If a spell normally requires concentration, but the spell was cast using a wand does the character still need to concentrate. For example, the spell greater invisibility requires concentration. But If I have a wand that casts the spell, does my mage still need to concentrate to maintain the spell effect?
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell’s effects with their usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
This doesn't make sense to me, why should the user have to concentrate to maintain a spell that a wand created. Shouldn't it be part of the magic of the wand that the spell doesn't require concentration?
On the Watsonian side, you can justify it as the magic still needing to be held in place by a conscious effort to stay together, regardless of whether the power source is a spell slot or magic item. On the Doylist side, Concentration exists to, among other things, keep too many effects from being stacked at once or being generally able to be ended early. Which is why certain magic items do bypass concentration and others don't; it's a deliberate balance decision on what effects they're letting you get at as a freebie on top of the other Concentration options. Given that a Ring of Invisibility- a Legendary magic item- breaks the effect on most actions, clearly the devs feel making a character invisible for a full minute without restriction would be too powerful.
This is because the user still casts the spell. The magic item only alleviates the need for the caster to expend resources like a spell slot or components in order to cast. The user is still the one who selects the target of the spell and must activate the item in order to cast it; so since they are the one who casts the spell the obligation for concentration falls to them.
I appreciate everyone's input. Last Saturday my group ran into a rival group of NPCs. The NPC mage had cast greater invisibility on the archers so that they could snipe the party with advantage. the party was quite perplexed as to where the arrows were coming from. The party questioned how could someone attack without loosing invisibility. I stated "greater invisibility". The spell description does not specify becoming visible with an attack action.
But the question came up of how do you cast the spell on more than one person. It requires concentration. Hence the idea of a wand. I now better understand the rules as written.
And to add to that, the exceptions on concentration are almost always very powerful and are usualy Legendary items.
No they aren't. The most common exceptions are potions (though there are no greater invisibility potions).
Technically correct...and the best kind of correct :). Athought it started on wands, not potions. Personally, I never seem to get any useful ones, so I tend to ignore the category. But right you are on potions. Of course on those, it is a matter of "it depends" which one. Potion of Heroism, explictly does not require concentration, but a Potion of Mind Reading does strictly by RAW.
But wand, staves and rods, and other permenant items tend to be concentration, or they do an effect that isn't a spell and don't mention if it is required. Exceptions do exist.
And to add to that, the exceptions on concentration are almost always very powerful and are usualy Legendary items.
No they aren't. The most common exceptions are potions (though there are no greater invisibility potions).
I can't think of a potion that actually casts a spell on you or for you. All the examples I can think of say either "gain the effect of..." (i.e. gaseous form) or just repeat what the spell does in the description without referencing the spell itself (i.e. invisibility)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And to add to that, the exceptions on concentration are almost always very powerful and are usualy Legendary items.
No they aren't. The most common exceptions are potions (though there are no greater invisibility potions).
I can't think of a potion that actually casts a spell on you or for you. All the examples I can think of say either "gain the effect of..." (i.e. gaseous form) or just repeat what the spell does in the description without referencing the spell itself (i.e. invisibility)
The original quote cites magic items that also technically don't actually cast the spell either (apart from Blackrazor, but even then, the way it's done, it's the same effect). I don't think the intent is about technically casting a spell so much as obtaining the positive (in the PoV of the caster) effects of that spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And to add to that, the exceptions on concentration are almost always very powerful and are usualy Legendary items.
No they aren't. The most common exceptions are potions (though there are no greater invisibility potions).
I can't think of a potion that actually casts a spell on you or for you. All the examples I can think of say either "gain the effect of..." (i.e. gaseous form) or just repeat what the spell does in the description without referencing the spell itself (i.e. invisibility)
The original quote cites magic items that also technically don't actually cast the spell either (apart from Blackrazor, but even then, the way it's done, it's the same effect). I don't think the intent is about technically casting a spell so much as obtaining the positive (in the PoV of the caster) effects of that spell.
The original post in this thread specifically cited wands, which do tend to explicitly cast spells and not simply mimic the effects of spells, although there are exceptions
The post you were quoting said that bypassing concentration from a spell it actually casts is rare in magic items, and that was correct
Any item that just mimics the effects of a spell, like a potion, isn't actually casting the spell, so concentration wouldn't be an issue. Something like a wand of entangle though, which says
This wand has 7 charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 of its charges to cast the entangle spell (save DC 13) from it.
would require you to hold concentration on the entangle
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It said that weapons that "exceptions on concentration" are usually legendary objects, then cited three examples, two of which don't actually cast a spell. That implies that the intent is not "exceptions where it casts a spell that normally requires concentration, but in this case doesn't", but "gives the effects of a spell that normally requires concentration, but in this case case doesn't".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a spell normally requires concentration, but the spell was cast using a wand does the character still need to concentrate. For example, the spell greater invisibility requires concentration. But If I have a wand that casts the spell, does my mage still need to concentrate to maintain the spell effect?
I just checked the DM's Guide:
Spells
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell’s effects with their usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
This doesn't make sense to me, why should the user have to concentrate to maintain a spell that a wand created. Shouldn't it be part of the magic of the wand that the spell doesn't require concentration?
Yes.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/magic-items#Spells
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
On the Watsonian side, you can justify it as the magic still needing to be held in place by a conscious effort to stay together, regardless of whether the power source is a spell slot or magic item. On the Doylist side, Concentration exists to, among other things, keep too many effects from being stacked at once or being generally able to be ended early. Which is why certain magic items do bypass concentration and others don't; it's a deliberate balance decision on what effects they're letting you get at as a freebie on top of the other Concentration options. Given that a Ring of Invisibility- a Legendary magic item- breaks the effect on most actions, clearly the devs feel making a character invisible for a full minute without restriction would be too powerful.
This is because the user still casts the spell. The magic item only alleviates the need for the caster to expend resources like a spell slot or components in order to cast. The user is still the one who selects the target of the spell and must activate the item in order to cast it; so since they are the one who casts the spell the obligation for concentration falls to them.
And to add to that, the exceptions on concentration are almost always very powerful and are usualy Legendary items. Three examples I know of are:
So its a rare feature in items, and probably best that way if you were thinking to just craft something to bypass it. :)
I appreciate everyone's input. Last Saturday my group ran into a rival group of NPCs. The NPC mage had cast greater invisibility on the archers so that they could snipe the party with advantage. the party was quite perplexed as to where the arrows were coming from. The party questioned how could someone attack without loosing invisibility. I stated "greater invisibility". The spell description does not specify becoming visible with an attack action.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2128-greater-invisibility
But the question came up of how do you cast the spell on more than one person. It requires concentration. Hence the idea of a wand. I now better understand the rules as written.
No they aren't. The most common exceptions are potions (though there are no greater invisibility potions).
Technically correct...and the best kind of correct :). Athought it started on wands, not potions. Personally, I never seem to get any useful ones, so I tend to ignore the category. But right you are on potions. Of course on those, it is a matter of "it depends" which one. Potion of Heroism, explictly does not require concentration, but a Potion of Mind Reading does strictly by RAW.
But wand, staves and rods, and other permenant items tend to be concentration, or they do an effect that isn't a spell and don't mention if it is required. Exceptions do exist.
I can't think of a potion that actually casts a spell on you or for you. All the examples I can think of say either "gain the effect of..." (i.e. gaseous form) or just repeat what the spell does in the description without referencing the spell itself (i.e. invisibility)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The original quote cites magic items that also technically don't actually cast the spell either (apart from Blackrazor, but even then, the way it's done, it's the same effect). I don't think the intent is about technically casting a spell so much as obtaining the positive (in the PoV of the caster) effects of that spell.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The original post in this thread specifically cited wands, which do tend to explicitly cast spells and not simply mimic the effects of spells, although there are exceptions
The post you were quoting said that bypassing concentration from a spell it actually casts is rare in magic items, and that was correct
Any item that just mimics the effects of a spell, like a potion, isn't actually casting the spell, so concentration wouldn't be an issue. Something like a wand of entangle though, which says
would require you to hold concentration on the entangle
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It said that weapons that "exceptions on concentration" are usually legendary objects, then cited three examples, two of which don't actually cast a spell. That implies that the intent is not "exceptions where it casts a spell that normally requires concentration, but in this case doesn't", but "gives the effects of a spell that normally requires concentration, but in this case case doesn't".
Potions follow the pattern of the examples given.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.