Favoured foe reads that you are concentrating as if it's a spell, I know this is mainly to avoid double concentration shennannigans.
Rage mentions that you can't concentrate on spells.
Favoured Foe is not a spell.
So could a Ranger/Barb hybrid gain benefit from this Hunter's mark-like benefit?
I'm inclined to say yes simply because FF is not a spell. I know why they word the concentration bit to include spell-like concentration, but it's not a spell. I could also perfectly see a barbarian focus on this one enemy wanting to tear his guts out in a more vicious way than they normally do :D.
Hmmm, I think there is a reasonable argument to be had that it would be possible. I can see both sides of the argument, and I don't think there is a clear single interpretation from the written rules. I think I would rule it possible, as the rage restriction only stops concentration on and casting spells, while Favoured foe talks of concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell. It's certainly not clear cut, though.
However looking at it, there is one combination where I would say that you could definitely use Favoured Foe while Raging - Barbarian X / Ranger 1. From Rage (my emphasis):
If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging.
At level 1, a ranger cannot cast spells. They only get that ability at level 2. Therefore, RAW this restriction does not apply (IMHO).
Hmmm, I think there is a reasonable argument to be had that it would be possible. I can see both sides of the argument, and I don't think there is a clear single interpretation from the written rules. I think I would rule it possible, as the rage restriction only stops concentration on and casting spells, while Favoured foe talks of concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell. It's certainly not clear cut, though.
However looking at it, there is one combination where I would say that you could definitely use Favoured Foe while Raging - Barbarian X / Ranger 1. From Rage (my emphasis):
If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or concentrate on them while raging.
At level 1, a ranger cannot cast spells. They only get that ability at level 2. Therefore, RAW this restriction does not apply (IMHO).
"... as if concentrating on a spell" means that it follows the rules for spellcasting concentration, along with all of the caveats and exceptions that come with it.
The rule for Barbarian Rage only applies if the character is able to cast spells. A 1st level Ranger is unable to cast spells, therefore this line from Rage does not apply at all to a Barb X / Ranger 1. It doesn't matter what the rest of the line says about casting or concentration, as the first opening condition stops it from applying.
For the rest, I still think it is a reasonable interpretation that the rage restriction applies to concentration on spells. It comes down to interpretation.
Let's say a rule said you had advantage on melee attacks, and another said to make a Strength check against an armour class as if making a melee attack. In one interpretation, you take the "as if" to mean it takes all applicable rules, and this would include gaining advantage. In another, equally valid IMHO, you say that the advantage only applies to melee attacks, and as this is not a melee attack (only "as if" or like a melee attack) it doesn't apply. If they wanted it to apply, they would have said it was a melee attack roll, not to make a check "as if" a melee attack.
The same can be argued, IMHO, for this situation. It can be argued that the rage restriction is only applies to spells, and as Favoured Foe is not a spell, it does not apply.
The rule for Barbarian Rage only applies if the character is able to cast spells. A 1st level Ranger is unable to cast spells, therefore this line from Rage does not apply at all to a Barb X / Ranger 1. It doesn't matter what the rest of the line says about casting or concentration, as the first opening condition stops it from applying.
For the rest, I still think it is a reasonable interpretation that the rage restriction applies to concentration on spells. It comes down to interpretation.
Let's say a rule said you had advantage on melee attacks, and another said to make a Strength check against an armour class as if making a melee attack. In one interpretation, you take the "as if" to mean it takes all applicable rules, and this would include gaining advantage. In another, equally valid IMHO, you say that the advantage only applies to melee attacks, and as this is not a melee attack (only "as if" or like a melee attack) it doesn't apply. If they wanted it to apply, they would have said it was a melee attack roll, not to make a check "as if" a melee attack.
The same can be argued, IMHO, for this situation. It can be argued that the rage restriction is only applies to spells, and as Favoured Foe is not a spell, it does not apply.
You are flat wrong on the second part. A feature that acts "as if" it is something else means it gets the behavior of that thing. That is the reason that even if you can't cast spells, the preclusion from being able to concentrate on them also affects your ability to concentrate on a thing "as if it were a spell."
I don't think that one is making anything fly. It's following exactly what the rules say, to the letter. Other parts are open to interpretation, but if the rule starts with "If you are able to cast spells" and you are unable to cast spells, the rule doesn't apply to you.
If course, a DM is free to rule that you can't, but that would be a house rule.
And of course, you might be able to convince your DM that "if you are able to cast spells" is a prerequisite rather than an indicator of applicability for a class that doesn't base get access to any spells. If so, then good for you, but it seems clear that isn't what that phrase is in the sentence for.
I don't think that one is making anything fly. It's following exactly what the rules say, to the letter. Other parts are open to interpretation, but if the rule starts with "If you are able to cast spells" and you are unable to cast spells, the rule doesn't apply to you.
If course, a DM is free to rule that you can't, but that would be a house rule.
You don't get to pretend your liberal interpretation is RAW and someone else's isn't. Your reading could, also, easily be interpreted as a house rule.
Concentration is concentration. If you cannot concentrate on a spell, then you cannot concentrate. No ifs, ands, or buts. And even if the barbarian could activate Favored Foe (it technically isn't a spell, so I'm personally leaning towards "yes"), they cannot concentrate to maintain it.
The rules mean what they say, first and foremost. If there are different ways to interpret them, that's when judgements are called for. But to say that a precondition specified very clearly in the rules isn't meant to say what it says it's not interpretation, but a house rule.
It's very simple. By the written rule, if you cannot cast spells, that rule does not apply. There is not other reasonable way to interpret that sentence. I have no problem with anyone house ruling that it stops a non-caster from concentrating on things which are not spells. It's a valid house role to have, and may feel more in line with the intent of spirit of the rules. It's definitely a house rule, though, because the written rule is very clear and specific.
The rules mean what they say, first and foremost. If there are different ways to interpret them, that's when judgements are called for. But to say that a precondition specified very clearly in the rules isn't meant to say what it says it's not interpretation, but a house rule.
It's very simple. By the written rule, if you cannot cast spells, that rule does not apply. There is not other reasonable way to interpret that sentence. I have no problem with anyone house ruling that it stops a non-caster from concentrating on things which are not spells. It's a valid house role to have, and may feel more in line with the intent of spirit of the rules. It's definitely a house rule, though, because the written rule is very clear and specific.
I have seen a handful of other rule questions that have presented RAW in this fashion, where a rule states "If you can XXXXX then.." and it has always been said that if you can NOT XXXXX then the rules does not apply.
For the RP/physics/how answer, a Barbarian, in his Rage, is able to narrow his focus so YOU are the target he needs to kill NOW. He is NOT able to concentrate on the mystical flow of Weave energy to hold you in place, or maintain a shroud of protection on himself or an ally, etc. He CAN "concentrate" on a single foe as THE thing that needs to DIENOW!!! but anything else.....pffffft nope.
It would be fine at my table. If i was at a table it wasn't....then I'd accept it. Application and interpretation of rules depend on your side of the table. If you are on the God side of the DM screen, your rules go. If you're on the player side, you can ask "Are you sure?" but if "God" says "Yup" we move on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
...By the written rule, if you cannot cast spells, that rule does not apply. There is not other reasonable way to interpret that sentence...
Incorrect.
Certainly, you can convince a DM that a rule about concentrating doesn't apply to concentrating. But again, that is a matter of opinion, whereas it is completely reasonable that a class that doesn't have base access to spellcasting might have indicatory text at the beginning of a sentence that affects spellcasting that is not a prerequisite of the rule, but rather just indicative. The ability to cast a spell -- especially now that Tasha's is out -- is not (at least no longer) a requirement of being able to concentrate one, so that text is meaningless.
The rules mean what they say, first and foremost. If there are different ways to interpret them, that's when judgements are called for. But to say that a precondition specified very clearly in the rules isn't meant to say what it says it's not interpretation, but a house rule.
It's very simple. By the written rule, if you cannot cast spells, that rule does not apply. There is not other reasonable way to interpret that sentence. I have no problem with anyone house ruling that it stops a non-caster from concentrating on things which are not spells. It's a valid house role to have, and may feel more in line with the intent of spirit of the rules. It's definitely a house rule, though, because the written rule is very clear and specific.
I have seen a handful of other rule questions that have presented RAW in this fashion, where a rule states "If you can XXXXX then.." and it has always been said that if you can NOT XXXXX then the rules does not apply.
For the RP/physics/how answer, a Barbarian, in his Rage, is able to narrow his focus so YOU are the target he needs to kill NOW. He is NOT able to concentrate on the mystical flow of Weave energy to hold you in place, or maintain a shroud of protection on himself or an ally, etc. He CAN "concentrate" on a single foe as THE thing that needs to DIENOW!!! but anything else.....pffffft nope.
It would be fine at my table. If i was at a table it wasn't....then I'd accept it. Application and interpretation of rules depend on your side of the table. If you are on the God side of the DM screen, your rules go. If you're on the player side, you can ask "Are you sure?" but if "God" says "Yup" we move on.
"It would be fine at my table. If i was at a table it wasn't....then I'd accept it."
That's pretty much how I'd approach it, too, especially mid-session. The DMs word is law. I may discuss with them outside the session (mainly if I knew them well, probably not with a stranger), but it's still their final call.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Favoured foe reads that you are concentrating as if it's a spell, I know this is mainly to avoid double concentration shennannigans.
Rage mentions that you can't concentrate on spells.
Favoured Foe is not a spell.
So could a Ranger/Barb hybrid gain benefit from this Hunter's mark-like benefit?
I'm inclined to say yes simply because FF is not a spell. I know why they word the concentration bit to include spell-like concentration, but it's not a spell. I could also perfectly see a barbarian focus on this one enemy wanting to tear his guts out in a more vicious way than they normally do :D.
Favored Foe is treated as though it was a spell for the purposes of concentration, so it's a deal-breaker for barbarian rage.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Honestly a bit sad when there are effects that are explicitly not spells...prevents some cool interactions that are, in my opinion, in no way broken.
You make a good case for allowing it anyway at your table.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Hmmm, I think there is a reasonable argument to be had that it would be possible. I can see both sides of the argument, and I don't think there is a clear single interpretation from the written rules. I think I would rule it possible, as the rage restriction only stops concentration on and casting spells, while Favoured foe talks of concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell. It's certainly not clear cut, though.
However looking at it, there is one combination where I would say that you could definitely use Favoured Foe while Raging - Barbarian X / Ranger 1. From Rage (my emphasis):
At level 1, a ranger cannot cast spells. They only get that ability at level 2. Therefore, RAW this restriction does not apply (IMHO).
"... as if concentrating on a spell" means that it follows the rules for spellcasting concentration, along with all of the caveats and exceptions that come with it.
The rule for Barbarian Rage only applies if the character is able to cast spells. A 1st level Ranger is unable to cast spells, therefore this line from Rage does not apply at all to a Barb X / Ranger 1. It doesn't matter what the rest of the line says about casting or concentration, as the first opening condition stops it from applying.
For the rest, I still think it is a reasonable interpretation that the rage restriction applies to concentration on spells. It comes down to interpretation.
Let's say a rule said you had advantage on melee attacks, and another said to make a Strength check against an armour class as if making a melee attack. In one interpretation, you take the "as if" to mean it takes all applicable rules, and this would include gaining advantage. In another, equally valid IMHO, you say that the advantage only applies to melee attacks, and as this is not a melee attack (only "as if" or like a melee attack) it doesn't apply. If they wanted it to apply, they would have said it was a melee attack roll, not to make a check "as if" a melee attack.
The same can be argued, IMHO, for this situation. It can be argued that the rage restriction is only applies to spells, and as Favoured Foe is not a spell, it does not apply.
So favored foe gains none of the benefits that apply to spellcasting concentration either then?
You are flat wrong on the second part. A feature that acts "as if" it is something else means it gets the behavior of that thing. That is the reason that even if you can't cast spells, the preclusion from being able to concentrate on them also affects your ability to concentrate on a thing "as if it were a spell."
I can see that interpretation as being valid, too. It's just not the only one.
If you can make that one fly at your table, then by all means :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I don't think that one is making anything fly. It's following exactly what the rules say, to the letter. Other parts are open to interpretation, but if the rule starts with "If you are able to cast spells" and you are unable to cast spells, the rule doesn't apply to you.
If course, a DM is free to rule that you can't, but that would be a house rule.
And of course, you might be able to convince your DM that "if you are able to cast spells" is a prerequisite rather than an indicator of applicability for a class that doesn't base get access to any spells. If so, then good for you, but it seems clear that isn't what that phrase is in the sentence for.
You don't get to pretend your liberal interpretation is RAW and someone else's isn't. Your reading could, also, easily be interpreted as a house rule.
Concentration is concentration. If you cannot concentrate on a spell, then you cannot concentrate. No ifs, ands, or buts. And even if the barbarian could activate Favored Foe (it technically isn't a spell, so I'm personally leaning towards "yes"), they cannot concentrate to maintain it.
The rules mean what they say, first and foremost. If there are different ways to interpret them, that's when judgements are called for. But to say that a precondition specified very clearly in the rules isn't meant to say what it says it's not interpretation, but a house rule.
It's very simple. By the written rule, if you cannot cast spells, that rule does not apply. There is not other reasonable way to interpret that sentence. I have no problem with anyone house ruling that it stops a non-caster from concentrating on things which are not spells. It's a valid house role to have, and may feel more in line with the intent of spirit of the rules. It's definitely a house rule, though, because the written rule is very clear and specific.
I have seen a handful of other rule questions that have presented RAW in this fashion, where a rule states "If you can XXXXX then.." and it has always been said that if you can NOT XXXXX then the rules does not apply.
For the RP/physics/how answer, a Barbarian, in his Rage, is able to narrow his focus so YOU are the target he needs to kill NOW. He is NOT able to concentrate on the mystical flow of Weave energy to hold you in place, or maintain a shroud of protection on himself or an ally, etc. He CAN "concentrate" on a single foe as THE thing that needs to DIENOW!!! but anything else.....pffffft nope.
It would be fine at my table. If i was at a table it wasn't....then I'd accept it. Application and interpretation of rules depend on your side of the table. If you are on the God side of the DM screen, your rules go. If you're on the player side, you can ask "Are you sure?" but if "God" says "Yup" we move on.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
Incorrect.
Certainly, you can convince a DM that a rule about concentrating doesn't apply to concentrating. But again, that is a matter of opinion, whereas it is completely reasonable that a class that doesn't have base access to spellcasting might have indicatory text at the beginning of a sentence that affects spellcasting that is not a prerequisite of the rule, but rather just indicative. The ability to cast a spell -- especially now that Tasha's is out -- is not (at least no longer) a requirement of being able to concentrate one, so that text is meaningless.
Don't take that second level of ranger then.
"It would be fine at my table. If i was at a table it wasn't....then I'd accept it."
That's pretty much how I'd approach it, too, especially mid-session. The DMs word is law. I may discuss with them outside the session (mainly if I knew them well, probably not with a stranger), but it's still their final call.