Was that completely out of context, or was it a complete thought?
The point is that we do not know. We often take shortcuts of language when speaking within a specific context.
If you can show me either:
any errata/SA/etc ruling about non-casting barbarians concentrating on spell-like effects,
any ruling which clarifies an if/then rule to show the if portion to be ignored,
any ruling which states that a character which can use spell-like effects should be considered to "be able to cast spells", or
any rule at all, which is of the form if/then, where you ignore the if part,
I will gladly review my opinion. Until then, I say again that a Barb X/Ranger 1 cannot cast spells, so RAW (not RAI or anything else) that line in the Rage feature doesn't apply. It may not have been the intent of the writer, but that is what the written rule says in clear, plain and simple English.
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 RAW is clear. You're trying to argue that one class's feature, which contains a conditional statement, somehow overrides the "as if you were concentrating on a spell" of another class's feature. As is the case with any other use of the phrase, you treat those features as spells. And the reason for this is plain: concentration only ever appears in the rules for Spellcasting. Concentration, as a mechanic, is not severable from the rules on spellcasting. So, if a feature prohibits concentration, then it prohibits concentration.
I will gladly review my opinion. Until then, I say again that a Barb X/Ranger 1 cannot cast spells, so RAW (not RAI or anything else) that line in the Rage feature doesn't apply. It may not have been the intent of the writer, but that is what the written rule says in clear, plain and simple English.
Oh, wow, see that is just plain wrong. I can name two general conditions where a multiclassed BbnX/Rgr1 can cast spells that require no further variant or optional rules. They just cannot cast or concentrate on any spells while using their Rage feature.
Their race affords them some limited spellcasting, such as with a forest gnome, high elf, or tiefling.
Their archetype feature grants spellcasting, as is the case with Spirit Walker (Path of the Totem Warrior).
You may think the intent of the rule is clear, and I feel that you are probably right about what the intent was. I am not talking about intent, though, as I have stated over and over again, but about the written rule.
I do not believe the intent of the SA answer is clear. It is specifically talking of a Barb/Cleric (caster) and about spells, not about a character who is unable to cast spells.
Say I were to ask "Can a Barbarian enter a Rage at any time?" and the answer came back "A character can rage at any time, as long as he is not [insert list of circumstances]". It would be implied by the question that the character had to be a barbarian, as well as by the wording of the rules. Similarly if I asked "Can a Beast Barbarian choose which natural weapon he manifests?" and the answer came back "A barbarian can choose any of the 3 natural weapons when he rages", again, it is clear from context and rules that it only applies to Beast Barbarians, not all Barbarians. Therefore, I don't think it is possible to state categorically that the answer you quote applies to Barbs who are unable to cast spells.
This conversation has gotten incredibly silly, but I have to ask one question to emphasize why the strict RAW interpretation is stupid:
Let's say your Barbarian has a Ring of Spell Storing. Casts Haste on themself, then takes off the Ring of Spell Storing (or not, if you feel a Ring of Spell Storing is a way around the "You can cast a spell" stipulation). Then goes into a Rage.
Your argument says that they can maintain this Concentration-based spell on themselves despite going into a Rage. That's absolutely silly.
Also, your "the English language must work in exactly this way" is incredibly annoying. First off, no it doesn't. Interpretation determines meaning, not syntax. Second off, the syntax of the rule allows a strict interpretation that negates your whole argument: "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging" can easily be read as "You can't cast spells if you are able to cast spells, or concentrate on spells, while raging" and that would be allowable by a strict prescriptivist. The if-clause doesn't necessarily apply to both parts of the ensuing clause.
You may think the intent of the rule is clear, and I feel that you are probably right about what the intent was. I am not talking about intent, though, as I have stated over and over again, but about the written rule.
I do not believe the intent of the SA answer is clear. It is specifically talking of a Barb/Cleric (caster) and about spells, not about a character who is unable to cast spells.
Say I were to ask "Can a Barbarian enter a Rage at any time?" and the answer came back "A character can rage at any time, as long as he is not [insert list of circumstances]". It would be implied by the question that the character had to be a barbarian, as well as by the wording of the rules. Similarly if I asked "Can a Beast Barbarian choose which natural weapon he manifests?" and the answer came back "A barbarian can choose any of the 3 natural weapons when he rages", again, it is clear from context and rules that it only applies to Beast Barbarians, not all Barbarians. Therefore, I don't think it is possible to state categorically that the answer you quote applies to Barbs who are unable to cast spells.
And as I've stated multiple times, you don't know what the written rule means.
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 RAW is clear. You're trying to argue that one class's feature, which contains a conditional statement, somehow overrides the "as if you were concentrating on a spell" of another class's feature. As is the case with any other use of the phrase, you treat those features as spells. And the reason for this is plain: concentration only ever appears in the rules for Spellcasting. Concentration, as a mechanic, is not severable from the rules on spellcasting. So, if a feature prohibits concentration, then it prohibits concentration.
So, finally we have a SA answer which has relevance. I didn't see that on my own searches, so thanks for digging that out. It isn't quite the same, as anyone using Invoke Duplicity can cast spells so triggers the if statement anyway. However, I'm going to accept that as good enough evidence for now that the intent is that it should not be possible, whatever the RAW is.
Rules As Written (or RAW) generally refers to the absolute literal reading of the rules, without allowing any interpretation of what the intent behind them might be.
An absolute literal reading of the Rage concentration rule says it only applies if you can cast spells. If you can cast spells, then you can't do so or concentrate on the while raging. If/then.
Your argument says that they can maintain this Concentration-based spell on themselves despite going into a Rage. That's absolutely silly.
I've already said it is not necessarily sensible, only what is written. You are right that it opens up loopholes which are pretty stupid.
Interpretation determines meaning
I'll give you that. However, I believe the structure and syntax of the natural language rule is so strong that a literal interpretation (what RAW means) cannot be read another way.
"If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging" can easily be read as "You can't cast spells if you are able to cast spells, or concentrate on spells, while raging"
Not really. Punctuation makes a big difference. "Let's go eat Grandma" is not the same as "Let's go eat, Grandma". You have only been able to change the meaning of the sentence by fundamentally altering it. By the use of punctuation, the if clause relates to the entirety of the rest of the sentence.
Rules As Written (or RAW) generally refers to the absolute literal reading of the rules, without allowing any interpretation of what the intent behind them might be.
An absolute literal reading of the Rage concentration rule says it only applies if you can cast spells. If you can cast spells, then you can't do so or concentrate on the while raging. If/then.
Except if you choose to interpret the "if" as an indicator of applicability (in a rule that would otherwise not make sense), not the prescriptor of applicability.
I was really hoping to avoid giving an English lesson, but since NVCoach got the ball rolling I might as well.
*sigh*
Don't stick to your absolute literal reading because that's not what this is. We're not dealing with the rigidity of computer programming. Otherwise, you get nonsense like this:
My wife said, "Please go to the store and buy a carton of milk, and if they have eggs, get six." I came back with six cartons of milk. Then she asked, "why in the hell did you buy six cartons of milk?" "They had eggs," I replied.
The line in question, from the Rage feature, is called a conditional sentence. The "if clause", as you call it, is called the antecedent. It sets up a condition. The "then clause" is called the consequent. The consequent, as you may have guessed, outlines the consequences of the condition. So, with that out of the way, let's take another look at the line in question.
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging"
The antecedent about casting spells is, in my opinion, superfluous. You need to be able to cast spells in order to cast spells; that should go without saying. Why they chose to word it this way, I can't say. If I had to wager, it's because Barbarian is the first class to appear in the PHB. But I digress.
The condition is being able to cast spells. The consequence is, while you are raging, you cannot cast spells or concentrate on them. This is a general rule, and a pretty good one if you ask me. Specific rules also supersede general rules. Any feature or trait which is not a spell, but says you treat it as if it were a spell, would be considered a specific rule. Such language is used both with Favored Foe and with Invoke Duplicity. Knowing all this, you could just as easily rewrite the conditional sentence above and structure it as so:
"While raging, you are unable to cast spells or concentrate on them."
Both sentences, while structurally distinct, carry the same meaning. The raging barbarian cannot cast spells nor concentrate on spells or any features which say to treat them as spells. That said, you can still activate those features, because that's not prohibited, but you cannot concentrate on them to maintain them.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the original wording. You would think that being subject to the Rage feature, not being able to cast spells, should be the condition. But the wording here is clear. The meaning is clear.
"The antecedent about casting spells is, in my opinion, superfluous. You need to be able to cast spells in order to cast spells; that should go without saying. Why they chose to word it this way, I can't say."
That's probably the main reason I'm hung up on it: you don't (or shouldn't) put superfluous wording into rules. Every part of a written rule should have a defined meaning and purpose.
If the antecedent has no purpose in one reading but a valid purpose in another, my brain will immediately go to the one which gives it purpose, as words without purpose in a rule make no sense. To me, that is the one which makes the clause only apply to casters.
I still disagree that the literal wording, even taking into account the arguments you propose, applies to non-casters. The only way I believe it could is if you considered a using a spell like ability to be identical to casting a spell, meaning anyone with a spell-like ability would be considered to be able to cast spells. If this was the case, why not just call them as spells/cantrips to be cast rather than the murky "spell-like" stuff? There must be a distinct difference between "spell-like" and spells.
However, I can appreciate that there is a different way to read it by being less literal. Also, as I mentioned above, I do accept that it is highly likely that this was the intent of the rule, especially given the JC tweet. I'm therefore going to drop the subject now (Barring an illogical argument which compels my stupid brain to respond, of course lol). I do thank you for that final post, however, as it was most illuminating.
I always assumed that the intent was to prevent all concentration, not just concentration on spells, and the Crawford sage advice confirms that, but the laws of English grammar do permit other interpretations. This is a fairly common issue with 5th edition, because they tried to write it in natural language rather than creating a formal language with specific terms of art (5e is far less clear in many things than, say, 4e, or Magic), but there is a reason 5th edition was written that way: formal language is unfriendly.
In a formal language concentration would be a term of art, and enrage would just forbid it -- there would be no need to specify anything about spells, and other abilities such as favored foe would just reference that term of art (again, with no reference to spells).
Acording to the terrible interpretation presented in the last 4 pages of posts, you can continue to concentrate on a spell such as hunter’s mark if you use your favored foe feature because the concentration rules tell us that “You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration.” Using a class feature isn’t casting a spell, after all.
7. Concentration p5 As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly.
Everything would be solved if "Rage" was errata'd to either use concentration, or disallow concentration entirely (ie, "When in Rage, a player cannot use anything that requires Concentration, and Concentration immediately ends upon entering Rage.")
That's what I just said. Although I'm not "throwing in the towel" in terms of giving up, just not continuing the argument anymore as there is now enough reasonable evidence of intent that I see no need to continue a discussion about RAW.
"Acording to the terrible interpretation presented in the last 4 pages of posts, you can continue to concentrate on a spell such as hunter’s mark if you use your favored foe feature because the concentration rules tell us that “You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration.”"
Not really. That quote doesn't say "if you are able to cast spells", so the "concentration as if a spell" line would forbid it. Almost the entirety of the argument I presented was based on the argument that "if you are able to cast spells" was a condition for not being able to concentrate while raging.
Thanks for pointing out that this has been addressed NVCoach.
To address thethoughtless one in the thread, without that tidbit from Tasha’s I completely disagree that this situation would be any different. The rule says “casting a spell” right in it. Fortunately the point is moot, so my bringing it up was useless.
The point is that we do not know. We often take shortcuts of language when speaking within a specific context.
If you can show me either:
I will gladly review my opinion. Until then, I say again that a Barb X/Ranger 1 cannot cast spells, so RAW (not RAI or anything else) that line in the Rage feature doesn't apply. It may not have been the intent of the writer, but that is what the written rule says in clear, plain and simple English.
The RAW is clear. You're trying to argue that one class's feature, which contains a conditional statement, somehow overrides the "as if you were concentrating on a spell" of another class's feature. As is the case with any other use of the phrase, you treat those features as spells. And the reason for this is plain: concentration only ever appears in the rules for Spellcasting. Concentration, as a mechanic, is not severable from the rules on spellcasting. So, if a feature prohibits concentration, then it prohibits concentration.
But don't take my word for it. Just ask Jeremy Crawford.
Oh, wow, see that is just plain wrong. I can name two general conditions where a multiclassed BbnX/Rgr1 can cast spells that require no further variant or optional rules. They just cannot cast or concentrate on any spells while using their Rage feature.
You may think the intent of the rule is clear, and I feel that you are probably right about what the intent was. I am not talking about intent, though, as I have stated over and over again, but about the written rule.
I do not believe the intent of the SA answer is clear. It is specifically talking of a Barb/Cleric (caster) and about spells, not about a character who is unable to cast spells.
Say I were to ask "Can a Barbarian enter a Rage at any time?" and the answer came back "A character can rage at any time, as long as he is not [insert list of circumstances]". It would be implied by the question that the character had to be a barbarian, as well as by the wording of the rules. Similarly if I asked "Can a Beast Barbarian choose which natural weapon he manifests?" and the answer came back "A barbarian can choose any of the 3 natural weapons when he rages", again, it is clear from context and rules that it only applies to Beast Barbarians, not all Barbarians. Therefore, I don't think it is possible to state categorically that the answer you quote applies to Barbs who are unable to cast spells.
This conversation has gotten incredibly silly, but I have to ask one question to emphasize why the strict RAW interpretation is stupid:
Let's say your Barbarian has a Ring of Spell Storing. Casts Haste on themself, then takes off the Ring of Spell Storing (or not, if you feel a Ring of Spell Storing is a way around the "You can cast a spell" stipulation). Then goes into a Rage.
Your argument says that they can maintain this Concentration-based spell on themselves despite going into a Rage. That's absolutely silly.
Also, your "the English language must work in exactly this way" is incredibly annoying. First off, no it doesn't. Interpretation determines meaning, not syntax. Second off, the syntax of the rule allows a strict interpretation that negates your whole argument: "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging" can easily be read as "You can't cast spells if you are able to cast spells, or concentrate on spells, while raging" and that would be allowable by a strict prescriptivist. The if-clause doesn't necessarily apply to both parts of the ensuing clause.
And as I've stated multiple times, you don't know what the written rule means.
So, finally we have a SA answer which has relevance. I didn't see that on my own searches, so thanks for digging that out. It isn't quite the same, as anyone using Invoke Duplicity can cast spells so triggers the if statement anyway. However, I'm going to accept that as good enough evidence for now that the intent is that it should not be possible, whatever the RAW is.
An absolute literal reading of the Rage concentration rule says it only applies if you can cast spells. If you can cast spells, then you can't do so or concentrate on the while raging. If/then.
I've already said it is not necessarily sensible, only what is written. You are right that it opens up loopholes which are pretty stupid.
I'll give you that. However, I believe the structure and syntax of the natural language rule is so strong that a literal interpretation (what RAW means) cannot be read another way.
Not really. Punctuation makes a big difference. "Let's go eat Grandma" is not the same as "Let's go eat, Grandma". You have only been able to change the meaning of the sentence by fundamentally altering it. By the use of punctuation, the if clause relates to the entirety of the rest of the sentence.
Except if you choose to interpret the "if" as an indicator of applicability (in a rule that would otherwise not make sense), not the prescriptor of applicability.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/03/can-you-concentrate-on-invoke-duplicity-while-raging/
*sigh*
Don't stick to your absolute literal reading because that's not what this is. We're not dealing with the rigidity of computer programming. Otherwise, you get nonsense like this:
The line in question, from the Rage feature, is called a conditional sentence. The "if clause", as you call it, is called the antecedent. It sets up a condition. The "then clause" is called the consequent. The consequent, as you may have guessed, outlines the consequences of the condition. So, with that out of the way, let's take another look at the line in question.
"If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging"
The antecedent about casting spells is, in my opinion, superfluous. You need to be able to cast spells in order to cast spells; that should go without saying. Why they chose to word it this way, I can't say. If I had to wager, it's because Barbarian is the first class to appear in the PHB. But I digress.
The condition is being able to cast spells. The consequence is, while you are raging, you cannot cast spells or concentrate on them. This is a general rule, and a pretty good one if you ask me. Specific rules also supersede general rules. Any feature or trait which is not a spell, but says you treat it as if it were a spell, would be considered a specific rule. Such language is used both with Favored Foe and with Invoke Duplicity. Knowing all this, you could just as easily rewrite the conditional sentence above and structure it as so:
"While raging, you are unable to cast spells or concentrate on them."
Both sentences, while structurally distinct, carry the same meaning. The raging barbarian cannot cast spells nor concentrate on spells or any features which say to treat them as spells. That said, you can still activate those features, because that's not prohibited, but you cannot concentrate on them to maintain them.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the original wording. You would think that being subject to the Rage feature, not being able to cast spells, should be the condition. But the wording here is clear. The meaning is clear.
"The antecedent about casting spells is, in my opinion, superfluous. You need to be able to cast spells in order to cast spells; that should go without saying. Why they chose to word it this way, I can't say."
That's probably the main reason I'm hung up on it: you don't (or shouldn't) put superfluous wording into rules. Every part of a written rule should have a defined meaning and purpose.
If the antecedent has no purpose in one reading but a valid purpose in another, my brain will immediately go to the one which gives it purpose, as words without purpose in a rule make no sense. To me, that is the one which makes the clause only apply to casters.
I still disagree that the literal wording, even taking into account the arguments you propose, applies to non-casters. The only way I believe it could is if you considered a using a spell like ability to be identical to casting a spell, meaning anyone with a spell-like ability would be considered to be able to cast spells. If this was the case, why not just call them as spells/cantrips to be cast rather than the murky "spell-like" stuff? There must be a distinct difference between "spell-like" and spells.
However, I can appreciate that there is a different way to read it by being less literal. Also, as I mentioned above, I do accept that it is highly likely that this was the intent of the rule, especially given the JC tweet. I'm therefore going to drop the subject now (Barring an illogical argument which compels my stupid brain to respond, of course lol). I do thank you for that final post, however, as it was most illuminating.
Time to throw in the towel on this one, Urth.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I always assumed that the intent was to prevent all concentration, not just concentration on spells, and the Crawford sage advice confirms that, but the laws of English grammar do permit other interpretations. This is a fairly common issue with 5th edition, because they tried to write it in natural language rather than creating a formal language with specific terms of art (5e is far less clear in many things than, say, 4e, or Magic), but there is a reason 5th edition was written that way: formal language is unfriendly.
In a formal language concentration would be a term of art, and enrage would just forbid it -- there would be no need to specify anything about spells, and other abilities such as favored foe would just reference that term of art (again, with no reference to spells).
Acording to the terrible interpretation presented in the last 4 pages of posts, you can continue to concentrate on a spell such as hunter’s mark if you use your favored foe feature because the concentration rules tell us that “You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration.” Using a class feature isn’t casting a spell, after all.
That's actually addressed in Tasha's...
Everything would be solved if "Rage" was errata'd to either use concentration, or disallow concentration entirely (ie, "When in Rage, a player cannot use anything that requires Concentration, and Concentration immediately ends upon entering Rage.")
That's what I just said. Although I'm not "throwing in the towel" in terms of giving up, just not continuing the argument anymore as there is now enough reasonable evidence of intent that I see no need to continue a discussion about RAW.
"Acording to the terrible interpretation presented in the last 4 pages of posts, you can continue to concentrate on a spell such as hunter’s mark if you use your favored foe feature because the concentration rules tell us that “You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration.”"
Not really. That quote doesn't say "if you are able to cast spells", so the "concentration as if a spell" line would forbid it. Almost the entirety of the argument I presented was based on the argument that "if you are able to cast spells" was a condition for not being able to concentrate while raging.
Thanks for pointing out that this has been addressed NVCoach.
To address thethoughtless one in the thread, without that tidbit from Tasha’s I completely disagree that this situation would be any different. The rule says “casting a spell” right in it. Fortunately the point is moot, so my bringing it up was useless.
Well, this thing exploded like no one expected.