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.
There is already a form of errata, it is called the Sage Advice Compendium. The relevant section has been quoted at least twice in this thread already.
I'm saying that the tiniest errata would make it say what others want it to say. It already says what I have said it says, the suggested errata would change the rule to the way others believe it should work.
Also, this is nothing to do with what I want it to say. I don't really care either way, as I'm not likely to be playing as or with a Barb X / Ranger 1 any time soon. The character concept doesn't interest me. This is all to do with what the rule does say, in plain and simple English and using the most basic principals of logic available. It says what it says, and arguing that this is due to "notoriously bad wording" or is "obviously" not what was intended doesn't change that. House rule it if you want to operate differently and take what you assume to be the intent of the rule. It's your game and you can change the rules however you wish. But don't pretend that's the rule which is written in the books.
The relevant section has been quoted at least twice in this thread already.
The "relevant section" is not relevant, as it is dealing with a spellcaster. There is no Sage Advice which I have been able to find which deals with concentration on effects which are not spell for a non-caster. Of course the Sage Advice you quote is going to say it "makes concentration impossible" in that circumstance, as the situation being discussed is specifically about a character who is "able to cast spells", and therefore there is no question that the rule applies to spells which require concentration.
Let's say someone asked me "Will fitting a 150mph speed limiter make my car perform worse while driving under 150mph?"
I respond "While fitting that speed limiter will make it impossible for you to travel faster than 150mph, it will have no effect on the performance of the car at speeds below 150mph".
Would that mean it would be impossible for me to get on a plane and fly at 300+ mph? Of course not. The context from the question limits the answer to travelling in the car being discussed. The same is true of the SA which has been quoted, which casually mentions concentration in the context of answering a question about spells which do not require concentration. Show me a SA which mentions concentration on spell-like effects by a non-caster, and I will accept that it is a "relevant section".
The relevant section has been quoted at least twice in this thread already.
The "relevant section" is not relevant, as it is dealing with a spellcaster. There is no Sage Advice which I have been able to find which deals with concentration on effects which are not spell for a non-caster. Of course the Sage Advice you quote is going to say it "makes concentration impossible" in that circumstance, as the situation being discussed is
SA does not say "in that circumstance", it simply says "A barbarian’s Rage feature makes concentration impossible but has no effect on spells, like spiritual weapon, that don’t require concentration." There is no qualification that it applies only "in that circumstance".
But since we are disagreeing on interpretation of the English language, I guess we will never agree.
It doesn't need to. It is in answer to a specific question. See my post above with the car speed limiter question. Your application of the content of a SA answer about something different would be like me taking the answer given and saying that, if you fitted a speed limiter to a car, you would not be able to go at more than 150mph by any mode of transport. There is an implied context to an answer based on the question asked.
But since we are disagreeing on interpretation of the English language, I guess we will never agree.
I'm starting to come to that conclusion myself. If we can't agree on the meaning of the simple English and logical if/then statement, I doubt we will ever agree.
But since we are disagreeing on interpretation of the English language, I guess we will never agree.
I'm starting to come to that conclusion myself. If we can't agree on the meaning of the simple English and logical if/then statement, I doubt we will ever agree.
Of course it applies. B 1st level standard barbarian cannot cast spells to begin with so why would they have even put it in there in the first place? Saying it doesn't apply because a lvl 1 ranger can't cast spells is patently ludicrous and you know it. This isn't a case of semantics or not understanding the English language, this is you completely ignoring it because it doesn't agree with you. Literally everyone, even the devs have said that the feature counts as a spell in all ways and therefore a raging barbarian cannot use it as they cannot concentrate on it. It is simply delusional to say otherwise.
Literally everyone, even the devs have said that the feature counts as a spell in all ways and therefore a raging barbarian cannot use it
Where have they said that? Nobody has pointed this out. The only SA quoted here mentions nothing about spell-like effects or casting, and I have been unable to find anything even remotely official which states how the Rage concentration rules apply to non-casters. If you point out one which applies (not once which is discussing casters, which I agree that it does apply to as it is written plainly in the rules), then I will concede the point.
We could, of course, just say that if/then doesn't mean a prerequisite in the D&D 5e rulebooks. Therefore, under the TWF rules where it says
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
the thrown property is not a requirement, and you can just throw any weapon you have in your hand regardless.
And in the surprise rules
The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other.
the "neither side tries to be stealthy" is not a prerequisite, so they all always notice each other even if they try to be stealthy.
For a Monk
If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction.
you don't need to reduce the damage to zero to catch the missile and throw it back.
By ignoring the basic if/then structure, you completely change the meaning of so many parts of the rules that the game is completely different. It is not delusional to read an English sentence and use the order and meanings of the words to determine the meaning of the sentence. It's called reading.
Now, again, I am not saying that this is the intent of the rule, or that it should not be played differently if that's how you feel it should. However, you cannot argue that what a rule says in simple English in the rule books is not RAW, and an if/then statement is about as simple English as you can get.
Alternatively, you could show me another "if A then B" statement within the rules which doesn't make A a prerequisite for B (even by means of Sage Advice). That would, at least, show a precedent for ignoring the logical construct clearly stated. Every one I have seen very clearly means that A must be satisfied for B to apply.
Please note, I am not saying this rule is sensible or must be used in this manner. There are all sorts of ridiculous RAW combinations which can be brought into play. Some I would house rule against, some I would allow, some I would restrict, and I would not begrudge any DM from house ruling in such a manner. All I am arguing is that this is RAW, by virtue of the meanings of the words in the sentence written in the rules, and the lack of clarification in any official or semi-official form which relates to a barb who is not able to cast spells.
Also, I know I can come across badly when discussing something I see as a pure point of logic. I am going to try from here on to moderate my tone, and apologise for not doing so sooner.
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.
You didn't read the Sage Advice that was linked to once and quoted twice, did you?
EDIT: Apparently, you did. I just can't wrap my head around your brand of logic.
The text is pretty clear that a barbarian who is raging cannot concentrate. While the question does not address your specific question, the answer does not distinguish between spells and other features/spell-like abilities. Or, to put this another way, the phrase, "as if you were concentrating on a spell," means you treat it as if it were a spell for the purpose of concentration. And since the only place concentration is discussed is under the rules for Spellcasting, this really shouldn't be up for debate.
You're welcome to keep arguing your point, but you're dead wrong. Concentration is impossible for a raging barbarian. Favored For cannot be maintained by one.
Yes, I did. Have you read my posts? I will quote the part which shows that the one and only SA which has been posted does not necessarily answer the question.
Let's say someone asked me "Will fitting a 150mph speed limiter make my car perform worse while driving under 150mph?"
I respond "While fitting that speed limiter will make it impossible for you to travel faster than 150mph, it will have no effect on the performance of the car at speeds below 150mph".
Would that mean it would be impossible for me to get on a plane and fly at 300+ mph? Of course not. The context from the question limits the answer to travelling in the car being discussed. The same is true of the SA which has been quoted, which casually mentions concentration in the context of answering a question about spells which do not require concentration. Show me a SA which mentions concentration on spell-like effects by a non-caster, and I will accept that it is a "relevant section".
If you would like to convince me that you believe the answer given would mean that the person could never travel faster than 150mph by any method if he fitted a 150mph speed limiter to his car, I may accept that a casual comment in answer to a question about spells which don't require concentration, and specifically about a character who can cast spells, provides a definitive answer to a question about a character who cannot cast spells using a spell-like effect which requires concentration.
The intent is clear, considering the fact that you treat the feature as if concentrating on a spell, the concentration rules assume that concentration only works for spells, and that the base class of barbarian does not get access to spells.
Yes, I did. Have you read my posts? I will quote the part which shows that the one and only SA which has been posted does not necessarily answer the question.
Let's say someone asked me "Will fitting a 150mph speed limiter make my car perform worse while driving under 150mph?"
I respond "While fitting that speed limiter will make it impossible for you to travel faster than 150mph, it will have no effect on the performance of the car at speeds below 150mph".
Would that mean it would be impossible for me to get on a plane and fly at 300+ mph? Of course not. The context from the question limits the answer to travelling in the car being discussed. The same is true of the SA which has been quoted, which casually mentions concentration in the context of answering a question about spells which do not require concentration. Show me a SA which mentions concentration on spell-like effects by a non-caster, and I will accept that it is a "relevant section".
If you would like to convince me that you believe the answer given would mean that the person could never travel faster than 150mph by any method if he fitted a 150mph speed limiter to his car, I may accept that a casual comment in answer to a question about spells which don't require concentration, and specifically about a character who can cast spells, provides a definitive answer to a question about a character who cannot cast spells using a spell-like effect which requires concentration.
I see your meaningless, off-topic hypothetical and raise you with this...
A barbarian’s Rage feature makes concentration impossible...
You're welcome to keep arguing your point, but you're dead wrong. Concentration is impossible for a raging barbarian.
This does not address the actual written rule. To quote again:
If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging.
The first part says "if you are able to cast spells". RAW (Rules As Written, which is the only thing I am arguing here and have stated several times, so I can only assume that you disagree with that), if you cannot cast spells, the rest of the sentence does not apply. There are examples throughout the rules, and it is basic English and basic logic. You appear to be saying that "If A then B" means "Whether A or not, still B".
And, to quote above again:
Please note, I am not saying this rule is sensible or must be used in this manner. There are all sorts of ridiculous RAW combinations which can be brought into play. Some I would house rule against, some I would allow, some I would restrict, and I would not begrudge any DM from house ruling in such a manner.
You're welcome to keep arguing your point, but you're dead wrong. Concentration is impossible for a raging barbarian.
This does not address the actual written rule. To quote again:
If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging.
The first part says "if you are able to cast spells". RAW (Rules As Written, which is the only thing I am arguing here and have stated several times, so I can only assume that you disagree with that), if you cannot cast spells, the rest of the sentence does not apply. There are examples throughout the rules, and it is basic English and basic logic. You appear to be saying that "If A then B" means "Whether A or not, still B".
And, to quote above again:
Please note, I am not saying this rule is sensible or must be used in this manner. There are all sorts of ridiculous RAW combinations which can be brought into play. Some I would house rule against, some I would allow, some I would restrict, and I would not begrudge any DM from house ruling in such a manner.
Favored Foe requires concentration, as if it were a spell, and is explicitly treated as such. Why is that so darn hard for you to grasp?
It's not bad wording. Believe me, I have my issue with some sentences throughout various books. The sentence we keep quoting from SAC is missing a comma. But there's no issue here.
Was that completely out of context, or was it a complete thought? Personally, I'm disappointed they didn't answer in multiple sentences. But the answer is what it is, and natural language tells me barbarians cannot concentrate. Period.
I've already said that it is possible that the intent (RAI) was different, and that I am talking only of RAW.
If you think that RAW a rule which says "If A then B" means "Ignore A, just apply B all the time", there are several examples above which change the game a fair amount.
The intent is clear, considering the fact that you treat the feature as if concentrating on a spell, the concentration rules assume that concentration only works for spells, and that the base class of barbarian does not get access to spells.
The intent is clear.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is already a form of errata, it is called the Sage Advice Compendium. The relevant section has been quoted at least twice in this thread already.
I'm saying that the tiniest errata would make it say what others want it to say. It already says what I have said it says, the suggested errata would change the rule to the way others believe it should work.
Also, this is nothing to do with what I want it to say. I don't really care either way, as I'm not likely to be playing as or with a Barb X / Ranger 1 any time soon. The character concept doesn't interest me. This is all to do with what the rule does say, in plain and simple English and using the most basic principals of logic available. It says what it says, and arguing that this is due to "notoriously bad wording" or is "obviously" not what was intended doesn't change that. House rule it if you want to operate differently and take what you assume to be the intent of the rule. It's your game and you can change the rules however you wish. But don't pretend that's the rule which is written in the books.
The "relevant section" is not relevant, as it is dealing with a spellcaster. There is no Sage Advice which I have been able to find which deals with concentration on effects which are not spell for a non-caster. Of course the Sage Advice you quote is going to say it "makes concentration impossible" in that circumstance, as the situation being discussed is specifically about a character who is "able to cast spells", and therefore there is no question that the rule applies to spells which require concentration.
Let's say someone asked me "Will fitting a 150mph speed limiter make my car perform worse while driving under 150mph?"
I respond "While fitting that speed limiter will make it impossible for you to travel faster than 150mph, it will have no effect on the performance of the car at speeds below 150mph".
Would that mean it would be impossible for me to get on a plane and fly at 300+ mph? Of course not. The context from the question limits the answer to travelling in the car being discussed. The same is true of the SA which has been quoted, which casually mentions concentration in the context of answering a question about spells which do not require concentration. Show me a SA which mentions concentration on spell-like effects by a non-caster, and I will accept that it is a "relevant section".
SA does not say "in that circumstance", it simply says "A barbarian’s Rage feature makes concentration impossible but has no effect on spells, like spiritual weapon, that don’t require concentration." There is no qualification that it applies only "in that circumstance".
But since we are disagreeing on interpretation of the English language, I guess we will never agree.
It doesn't need to. It is in answer to a specific question. See my post above with the car speed limiter question. Your application of the content of a SA answer about something different would be like me taking the answer given and saying that, if you fitted a speed limiter to a car, you would not be able to go at more than 150mph by any mode of transport. There is an implied context to an answer based on the question asked.
I'm starting to come to that conclusion myself. If we can't agree on the meaning of the simple English and logical if/then statement, I doubt we will ever agree.
Of course it applies. B 1st level standard barbarian cannot cast spells to begin with so why would they have even put it in there in the first place? Saying it doesn't apply because a lvl 1 ranger can't cast spells is patently ludicrous and you know it. This isn't a case of semantics or not understanding the English language, this is you completely ignoring it because it doesn't agree with you. Literally everyone, even the devs have said that the feature counts as a spell in all ways and therefore a raging barbarian cannot use it as they cannot concentrate on it. It is simply delusional to say otherwise.
Where have they said that? Nobody has pointed this out. The only SA quoted here mentions nothing about spell-like effects or casting, and I have been unable to find anything even remotely official which states how the Rage concentration rules apply to non-casters. If you point out one which applies (not once which is discussing casters, which I agree that it does apply to as it is written plainly in the rules), then I will concede the point.
We could, of course, just say that if/then doesn't mean a prerequisite in the D&D 5e rulebooks. Therefore, under the TWF rules where it says
the thrown property is not a requirement, and you can just throw any weapon you have in your hand regardless.
And in the surprise rules
the "neither side tries to be stealthy" is not a prerequisite, so they all always notice each other even if they try to be stealthy.
For a Monk
you don't need to reduce the damage to zero to catch the missile and throw it back.
By ignoring the basic if/then structure, you completely change the meaning of so many parts of the rules that the game is completely different. It is not delusional to read an English sentence and use the order and meanings of the words to determine the meaning of the sentence. It's called reading.
Now, again, I am not saying that this is the intent of the rule, or that it should not be played differently if that's how you feel it should. However, you cannot argue that what a rule says in simple English in the rule books is not RAW, and an if/then statement is about as simple English as you can get.
Alternatively, you could show me another "if A then B" statement within the rules which doesn't make A a prerequisite for B (even by means of Sage Advice). That would, at least, show a precedent for ignoring the logical construct clearly stated. Every one I have seen very clearly means that A must be satisfied for B to apply.
Please note, I am not saying this rule is sensible or must be used in this manner. There are all sorts of ridiculous RAW combinations which can be brought into play. Some I would house rule against, some I would allow, some I would restrict, and I would not begrudge any DM from house ruling in such a manner. All I am arguing is that this is RAW, by virtue of the meanings of the words in the sentence written in the rules, and the lack of clarification in any official or semi-official form which relates to a barb who is not able to cast spells.
Also, I know I can come across badly when discussing something I see as a pure point of logic. I am going to try from here on to moderate my tone, and apologise for not doing so sooner.
You didn't read the Sage Advice that was linked to once and quoted twice, did you?
EDIT:
Apparently, you did. I just can't wrap my head around your brand of logic.
The text is pretty clear that a barbarian who is raging cannot concentrate. While the question does not address your specific question, the answer does not distinguish between spells and other features/spell-like abilities. Or, to put this another way, the phrase, "as if you were concentrating on a spell," means you treat it as if it were a spell for the purpose of concentration. And since the only place concentration is discussed is under the rules for Spellcasting, this really shouldn't be up for debate.
You're welcome to keep arguing your point, but you're dead wrong. Concentration is impossible for a raging barbarian. Favored For cannot be maintained by one.
Yes, I did. Have you read my posts? I will quote the part which shows that the one and only SA which has been posted does not necessarily answer the question.
If you would like to convince me that you believe the answer given would mean that the person could never travel faster than 150mph by any method if he fitted a 150mph speed limiter to his car, I may accept that a casual comment in answer to a question about spells which don't require concentration, and specifically about a character who can cast spells, provides a definitive answer to a question about a character who cannot cast spells using a spell-like effect which requires concentration.
The intent is clear, considering the fact that you treat the feature as if concentrating on a spell, the concentration rules assume that concentration only works for spells, and that the base class of barbarian does not get access to spells.
I see your meaningless, off-topic hypothetical and raise you with this...
This does not address the actual written rule. To quote again:
The first part says "if you are able to cast spells". RAW (Rules As Written, which is the only thing I am arguing here and have stated several times, so I can only assume that you disagree with that), if you cannot cast spells, the rest of the sentence does not apply. There are examples throughout the rules, and it is basic English and basic logic. You appear to be saying that "If A then B" means "Whether A or not, still B".
And, to quote above again:
Favored Foe requires concentration, as if it were a spell, and is explicitly treated as such. Why is that so darn hard for you to grasp?
It's not bad wording. Believe me, I have my issue with some sentences throughout various books. The sentence we keep quoting from SAC is missing a comma. But there's no issue here.
I'll see your completely out of context selection of part of an answer to a very specific question and raise you:
I, too, can choose a part of a sentence, ignoring all context, and now apparently RAW I don't need to use a bonus action to enter rage.
This is fun! If we can look at only the parts of the sentences we want in the rules, we can do anything we want and ignore the rest! Yay!
Was that completely out of context, or was it a complete thought? Personally, I'm disappointed they didn't answer in multiple sentences. But the answer is what it is, and natural language tells me barbarians cannot concentrate. Period.
I've already said that it is possible that the intent (RAI) was different, and that I am talking only of RAW.
If you think that RAW a rule which says "If A then B" means "Ignore A, just apply B all the time", there are several examples above which change the game a fair amount.
The intent is clear.