situations are so varie, and making it the rule 0, you make a simpler, much better game, more open and with many more possibilities. And you cut the grass under the feet of the ruleslawyers, preventing their annoying behaviour during the games (which is where the game is supposed to be played, not on rather sterile arenas like this one).
The main difficulty is keeping enough rules in for the game to be enjoyable and provide some guidance in particular to beginners. But I dare say that the success of 5e proves that they did it reasonably right. It's not perfect, but it's more than good enough!
It is perfectly fine having "incomplete" rules and letting the DM fill in the blanks. However, having a rule which has 2 equally valid but mutually exclusive interpretations is frustrating. It means you can play for years at multiple tables, with the same interpretation played at all, then play at a different table and find the complete opposite is being played. Both are RAW, not house rules, so need no discussion at session zero.... But they can completely change the way you need to play certain situations.
I do very much agree also that it is infuriating how many rules end up like this in 5e. However, it's how it is, and luckily there is one rule which "fixes" it: The DM is always right has the final say. It is frustrating as hell, but when we meet issues like this, we just have to let the DM decide which way to go.
It is not frustrating, it's wonderful ! [...]
As someone with autism - I wholeheartedly disagree. Rules are everything to me - they're how I make sense of the world. When a rule can have two mutually exclusive interpretations - it is truly incredibly frustrating. I'm aware of the flexibility it gives to DM's - but that doesn't stop them being problematic for me.
I also love the flexibility of the rules in 5e. It is impossible to have a fully defined, strict set of rules covering all possibilities for such an open game, and trying to define them is unlikely to work. Leaving only a core set of rules and having a DM to fill in the blanks is a fantastic way to define a game like D&D.
However, this isn't flexibility it's just bad writing. A rule should have only one interpretation for a particular situation, when read in conjunction with the rest of the rules. If it does have different interpretations, they should at least be complimentary, with just minor differences. If a rule can be read both as "you must always wear a red shirt" and "you must never wear a red shirt", with both being equally valid interpretations, saying "well that just makes it flexible" does not fly. It is just badly written, end of. It would be better for the rule not to exist in the first place, because it is meaningless in its current form and will just cause confusion and arguments.
Which rule are you speaking of, exactly ? The thing is that there are multiple rules, and each one is I think not too badly written. It's the combinations, usually from different books, that create problems and despite what, 3 years of playtesting before publication, it's still not perfect. Perfection is not of this world, and I'm sure that all the critics around these forums have already published much tighter game systems that have been much more successful...
Erm... This one for a start. 2 equally valid interpretations which result in very different outcomes.
For the rest, see all the long arguments in this forum alone. There are dozens, at least, of rules which have multiple valid interpretations which can vastly alter the game. This is especially true where a person has read the rules one way and made character decisions based on that, only to find their DM has read them another and rendered what they planned useless.
House rules are great, leaving gaps for the DM to fill in is the right way to go, but having badly-written, ill-defined core rules just causes confusion and arguments (whether on forums like this or at the table). Forcing the DM to rule which of the two (or more) conflicting interpretations is to be used at the table, potentially in the face of 2 players who each interpreted it differently and need it to work their way for their choices to work as they anticipated, isn't "flexibility".
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.
You are confusing the spell's effect (there is only one, as per PH p 202 ("The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." <= singular) and the various game effects created by the spell. The spell's duration is concentration, but the first effect is clearly instantaneous.
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.
I know them very well and have no problem with them, as specific beats general, and the Wall of Fire specific rules, incontroversible as shown above, show that the initial effect applies even if you strop concentrating on the spell the moment it's cast.
I'm not interested in you moving the goalposts, I'm interested in you showing us the rules for changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you change the time you concentrate on it. Again, if you want to interpret the rules that way I see no problem with it but it isn't RAW.
The two examples you give are obviously not the same. Is it that fact that you can't tell the difference between the rule "Instantenous" and the word as it is used in everyday language that confuses you? Because those aren't the same. It's all explained in the section on spellcasting in the PHB.
The word "instantaneous" in everyday language means "lasting for an instant".
The word "Instantaneous" in the spellcasting rules means "its magic exists only for an instant".
I cannot see a meaningful difference between those definitions. I'd be grateful if you could explain what you believe the difference is.
It might be easier if you explain to us what parts of the rules you are having trouble understanding?
There is a mechanical difference between something having a duration of "Instantenous" and having a duration of "Concentration". According to RAW you can't have a concentration duration that is "instantenous". As has pointed out by Lyxen and myself, the spell only persists during its duration. If that duration is a zero time of concetration it persists for a zero time which is not the same as it persisting "Instantenous". Just because you concentrate for a really short time doesn't mean that the rules allow you to change the mechanical duration of the spell.
However, I have seen dozens of threads in these forums (many of which you have been involved in) where the interpretation of fairly basic rules are in dispute. Often both sides insist that their interpretation is The One True Reading, but when 2 groups of similar size and experience read the rules in 2 completely different ways, there is something wrong with the rule.
That said, I disagree that having a different opinion to your DM on a rule, or making character choices based on the rules, is necessarily power gaming. If you have chosen a subclass, spell, weapon or feat because you believe you can do something with it (which is a valid reading of the rules), it is a perfectly normal way to play. I don't think there are many people who make such character choices purely for the RP, completely ignoring the mechanical rules surrounding it. If you have made a choice based, in part, on a mechanical effect, and then find that the DM interprets an ambiguous rule in such a way as to render that effect useless (or significantly different), I think it's perfectly valid to be a little miffed with the unclear way the rules were written.
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.
I'm not interested in you moving the goalposts, I'm interested in you showing us the rules for changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you change the time you concentrate on it. Again, if you want to interpret the rules that way I see no problem with it but it isn't RAW.
He is clearly not moving the goalposts. He is presenting an alternative interpretation of the rules as written. What you seem to mean when you say "it isn't RAW" is "it isn't my interpretation of RAW".
So, to be clear about the interpretation Lyxen is talking about, nothing in the rules says that you must maintain concentration in order to cast a concentration spell, only that you must maintain concentration to "keep the magic active". This strongly implies that it is possible to cast the spell without concentration, whether or not the duration is concentration. Once the spell is cast, its effects start to apply. In this interpretation, any effect which reasonably would happen instantly could occur without concentration, because the spell is cast but ends instantly.
Again, nothing in the written rule stops this from being the case for a spell with duration Concentration. Therefore "changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous[sic]" is unnecessary, and he doesn't need to show us the rules for changing the duration of the spell.
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.
Mathematically, infinitesimally small EQUALS zero. Proof here.
5e is written using common english. Mathematical definitions are not common english: Sorry, I don't buy that you need an advanced mathematics degree to properly adjudicate the rules in D&D.
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).
This is just your rule, but there is absolutely no support for this in the rules. Where does it says that the casting fails ?
The spell fails when your concentration ends. if you never had it to begin with, then it fails before it can start.
Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears.
And when I cast it, it appears, it's the first line of the description. I have cast it successfully, therefore it has appeared, therefore it has dealt damage.
If the spell duration was instantaneous, then the wall would appear. Its not; it's the lesser of 1 minute or concentration. Without concentration, the duration is 0. the wall cannot appear in 0 time, nothing can.
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
Wrong, it does appear, because I cast the spell successfully, and the description says so. It's only your house rule of failing a spell with a duration of 0 that would cause it not to appear, but it's only your interpretation, no support of that in the rules.
The spell assumes that you cast it with the ability to concentrate. All effects that deprive your ability to concentrate also prevent you from casting those spells to begin with. The rules cannot address edge cases that don't exist in the rules; if you homebrew an effect that differs, then you also have to adjudicate how that effect works with casting spells that require concentration. We can't rule on the workings of homebrew from RAW because it is entirely up to the DM
it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
It's not a question of time. The rules say that if I cast the spell (which I did), the wall appears. It's a specific rule and will beat anything from anywhere else in the rules that you care to throw at it.
The rules also say that the spell has a duration of 1 minute (concentration). If you aren't concentrating, then the spell has 0 duration. If an effect has 0 duration, it doesn't exist.
If you want to use the mathematics definition of instant, fine...I was not attacking your viewpoint in my first post, I was stating my own. You don't need to attack those who have a different point of view when you yourself have said in this thread that you think both ways are valid rulings (reference post #14).
However, I have seen dozens of threads in these forums (many of which you have been involved in) where the interpretation of fairly basic rules are in dispute. Often both sides insist that their interpretation is The One True Reading, but when 2 groups of similar size and experience read the rules in 2 completely different ways, there is something wrong with the rule.
And again, from having seen and been in a number of these threads, an honest reading of the rules without a powergaming drive from some contributors usually provides the solution. Honestly some people go and say "but an owl has a PP of 18" when the rule plainly writes 13. It's often that kind of case, but it can go on for pages.
There might be some inconsistencies now and then, and I'll gladly discuss them with you, but start by finding a true inconsistency. :D
That said, I disagree that having a different opinion to your DM on a rule, or making character choices based on the rules, is necessarily power gaming. If you have chosen a subclass, spell, weapon or feat because you believe you can do something with it (which is a valid reading of the rules), it is a perfectly normal way to play.
It's not the intent of the rules. I'm not saying that it's not a valid way to play, or that it cannot be fun, but the game itself says, plainly, right at the start, that it's not about the rules.
And you are entitled to have a different opinion from your DM, but again, the rules say clearly that the DM chooses which rules apply and how. So what is the point of that different opinion, exactly, apart from creating dissent in the group and possibly delaying play by rules lawyering ?
I don't think there are many people who make such character choices purely for the RP, completely ignoring the mechanical rules surrounding it. If you have made a choice based, in part, on a mechanical effect, and then find that the DM interprets an ambiguous rule in such a way as to render that effect useless (or significantly different), I think it's perfectly valid to be a little miffed with the unclear way the rules were written.
And again I disagree. Even if the rules where perfectly written, there would still be that rule 0 that says "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
So what's so important about the way the rules are written ? You can't use them to convince a DM anyway if he thinks differently than you do.
The rules as written are a starting point. The DM can and should fill in gaps for anything which is not written, but it is not unreasonable for players to expect that any rule specifically written will be allowed. It generally takes a lot more for a DM to ignore or change the written rule than to make up a new rule addressing an area not covered in the rules, and it is generally done with a good reason and with the consent of the players at the table. However, interpreting the written rule is often not given the same consideration where there is ambiguity, especially because many (players and DMs) will only see their first reading and dismiss attempts to justify an alternative point of view.
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.
Mathematically, infinitesimally small EQUALS zero. Proof here.
5e is written using common english. Mathematical definitions are not common english: Sorry, I don't buy that you need an advanced mathematics degree to properly adjudicate the rules in D&D.
"Infinitesimally small" is certainly not common English. If you are going to use a mathematical term to describe something, you shouldn't be surprised if a mathematical proof is given in response.
Also, I think most people who were considering an instantaneous magical effect would expect it to take zero time. If a spell was cast which "instantaneously" created water , one moment there would be nothing there, then next there would be water. There would be no time when it was "fading in", no time when only some of the water was there, it just suddenly exists.
In fact, considering "fade-in" leads to a common use of "instant": in presentations. If you have an instant change, then one frame the first slide is there, the next the second. Ther is no intervening time.
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).
This is just your rule, but there is absolutely no support for this in the rules. Where does it says that the casting fails ?
The spell fails when your concentration ends. if you never had it to begin with, then it fails before it can start.
Then how do you explain the wording of the rule? You have to maintain concentration to "keep the magic active". In order to keep it active, in common English, it must have been active in the first place. To keep water boiling, it must first be boiling. You cannot keep cold water boiling (at standard pressure etc), you must first of all bring it to the boil.
Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears.
And when I cast it, it appears, it's the first line of the description. I have cast it successfully, therefore it has appeared, therefore it has dealt damage.
If the spell duration was instantaneous, then the wall would appear. Its not; it's the lesser of 1 minute or concentration. Without concentration, the duration is 0. the wall cannot appear in 0 time, nothing can.
An instantaneous-duration spell can.
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
Wrong, it does appear, because I cast the spell successfully, and the description says so. It's only your house rule of failing a spell with a duration of 0 that would cause it not to appear, but it's only your interpretation, no support of that in the rules.
The spell assumes that you cast it with the ability to concentrate. All effects that deprive your ability to concentrate also prevent you from casting those spells to begin with. The rules cannot address edge cases that don't exist in the rules; if you homebrew an effect that differs, then you also have to adjudicate how that effect works with casting spells that require concentration. We can't rule on the workings of homebrew from RAW because it is entirely up to the DM
This I can see. We are discussing a rule in a setting which doesn't happen in any official situation I am aware of.
it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
It's not a question of time. The rules say that if I cast the spell (which I did), the wall appears. It's a specific rule and will beat anything from anywhere else in the rules that you care to throw at it.
The rules also say that the spell has a duration of 1 minute (concentration). If you aren't concentrating, then the spell has 0 duration. If an effect has 0 duration, it doesn't exist.
If you want to use the mathematics definition of instant, fine...I was not attacking your viewpoint in my first post, I was stating my own. You don't need to attack those who have a different point of view when you yourself have said in this thread that you think both ways are valid rulings (reference post #14).
Again, I both disagree that this is a "mathematics definition of instant", and find it amusing that you are challenging that when you used a mathematical definition yourself to try to dismiss it.
However, given this is (AFAIK) a homebrew situation, it would be up to a homebrew rule to solve it. I would use my interpretation of the written rules to say that the initial damage of WoF occurred, others would rule differently. I don't think either view is invalid or wrong.
This is just your rule, but there is absolutely no support for this in the rules. Where does it says that the casting fails ?
The spell fails when your concentration ends. if you never had it to begin with, then it fails before it can start.
Nope, this is not what the rules say. The rules say that you cast it, THEN you must concentrate. So if you don't concentrate, you have still cast it successfully.
Lyxen, your wall of fire example only deals damage when the wall appears.
And when I cast it, it appears, it's the first line of the description. I have cast it successfully, therefore it has appeared, therefore it has dealt damage.
If the spell duration was instantaneous, then the wall would appear. Its not; it's the lesser of 1 minute or concentration. Without concentration, the duration is 0. the wall cannot appear in 0 time, nothing can.
It's magic, it appears in no time if the rules say so. Does the spell specify a delay in the wall appearing ? No, when you cast the spell, the wall appears. I have cast it, it appears, it deals damage, it's the pure description of the spell.
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
Wrong, it does appear, because I cast the spell successfully, and the description says so. It's only your house rule of failing a spell with a duration of 0 that would cause it not to appear, but it's only your interpretation, no support of that in the rules.
The spell assumes that you cast it with the ability to concentrate.
No it does not. If you think it's the case, prove it.
All effects that deprive your ability to concentrate also prevent you from casting those spells to begin with.
No it does not. Prove it.
The rules cannot address edge cases that don't exist in the rules; if you homebrew an effect that differs, then you also have to adjudicate how that effect works with casting spells that require concentration. We can't rule on the workings of homebrew from RAW because it is entirely up to the DM
On this, I agree. If the effect says specifically that it prevents spells requiring concentration to be cast, I will agree with you. But if it only says that it prevents concentration, the order prescribed by the rules is cast THEN effect THEN concentration to maintain the effect. This is clear and RAW.
it has no time in which to appear, not even the tiniest fraction of a second that would meet the definition of instant.
It's not a question of time. The rules say that if I cast the spell (which I did), the wall appears. It's a specific rule and will beat anything from anywhere else in the rules that you care to throw at it.
The rules also say that the spell has a duration of 1 minute (concentration). If you aren't concentrating, then the spell has 0 duration. If an effect has 0 duration, it doesn't exist.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that a spell with 0 duration does not exist. What the rules say, however, is that when you cast the spell, you cast the spell, and produce an effect. the rules THEN say how long that effect stays active. But if an effect does damage AS SOON AS IT APPEARS, then it has done that effect.
If you want to use the mathematics definition of instant, fine...I was not attacking your viewpoint, I was stating my own. You don't need to attack those who have a different point of view when you yourself have said in this thread that you think both ways are valid rulings.
Despite what you think, I'm not attacking you, I'm just discussing possibilities. In the end, I agree with what you have stated above, this effect of preventing concentration is not in the rules. If you want it to be precise, you need to be precise in its effect. Does it prevent spells requiring concentration from being cast ? The whole answer depends on this question, and of course we won't find the answer in the rules, because it's a strange new effect.
And by the way, my apologies if I appear too intense in these discussions, or dismissive. It's an effect of just writing words in a forum, it does not mean that I'm attacking you or anything of the kind. Really sorry if you thought it was the case.
So let me say it plainly, if the effect prevents spells using concentration from being cast at all, I'm with you on this. Clear ? :D
Not going to do the point by point, and thank you for clarifying your intent not to attack, but in reference to what is "instantaneous" I would also suggest this as a definition (not mathmatics, but physics)
Basically, instant is infinitesimally small (but not 0), and the actual smallest unit of measurable time is significantly larger than infinitely small (though very very small still). But again, I feel that going into scientific and mathematical definitions to defend an argument leaves out the fact that this is a rules question for a game, and thus limited by the language used and the intent of how to interpret, which in this case is "plain english" (you can't actually measure physics universally throughout D&D, and physics don't necessarily align with the real world; I particularly like that in Discworld the speed of light was slowed down to like 600 mph in one book due to the magic of the world).
I cannot find an actual published example of an effect that only prevents concentration over a duration (plenty that end it, and plenty that prevent spellcasting, but not any that just prevent concentration), so this is a gray area (and I think we agree on that).
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.
You are confusing the spell's effect (there is only one, as per PH p 202 ("The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." <= singular) and the various game effects created by the spell. The spell's duration is concentration, but the first effect is clearly instantaneous.
Not really, no. And no, if we go by RAW and your own words that spells only persists during their duration then the effects of a spell with duration C is not Instantenous. You can't have it both ways.
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.
I know them very well and have no problem with them, as specific beats general, and the Wall of Fire specific rules, incontroversible as shown above, show that the initial effect applies even if you strop concentrating on the spell the moment it's cast.
I'm not interested in you moving the goalposts, I'm interested in you showing us the rules for changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you change the time you concentrate on it. Again, if you want to interpret the rules that way I see no problem with it but it isn't RAW.
And again, you are strawmanning, because I have never proposed changing the duration of a spell. What I've proven to you on multiple occasions now is that the specific rules of some spells (in particular wall of fire) do damage instantaneously on casting them, which is enough to cover this edge case completely without any doubt.
Well, no. Since you claim that effects that persist during spells that have concentration takes place "instantenous". By RAW they do not. You have yet to show proof that WoF have a duration that, according to the rules, have is anything other than Concentration. Your interpretation that "some of the effects happen when the spell is cast" does not change the RAW duration of the spell. Simple as that.
I'm not interested in you moving the goalposts, I'm interested in you showing us the rules for changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you change the time you concentrate on it. Again, if you want to interpret the rules that way I see no problem with it but it isn't RAW.
He is clearly not moving the goalposts. He is presenting an alternative interpretation of the rules as written.
Interpretations are by definition not RAW so...
What you seem to mean when you say "it isn't RAW" is "it isn't my interpretation of RAW".
No. I mean that as soon as you you start interpreting RAW in a way that changes the rules, it is no longer RAW. Which, again, is fine, but it's not RAW.
So, to be clear about the interpretation Lyxen is talking about, nothing in the rules says that you must maintain concentration in order to cast a concentration spell, only that you must maintain concentration to "keep the magic active". This strongly implies that it is possible to cast the spell without concentration, whether or not the duration is concentration. Once the spell is cast, its effects start to apply. In this interpretation, any effect which reasonably would happen instantly could occur without concentration, because the spell is cast but ends instantly.
Again, nothing in the written rule stops this from being the case for a spell with duration Concentration. Therefore "changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous[sic]" is unnecessary, and he doesn't need to show us the rules for changing the duration of the spell.
If you say that the rules allows for things to happen during the mechanical duration called "Instantenous" instead of during the mechanical duration called "Concentration", you need to back that claim up with rules taht actually say that. Again, if you want to interpret the rules in that way I see no problem with it but then don't claim that you interpretation is RAW, because it is not. Simple as that. :)
There can be multiple interpretations of RAW, particularly in edge cases like this. This is because the rules are written in "common English", and English is not a very specific language. Even just a word or a phrase can have multiple meanings. "I am blue" can mean I feel down or my skin is the colour blue.
I'm not going to go through the evidence again, because you are obviously not reading them and/or have your head locked on one interpretation of the words on the page. This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier, where two people can read the same rule in two completely different ways and be unable (or unwilling) to see any alternative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No one is arguing that the 'duration changes". Really. No one is arguing what you're saying.
Stop and read what we've actually been saying. Really, read these 3 points and tell me specifically which you disagree with. This will help identify the disconnect.
I'll even rephrase it so you can see what's happening. Let's use a different length of concentration, let's say he concentrates for 1 round.
You see? Yes/no? Which part?
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.
Well, you do. Quite literally in the following paragraphs. And that goes against RAW.
The two examples you give are obviously not the same. Is it that fact that you can't tell the difference between the rule "Instantenous" and the word as it is used in everyday language that confuses you? Because those aren't the same. It's all explained in the section on spellcasting in the PHB.
This is pretty much where I sit: There are 2 perfectly valid interpretations of the rules. Both have their complications, but neither is obviously right or obviously wrong based on either the written rule or "common sense". I know which way I would go if I had to rule on this, but I would find it perfectly acceptable for it to be taken the other way.
I do very much agree also that it is infuriating how many rules end up like this in 5e. However, it's how it is, and luckily there is one rule which "fixes" it: The DM
is always righthas the final say. It is frustrating as hell, but when we meet issues like this, we just have to let the DM decide which way to go.The word "instantaneous" in everyday language means "lasting for an instant".
The word "Instantaneous" in the spellcasting rules means "its magic exists only for an instant".
I cannot see a meaningful difference between those definitions. I'd be grateful if you could explain what you believe the difference is.
It is perfectly fine having "incomplete" rules and letting the DM fill in the blanks. However, having a rule which has 2 equally valid but mutually exclusive interpretations is frustrating. It means you can play for years at multiple tables, with the same interpretation played at all, then play at a different table and find the complete opposite is being played. Both are RAW, not house rules, so need no discussion at session zero.... But they can completely change the way you need to play certain situations.
As someone with autism - I wholeheartedly disagree. Rules are everything to me - they're how I make sense of the world. When a rule can have two mutually exclusive interpretations - it is truly incredibly frustrating. I'm aware of the flexibility it gives to DM's - but that doesn't stop them being problematic for me.
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 also love the flexibility of the rules in 5e. It is impossible to have a fully defined, strict set of rules covering all possibilities for such an open game, and trying to define them is unlikely to work. Leaving only a core set of rules and having a DM to fill in the blanks is a fantastic way to define a game like D&D.
However, this isn't flexibility it's just bad writing. A rule should have only one interpretation for a particular situation, when read in conjunction with the rest of the rules. If it does have different interpretations, they should at least be complimentary, with just minor differences. If a rule can be read both as "you must always wear a red shirt" and "you must never wear a red shirt", with both being equally valid interpretations, saying "well that just makes it flexible" does not fly. It is just badly written, end of. It would be better for the rule not to exist in the first place, because it is meaningless in its current form and will just cause confusion and arguments.
Erm... This one for a start. 2 equally valid interpretations which result in very different outcomes.
For the rest, see all the long arguments in this forum alone. There are dozens, at least, of rules which have multiple valid interpretations which can vastly alter the game. This is especially true where a person has read the rules one way and made character decisions based on that, only to find their DM has read them another and rendered what they planned useless.
House rules are great, leaving gaps for the DM to fill in is the right way to go, but having badly-written, ill-defined core rules just causes confusion and arguments (whether on forums like this or at the table). Forcing the DM to rule which of the two (or more) conflicting interpretations is to be used at the table, potentially in the face of 2 players who each interpreted it differently and need it to work their way for their choices to work as they anticipated, isn't "flexibility".
I'm not interested in you moving the goalposts, I'm interested in you showing us the rules for changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous just because you change the time you concentrate on it. Again, if you want to interpret the rules that way I see no problem with it but it isn't RAW.
It might be easier if you explain to us what parts of the rules you are having trouble understanding?
There is a mechanical difference between something having a duration of "Instantenous" and having a duration of "Concentration". According to RAW you can't have a concentration duration that is "instantenous". As has pointed out by Lyxen and myself, the spell only persists during its duration. If that duration is a zero time of concetration it persists for a zero time which is not the same as it persisting "Instantenous". Just because you concentrate for a really short time doesn't mean that the rules allow you to change the mechanical duration of the spell.
Fair point on this particular thread.
However, I have seen dozens of threads in these forums (many of which you have been involved in) where the interpretation of fairly basic rules are in dispute. Often both sides insist that their interpretation is The One True Reading, but when 2 groups of similar size and experience read the rules in 2 completely different ways, there is something wrong with the rule.
That said, I disagree that having a different opinion to your DM on a rule, or making character choices based on the rules, is necessarily power gaming. If you have chosen a subclass, spell, weapon or feat because you believe you can do something with it (which is a valid reading of the rules), it is a perfectly normal way to play. I don't think there are many people who make such character choices purely for the RP, completely ignoring the mechanical rules surrounding it. If you have made a choice based, in part, on a mechanical effect, and then find that the DM interprets an ambiguous rule in such a way as to render that effect useless (or significantly different), I think it's perfectly valid to be a little miffed with the unclear way the rules were written.
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.
He is clearly not moving the goalposts. He is presenting an alternative interpretation of the rules as written. What you seem to mean when you say "it isn't RAW" is "it isn't my interpretation of RAW".
So, to be clear about the interpretation Lyxen is talking about, nothing in the rules says that you must maintain concentration in order to cast a concentration spell, only that you must maintain concentration to "keep the magic active". This strongly implies that it is possible to cast the spell without concentration, whether or not the duration is concentration. Once the spell is cast, its effects start to apply. In this interpretation, any effect which reasonably would happen instantly could occur without concentration, because the spell is cast but ends instantly.
Again, nothing in the written rule stops this from being the case for a spell with duration Concentration. Therefore "changing the duration of spells from Concentration to Instantenous[sic]" is unnecessary, and he doesn't need to show us the rules for changing the duration of the spell.
5e is written using common english. Mathematical definitions are not common english: Sorry, I don't buy that you need an advanced mathematics degree to properly adjudicate the rules in D&D.
The spell fails when your concentration ends. if you never had it to begin with, then it fails before it can start.
If the spell duration was instantaneous, then the wall would appear. Its not; it's the lesser of 1 minute or concentration. Without concentration, the duration is 0. the wall cannot appear in 0 time, nothing can.
The spell assumes that you cast it with the ability to concentrate. All effects that deprive your ability to concentrate also prevent you from casting those spells to begin with. The rules cannot address edge cases that don't exist in the rules; if you homebrew an effect that differs, then you also have to adjudicate how that effect works with casting spells that require concentration. We can't rule on the workings of homebrew from RAW because it is entirely up to the DM
The rules also say that the spell has a duration of 1 minute (concentration). If you aren't concentrating, then the spell has 0 duration. If an effect has 0 duration, it doesn't exist.
If you want to use the mathematics definition of instant, fine...I was not attacking your viewpoint in my first post, I was stating my own. You don't need to attack those who have a different point of view when you yourself have said in this thread that you think both ways are valid rulings (reference post #14).
The rules as written are a starting point. The DM can and should fill in gaps for anything which is not written, but it is not unreasonable for players to expect that any rule specifically written will be allowed. It generally takes a lot more for a DM to ignore or change the written rule than to make up a new rule addressing an area not covered in the rules, and it is generally done with a good reason and with the consent of the players at the table. However, interpreting the written rule is often not given the same consideration where there is ambiguity, especially because many (players and DMs) will only see their first reading and dismiss attempts to justify an alternative point of view.
"Infinitesimally small" is certainly not common English. If you are going to use a mathematical term to describe something, you shouldn't be surprised if a mathematical proof is given in response.
Also, I think most people who were considering an instantaneous magical effect would expect it to take zero time. If a spell was cast which "instantaneously" created water , one moment there would be nothing there, then next there would be water. There would be no time when it was "fading in", no time when only some of the water was there, it just suddenly exists.
In fact, considering "fade-in" leads to a common use of "instant": in presentations. If you have an instant change, then one frame the first slide is there, the next the second. Ther is no intervening time.
Then how do you explain the wording of the rule? You have to maintain concentration to "keep the magic active". In order to keep it active, in common English, it must have been active in the first place. To keep water boiling, it must first be boiling. You cannot keep cold water boiling (at standard pressure etc), you must first of all bring it to the boil.
An instantaneous-duration spell can.
This I can see. We are discussing a rule in a setting which doesn't happen in any official situation I am aware of.
Again, I both disagree that this is a "mathematics definition of instant", and find it amusing that you are challenging that when you used a mathematical definition yourself to try to dismiss it.
However, given this is (AFAIK) a homebrew situation, it would be up to a homebrew rule to solve it. I would use my interpretation of the written rules to say that the initial damage of WoF occurred, others would rule differently. I don't think either view is invalid or wrong.
Not going to do the point by point, and thank you for clarifying your intent not to attack, but in reference to what is "instantaneous" I would also suggest this as a definition (not mathmatics, but physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant
Basically, instant is infinitesimally small (but not 0), and the actual smallest unit of measurable time is significantly larger than infinitely small (though very very small still). But again, I feel that going into scientific and mathematical definitions to defend an argument leaves out the fact that this is a rules question for a game, and thus limited by the language used and the intent of how to interpret, which in this case is "plain english" (you can't actually measure physics universally throughout D&D, and physics don't necessarily align with the real world; I particularly like that in Discworld the speed of light was slowed down to like 600 mph in one book due to the magic of the world).
I cannot find an actual published example of an effect that only prevents concentration over a duration (plenty that end it, and plenty that prevent spellcasting, but not any that just prevent concentration), so this is a gray area (and I think we agree on that).
Not really, no. And no, if we go by RAW and your own words that spells only persists during their duration then the effects of a spell with duration C is not Instantenous. You can't have it both ways.
Well, no. Since you claim that effects that persist during spells that have concentration takes place "instantenous". By RAW they do not. You have yet to show proof that WoF have a duration that, according to the rules, have is anything other than Concentration. Your interpretation that "some of the effects happen when the spell is cast" does not change the RAW duration of the spell. Simple as that.
Interpretations are by definition not RAW so...
No. I mean that as soon as you you start interpreting RAW in a way that changes the rules, it is no longer RAW. Which, again, is fine, but it's not RAW.
If you say that the rules allows for things to happen during the mechanical duration called "Instantenous" instead of during the mechanical duration called "Concentration", you need to back that claim up with rules taht actually say that. Again, if you want to interpret the rules in that way I see no problem with it but then don't claim that you interpretation is RAW, because it is not. Simple as that. :)
There can be multiple interpretations of RAW, particularly in edge cases like this. This is because the rules are written in "common English", and English is not a very specific language. Even just a word or a phrase can have multiple meanings. "I am blue" can mean I feel down or my skin is the colour blue.
I'm not going to go through the evidence again, because you are obviously not reading them and/or have your head locked on one interpretation of the words on the page. This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier, where two people can read the same rule in two completely different ways and be unable (or unwilling) to see any alternative.