It isn't a liberal interpretation, it's exactly what the rules say in plain language. That's what RAW, Rules As Written, means.
"If A then B" is a very simple language and logical construct. If A is not satisfied, B does not apply. Therefore, RAW, if you cannot cast spells, there is nothing which stops you from concentrating on Favoured Foe. It may be that this is an oversight, that when it was written the only way you could have anything to concentrate on was is you could vast spells. However, unless or until an errata appears, I can't accept an argument that the written rules disallow this (unless we are going to argue that words and logic no longer have their well established meanings and principals).
You may say that this is not how it was intended, but that's not RAW, it's RAI.
If you would like even some quasi-official guidance, then I suggest you look up the most recent SAG.
Can a barbarian/cleric use spiritual weapon to attack while raging, if it is cast before entering rage? A barbarian’s Rage feature makes concentration impossible but has no effect on spells, like spiritual weapon, that don’t require concentration.
"Certainly, you can convince a DM that a rule about concentrating doesn't apply to concentrating."
If I was at a table with a DM who didn't understand a simple logical if statement, I'd be unhappy.
If a DM said, "yes, that's what it says, but I feel it should apply here too, so I'm house ruling that it cannot be used", that would be ok (although I would expect to be able to change my mind on the MC ranger dip if a house rule changed the behaviour).
That said, on a rule like this where I can see that there may be some disagreement, I'd probably clarify with the DM before doing it to avoid any hard feeling.
It isn't a liberal interpretation, it's exactly what the rules say in plain language. That's what RAW, Rules As Written, means.
"If A then B" is a very simple language and logical construct. If A is not satisfied, B does not apply. Therefore, RAW, if you cannot cast spells, there is nothing which stops you from concentrating on Favoured Foe. It may be that this is an oversight, that when it was written the only way you could have anything to concentrate on was is you could vast spells. However, unless or until an errata appears, I can't accept an argument that the written rules disallow this (unless we are going to argue that words and logic no longer have their well established meanings and principals).
You may say that this is not how it was intended, but that's not RAW, it's RAI.
If you would like even some quasi-official guidance, then I suggest you look up the most recent SAG.
Can a barbarian/cleric use spiritual weapon to attack while raging, if it is cast before entering rage? A barbarian’s Rage feature makes concentration impossible but has no effect on spells, like spiritual weapon, that don’t require concentration.
The bit that says "as if concentrating on a spell" is specifically added to confirm that it is being treated like a spell that needs concentration. Therefore whether you have the ability to cast a spell or not is completely irrelevant. While raging you can't concentrate on spells - therefore your can't concentrate on Favoured Foe.
Favored Foe is treated as though it was a spell for the purposes of concentration, so it's a deal-breaker for barbarian rage.
It's not really as clearly stated as that. Barbarian rage doesn't forbid concentrating, it forbids concentrating on a spell, so if you have a non-spell ability that requires concentration, even if it follows the same concentration rules as a spell, it's arguably still usable when raging. Other features this applies to are Visions of the Past (knowledge-17), Invoke Duplicity (Trickery-2), Draconic Presence (Draconic Bloodline-18), Dark Delirium (Archfey-14), Minor Alchemy (Transmuter-2), Ring of Djinni Summoning, ...
This could of course be D&D 5e sloppy editing at work.
Favored Foe is treated as though it was a spell for the purposes of concentration, so it's a deal-breaker for barbarian rage.
It's not really as clearly stated as that. Barbarian rage doesn't forbid concentrating, it forbids concentrating on a spell, so if you have a non-spell ability that requires concentration, even if it follows the same concentration rules as a spell, it's arguably still usable when raging. Other features this applies to are Visions of the Past (knowledge-17), Invoke Duplicity (Trickery-2), Draconic Presence (Draconic Bloodline-18), Dark Delirium (Archfey-14), Minor Alchemy (Transmuter-2), Ring of Djinni Summoning, ...
This could of course be D&D 5e sloppy editing at work.
And the Favoured Foe feature says "as if concentrating on a spell" so it's being treated like a spell whether it is or not.
Favored Foe is treated as though it was a spell for the purposes of concentration, so it's a deal-breaker for barbarian rage.
It's not really as clearly stated as that. Barbarian rage doesn't forbid concentrating, it forbids concentrating on a spell, so if you have a non-spell ability that requires concentration, even if it follows the same concentration rules as a spell, it's arguably still usable when raging. Other features this applies to are Visions of the Past (knowledge-17), Invoke Duplicity (Trickery-2), Draconic Presence (Draconic Bloodline-18), Dark Delirium (Archfey-14), Minor Alchemy (Transmuter-2), Ring of Djinni Summoning, ...
This could of course be D&D 5e sloppy editing at work.
And the Favoured Foe feature says "as if concentrating on a spell" so it's being treated like a spell whether it is or not.
Yes, but so what? The fact that it is treated as concentrating on a spell does not make it a spell.
I agree that it's probably intended to forbid all concentration, but that's not what it actually says.
Favored Foe is treated as though it was a spell for the purposes of concentration, so it's a deal-breaker for barbarian rage.
It's not really as clearly stated as that. Barbarian rage doesn't forbid concentrating, it forbids concentrating on a spell, so if you have a non-spell ability that requires concentration, even if it follows the same concentration rules as a spell, it's arguably still usable when raging. Other features this applies to are Visions of the Past (knowledge-17), Invoke Duplicity (Trickery-2), Draconic Presence (Draconic Bloodline-18), Dark Delirium (Archfey-14), Minor Alchemy (Transmuter-2), Ring of Djinni Summoning, ...
This could of course be D&D 5e sloppy editing at work.
And the Favoured Foe feature says "as if concentrating on a spell" so it's being treated like a spell whether it is or not.
Yes, but so what? The fact that it is treated as concentrating on a spell does not make it a spell.
I agree that it's probably intended to forbid all concentration, but that's not what it actually says.
Concentration is concentration. It doesn't matter if you're concentrating on a spell or something else. And if you can't concentrate, then you can't concentrate.
A barbarian may be able to trigger Favored Foe, but they cannot concentrate to maintain it.
Concentration is concentration. It doesn't matter if you're concentrating on a spell or something else. And if you can't concentrate, then you can't concentrate.
Yes, but barbarian rage does not say you can't concentrate. It says you can't concentrate on a spell.
"The thing it requires concentration as if it were a spell.'
Really..... we are going to argue that these two statements are parallel and do not interact at all?
If something is concentration as if it were a spell, it is broken by things that break concentration on spells. Ergo, barbarians cannot concentrate on spells, so things that concentrate like spells cannot be concentrated on.
Concentration is concentration. It doesn't matter if you're concentrating on a spell or something else. And if you can't concentrate, then you can't concentrate.
Yes, but barbarian rage does not say you can't concentrate. It says you can't concentrate on a spell.
No buts. Concentration is concentration. Barbarians who are raging cannot concentrate on anything.
Concentration is concentration. It doesn't matter if you're concentrating on a spell or something else. And if you can't concentrate, then you can't concentrate.
Yes, but barbarian rage does not say you can't concentrate. It says you can't concentrate on a spell.
No buts. Concentration is concentration. Barbarians who are raging cannot concentrate on anything.
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." is the only thing that barbarian rage says about concentration. That doesn't forbid all concentration, it forbids concentrating on spells you can cast.
Concentration is concentration. It doesn't matter if you're concentrating on a spell or something else. And if you can't concentrate, then you can't concentrate.
Yes, but barbarian rage does not say you can't concentrate. It says you can't concentrate on a spell.
No buts. Concentration is concentration. Barbarians who are raging cannot concentrate on anything.
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." is the only thing that barbarian rage says about concentration. That doesn't forbid all concentration, it forbids concentrating on spells you can cast.
And if you treat a thing that you are concentrating on like a spell, then that rule would apply, since it applies to spells.
I can see OP's point. It certainly isn't RAI, but it could be argued that the RAW only applies conditionally.
First, lets be clear that no one is saying that favored foe isn't treated as concentrating on a spell. The argument is that you could even concentrate on a spell if you aren't able to cast it.
Just avoid magic items, feats, and even barbarian subclasses that give you spells to cast.
Personally, I wouldn't allow it as a DM or ask to allow it as a Player. It is obviously semantic shenanigans that is not supposed to be allowed.
Arguing semantics is part of what forums like this are for, but I would certainly not call interpretation of an "if A then B" written rules as making A a prerequisite of B "semantic shenanigans": it is literally both the logical and everyday meaning of the phrase. It may be sloppy wording, or it may be that, when written, there were no effects which required concentration which were available to non-casters, but it's still exactly what is written on the page.
Taking it further, I would still say there's a valid argument that the rage restriction applies only to spells, and so other, non-spell effects can still be concentrated on. This is closer to "semantic shenanigans", but is now about order of precedence. The argument would be that the designers intended the "as if a spell" to apply to the core spellcasting rules (concentrations checks, only one effect at once etc), but rage is more limited in scope and more specific, applying only to actual spells. Thinking about it in-game, I would take it to represent the fact that rage blots out the mental capacity to bend ones will on the "weave" of magic, but a barbarian would still be able to concentrate on a foe: that's literally what he is doing in battle anyway.
This, however, requires very specific and unclear interpretations of certain parts of the rules. I would allow our myself, as I think it fits reasonably, is not game breaking, and would be fun. However, I would not be surprised if another DM ruled a Barb X / Ranger 2+ could no longer use their Favoured Foe at all, because it is a bit of a stretch.
It is very obvious how this works, and the people who are arguing that they should be able to concentrate on a spell like ability while raging are clearly just trying to use the notoriously poor wording used throughout the book as justification for doing something that isn't supposed to be allowed. Trying to debate with power gamers like this is kind of pointless, they want their great idea to give their characters extra power to work, and will refuse to see eye to eye with even the most eloquent of arguments to the contrary. You just end up going round and round in circles debating the same old semantics for half a dozen pages and when the Mods do eventually close the thread people are still not in agreement.
The fact is, none of the rules have to be used, the DM at a table has the ultimate decision as to whether or not to allow something unless it is a tournament or AL game. It is made very clear in the text that a barbarian cannot concentrate on spells and this ability clearly says to treat it as a spell, and at my table that is the way it is played. If you don't like it then find another game to play. Arguing will just get you kicked. At your table if you want to homebrew it then go ahead.
Trying to debate with power gamers like this is kind of pointless, they want their great idea to give their characters extra power to work, and will refuse to see eye to eye with even the most eloquent of arguments to the contrary.
I am no power gamer. What I am is someone who can read the English language and understand basic logic. Where a rule says "If A then B", B does not apply without A. This is one of the simplest logical constructs available and is part of the very basics of the English language. If it is not supposed to be a precondition, it should not be phrased that way. If there is "notoriously bad wording" in something as simple and clearly defined as an if statement, then large parts of the rules fall to pieces. We should not even bother looking at RAW, and instead just try to use our telepathic skills to divine what the designers intended to say when they wrote the rules.
I can understand and accept that this may not have been the intent of the rule, but it is the rule. If a tax law said "If you own a car, you must pay X", you would not have to pay X if you did not own the car. The same applies here: If the character cannot cast spells, then RAW the rule about concentration does not apply.
Note, it would only take the tiniest errata to make the rule apply RAW: Prepend the word "Even" to it such that it reads "Even if you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging". This makes it a clarification rather than a condition. The fact this errata does not exist, and there is not even any Sage Advice which applies to using concentration on spell-like effects when the character is unable to cast spells, would lead me to follow the simple, logical statement written on the page.
Note, it would only take the tiniest errata to make the rule apply RAW: Prepend the word "Even" to it such that it reads "Even if you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging". This makes it a clarification rather than a condition. The fact this errata does not exist, and there is not even any Sage Advice which applies to using concentration on spell-like effects when the character is unable to cast spells, would lead me to follow the simple, logical statement written on the page.
The fact that you are saying hat it would only require a small official rule change errata to make your desire RAW should make it pretty obvious that it currently isn't RAW. I said what I wanted to say and won't waste time debating it with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you would like even some quasi-official guidance, then I suggest you look up the most recent SAG.
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
This particular gem might be of interest to you.
"Certainly, you can convince a DM that a rule about concentrating doesn't apply to concentrating."
If I was at a table with a DM who didn't understand a simple logical if statement, I'd be unhappy.
If a DM said, "yes, that's what it says, but I feel it should apply here too, so I'm house ruling that it cannot be used", that would be ok (although I would expect to be able to change my mind on the MC ranger dip if a house rule changed the behaviour).
That said, on a rule like this where I can see that there may be some disagreement, I'd probably clarify with the DM before doing it to avoid any hard feeling.
You... and the designers... make a fine point.
The bit that says "as if concentrating on a spell" is specifically added to confirm that it is being treated like a spell that needs concentration. Therefore whether you have the ability to cast a spell or not is completely irrelevant. While raging you can't concentrate on spells - therefore your can't concentrate on Favoured Foe.
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).
It's not really as clearly stated as that. Barbarian rage doesn't forbid concentrating, it forbids concentrating on a spell, so if you have a non-spell ability that requires concentration, even if it follows the same concentration rules as a spell, it's arguably still usable when raging. Other features this applies to are Visions of the Past (knowledge-17), Invoke Duplicity (Trickery-2), Draconic Presence (Draconic Bloodline-18), Dark Delirium (Archfey-14), Minor Alchemy (Transmuter-2), Ring of Djinni Summoning, ...
This could of course be D&D 5e sloppy editing at work.
And the Favoured Foe feature says "as if concentrating on a spell" so it's being treated like a spell whether it is or not.
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).
From Sage Advice,
Which suggests that the "can't concentrate" always applies for Barbarians.
Darn, Jounichi1983 beat me by 28 minutes!
Yes, but so what? The fact that it is treated as concentrating on a spell does not make it a spell.
I agree that it's probably intended to forbid all concentration, but that's not what it actually says.
Concentration is concentration. It doesn't matter if you're concentrating on a spell or something else. And if you can't concentrate, then you can't concentrate.
A barbarian may be able to trigger Favored Foe, but they cannot concentrate to maintain it.
Yes, but barbarian rage does not say you can't concentrate. It says you can't concentrate on a spell.
That's literally the entire point. If it were a spell then it wouldn't need the specific ruling that it is to be treated as if it were - would it?
That the extra bit "as if concentrating on a spell" is there means it is absolutely to be treated like one. Otherwise why put it in at all?
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).
"You can not concentrate on spells"
"The thing it requires concentration as if it were a spell.'
Really..... we are going to argue that these two statements are parallel and do not interact at all?
If something is concentration as if it were a spell, it is broken by things that break concentration on spells. Ergo, barbarians cannot concentrate on spells, so things that concentrate like spells cannot be concentrated on.
No buts. Concentration is concentration. Barbarians who are raging cannot concentrate on anything.
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging." is the only thing that barbarian rage says about concentration. That doesn't forbid all concentration, it forbids concentrating on spells you can cast.
And if you treat a thing that you are concentrating on like a spell, then that rule would apply, since it applies to spells.
I can see OP's point. It certainly isn't RAI, but it could be argued that the RAW only applies conditionally.
First, lets be clear that no one is saying that favored foe isn't treated as concentrating on a spell. The argument is that you could even concentrate on a spell if you aren't able to cast it.
Just avoid magic items, feats, and even barbarian subclasses that give you spells to cast.
Personally, I wouldn't allow it as a DM or ask to allow it as a Player. It is obviously semantic shenanigans that is not supposed to be allowed.
Arguing semantics is part of what forums like this are for, but I would certainly not call interpretation of an "if A then B" written rules as making A a prerequisite of B "semantic shenanigans": it is literally both the logical and everyday meaning of the phrase. It may be sloppy wording, or it may be that, when written, there were no effects which required concentration which were available to non-casters, but it's still exactly what is written on the page.
Taking it further, I would still say there's a valid argument that the rage restriction applies only to spells, and so other, non-spell effects can still be concentrated on. This is closer to "semantic shenanigans", but is now about order of precedence. The argument would be that the designers intended the "as if a spell" to apply to the core spellcasting rules (concentrations checks, only one effect at once etc), but rage is more limited in scope and more specific, applying only to actual spells. Thinking about it in-game, I would take it to represent the fact that rage blots out the mental capacity to bend ones will on the "weave" of magic, but a barbarian would still be able to concentrate on a foe: that's literally what he is doing in battle anyway.
This, however, requires very specific and unclear interpretations of certain parts of the rules. I would allow our myself, as I think it fits reasonably, is not game breaking, and would be fun. However, I would not be surprised if another DM ruled a Barb X / Ranger 2+ could no longer use their Favoured Foe at all, because it is a bit of a stretch.
It is very obvious how this works, and the people who are arguing that they should be able to concentrate on a spell like ability while raging are clearly just trying to use the notoriously poor wording used throughout the book as justification for doing something that isn't supposed to be allowed. Trying to debate with power gamers like this is kind of pointless, they want their great idea to give their characters extra power to work, and will refuse to see eye to eye with even the most eloquent of arguments to the contrary. You just end up going round and round in circles debating the same old semantics for half a dozen pages and when the Mods do eventually close the thread people are still not in agreement.
The fact is, none of the rules have to be used, the DM at a table has the ultimate decision as to whether or not to allow something unless it is a tournament or AL game. It is made very clear in the text that a barbarian cannot concentrate on spells and this ability clearly says to treat it as a spell, and at my table that is the way it is played. If you don't like it then find another game to play. Arguing will just get you kicked. At your table if you want to homebrew it then go ahead.
I am no power gamer. What I am is someone who can read the English language and understand basic logic. Where a rule says "If A then B", B does not apply without A. This is one of the simplest logical constructs available and is part of the very basics of the English language. If it is not supposed to be a precondition, it should not be phrased that way. If there is "notoriously bad wording" in something as simple and clearly defined as an if statement, then large parts of the rules fall to pieces. We should not even bother looking at RAW, and instead just try to use our telepathic skills to divine what the designers intended to say when they wrote the rules.
I can understand and accept that this may not have been the intent of the rule, but it is the rule. If a tax law said "If you own a car, you must pay X", you would not have to pay X if you did not own the car. The same applies here: If the character cannot cast spells, then RAW the rule about concentration does not apply.
Note, it would only take the tiniest errata to make the rule apply RAW: Prepend the word "Even" to it such that it reads "Even if you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging". This makes it a clarification rather than a condition. The fact this errata does not exist, and there is not even any Sage Advice which applies to using concentration on spell-like effects when the character is unable to cast spells, would lead me to follow the simple, logical statement written on the page.
The fact that you are saying hat it would only require a small official rule change errata to make your desire RAW should make it pretty obvious that it currently isn't RAW. I said what I wanted to say and won't waste time debating it with you.