I assume no, but could you cast something like Summon Greater Demon inside a Wall of Force? You're just targeting an unoccupied space. I assume no, but Pact Tactics said a friend of his used it in a game they played which I thought was odd so wanted to check.

Logged on and noticed I couldn't roll dice on any of my characters anymore.

Saw there's an option in character creation to select (I guess I always had it selected before) but now it won't let me select it. I click it and for a split second it shows a checkmark then removes it and it won't stay checked off.

Anyone had this issue? I'm using Mozilla Firefox.

Thanks

I'm pretty late to this argument but I guess i'd say its one or the other as far as upcasting/keeping concentration. To keep it balanced i'd say pick one.

Either you can upcast it and it acts like a magical spell slot somehow created by your patron that is passed along to you, ok, but if you cast a concentration spell you must keep concentration on it.

Or

Its not a spell or using a spell slot at all, so you can't upcast it, however, because its not a spell and just take affect, you don't have to concentrate on it as if it were a spell and the spell lasts until dispelled, the spells total duration, or unconscious.

Just my thoughts.

So i've heard many argue Mass Suggestion must be a "reasonable request" and people give so many examples of unreasonable requests, like asking enemies to sit down for 8 hours is unreasonable to some, or making them crawl around is unreasonable, etc.

My thought is, basically anything can be a reasonable request as the spell gives clear examples of unreasonable requests " The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

To me, this says the only unreasonable request you could make would be causing a creature to do direct harm to itself. Why else would they only give those examples of unreasonable requests? I know its up to DM to decide, but to me it seems like I could suggest the creatures all become our body guards until we exit the cave for example. This is not direct harm as they may not end up fighting anyone or they could kill an enemy instantly before getting any damage done to them.

This request also seems reasonable as the spell stipulates it does not break unless "you or any of your companions damage a creature affected by this spell".

Is my interpretation too powerful and the spell is meant to be weaker?

Quote from GricklePick >>

Yeah the original suggestion:

"You are all pigs! Crawl, squeel! You are all pigs!"

It's not reasonable. They are not pigs and it's a silly request that is not even a suggestion.

"you should go rest at your homes you look tired" 

It's much more reasonable. 

 

 Counter point, if the enemy goes home the enemy commander will find out and kill it for leaving its post. Now I made your request unreasonable. Give another, I can make that unreasonable as well. Any request you give an enemy that helps you will be unreasonable or against what they would normally do in that situation. It gives clear examples of unreasonable requests "self immolation, throw itself on a spear, etc". Those examples involve direct harm. Crawling on the ground is not harmful, therefore, its reasonable.

Quote from GricklePick >>

Quote from Lyxen >>

Quote from GricklePick>>

Quote from Lyxen>>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard>>

The spell description tells you what it can do.  "Convince the targets that they're animals" is not one of those things.

You cannot convince them, but you can certainly suggest that they act like pigs for the duration of the spell It's certainly humiliating but not self-harming and actually not extremely powerful.

On a side note, we had an incredible fun in a celtic LARP a few (well, more than a few, actually) years back, there was a large intrigue around a boar spirit, and at some point in time the members of my warbands and I were convinced to act as wild piglets in bushes, and try avoid being caught. It was quite scary but a lot of fun to grunt through the bushes trying not to be caught by huge boar spirit.

It also has to be "worded in such a manner as to make the course of action seem reasonable" would love to hear what they could say to the folks for them to think acting like a pig is a reasonable course of action.

No. This has been discussed many times and the "reasonable" is just a WORDING, it must SEEM reasonable, not BE reasonable, otherwise the knight would never give away his warhorse as in the example. Again, this is a spell, not a simple charisma check, and it has an effect akin to charm. 

The reasonableness is to avoid self harm, as clearly indicated in the next sentence in the spell description.

"Go sit and take a 8 hour rest" is more reasonable.

By your take, this is stupid for anyone for example in a combat situation, so it would not be reasonable, and the spell is therefore useless. Fortunately, this is not the right interpretation of the spell.

 

 It's in the spell and uses natural language so I'm pretty certain you are mistaken. 

The war horse could make sense if the person believes in charity. "You are such a wonderfully successful Knight and you should give your horse to the needy to show your public how you love them." Simple works and is reasonable.

Also yeah if you are using in battle basically nothing makes sense unless it's "You are over classes! You should retreat!"

It's not hard to make it work if you are creative.

 

 I disagree as the spell gives clear examples of what would be considered unreasonable, and that would be anything that does it direct harm. Anything else can be considered reasonable. If not, I can argue its unreasonable for an enemy to leave its post to go and take a rest for 8 hours as it knows its boss would kill it for leaving. Anything you tell an enemy to do that helps you in anyway is unreasonable, thats why the examples are given, to show the unreasonable request would only involve self harm.

Quote from odcnorfolks >>

Hello, it has been a long time since the last post here, but I find myself in a problem and need some help to find a solution to a problem that has been occurring to me in the campaign that I am DM.

One of the players is an Echo Knight, and he has consistently used the fact that he can summon an Echo as a Bonus action to summon one at the forefront of the party and act as a permanent shield, like the Echo is at the frontline, creature A moves towards it and attacks the echo were if it hits him ends the echo, at his turn the player use a bonus action to summon another echo at the frontline forcing the creature to have to attack it once again, and if the creature defeats the echo and then moves forward towards the other members, they just retreat to leave space in the frontline for a new echo. Anda that has been done repeatedly where sometimes in a fight the echo is killed 10 or more times and the players are mostly unharmed.

Any thoughts on such a situation and how to fix that? Any help would be welcome. At first, I was thinking to limit the number of times he can manifest echo, but that would be going against all rules and decisions on this topic, later I was thinking of having the creatures ignore the echo and go directly toward the players, but that would create a whole new slew of problems.

 Thats like saying "This wizard in our group keeps casting these spells and these spells keep stopping the enemy or killing them, any way to stop the wizard from casting spells?" dude, thats what wizards do, and creating an echo is what Echo Knights do. Why would you possibly limit this? Just give the creature more than one attack, now it can kill the echo and attack another player, or it ignores the echo and goes after everyone else. Yes it will get an AO but it could miss and even if it doesn't most enemies don't die from one hit. Also, usually there's more than one enemy, so other enemies can attack them too. So many options other than changing the player's ability to use their core feature. I'm guessing you're very new to DMing but there are other options than nerfing a character and ultimately taking fun away from them.

Suppose you're reading a book, do you concentrate on that task or not? How are you taking in any information if you're not concentrating on reading and comprehending what you are reading. Reading is allowed during a short rest. So i'd argue, if you're reading, you're not retaining any information because that requires concentration and you can't concentrate during a short rest per your rules.

Also, like David said, you're using concentration in a specific way that YOU view it as in personal life. Concentration can be difficult like a high stress job, or it can be something as simple as reading a book. You choose to make it represent the more difficult aspect to match your already decided point of view. But in DnD how could someone do the equivalent to a high stress and intensive job for 24 hours straight with no repercussions?  Because as mentioned you can concentrate on a spell for 24 hours while doing normal activities and doing high intensive activities all with absolutely no penalty, that would not occur with your real life example.

Again, your examples allow for only small things to distract you while in DnD you can do ANYTHING while concentrating except cast another concentration spell. You can't do anything while trying to remember a phone number, for example, name of 4 other phone numbers in a row (don't have to remember them, just name them) thats equivalent to casting 4 non concentration spells in a row. Your concentration on the spell would be perfectly fine, but your phone number would be forgotten most likely. They're just not even close to the same example and its grasping to try to make it fit your narrative.

I do agree with your first comment, its your point of view to reference it this way, and basically that is where it will end because the majority of people (and Mike Mears) will disagree with you, but you get to DM however you like.

Completely agree, at the end of the day DM can rule how they like, but its pretty clear that it leans toward concentration does not break a short rest. Sage Advice from Mike Mearls also stated this so i'd always assume you can unless the DM (prior to the start of the campaign) says they don't allow this (during the campaign would be a bad way to find out).

I agree 100% with the above explanation. If you can do normal activity plus much more engaging activities like cast non concentration spells, grapple and do athletic checks, attack, dash, etc. then concentrating is really not a strenuous activity in itself.

lol what? The reason I mentioned your phrasing is only because you complained in the previous post about different ways to say it, my point was any way you use it is the same so your phasing DOESN'T MATTER. But i'm sure me saying it doesn't matter means you're going to complain again saying "all you can do is focus on the one way I said that" lol geeze read man.

You're stating a long rest rules not short rest. This is not about what does or doesn't break a long rest. Long rests and short rests are not equivalent as much as you need them to be to prove your point. If we're going by rules, concentration states "dong normal activities like moving and attacking don't break concentration" so you can do normal activities fine without issue, normal like eating, drinking, reading, tending to wounds?

Comparing concentrating on a spell to a marathon is a stretch since you can do anything while concentrating on spell, (except cast another concentration spell) where as you can't do anything running a marathon. I can sit down, eat, be on guard, drink, read, heal myself, etc all while concentrating, everything that is listed in a short rest can be done while concentrating (except sleep per Sage Advice which we pretend doesn't exist so we can make rules up ourselves). And apparently I can do all this for 24 hours straight due to Hex and Hunters Mark lasting that long, is my character having a mental breakdown doing something so strenuous for that long?  or is it more likely concentrating isn't that strenuous, has never been stated it is, which is why 24 hour spells exist.  BTW you can build a stonewall while on a short rest, just concentrate on the Wall of Stone spell.

Also, there are reasons concentrating on a spell would be useful during a short rest (Hunter's Mark and Hex oddly designed for long durations up to 24 hours) where there is no spells I can think of designed to accommodate running a marathon during a short rest, but maybe you can find some?

You're explanations are grasps at best and do not reflect the standard play or play designed by WotC as stated taking 2 short rests per day on average. But I do love laughing at your "well sometimes people take a short rest and others don't need it so they don't take it so thats why it makes sense" haha

So you're telling me if a player of yours assumed they could concentrate during a short rest based on spells like Hex designed that way, nothing in the rules calling concentration strenuous, Mike Mearls saying yes you can concentrate on Hex while taking a short rest, and you say no, you didn't take something away they assumed they had? Huh what an awesome way to view life, must be easy for you.

This is like proving there's no god. The onus is on you. If it doesn't state concentration breaks a short rest, I don't have to prove it doesn't, you have to prove it does. I provided Sage Advice stating the interpretation is that it doesn't, you have not. 

No matter what wording you use its nonsense. It doesn't matter if you say "get benefits" or "take a rest" or anything. The point is there are two things that can happen, you take a short rest and get benefits, you do not take a short rest and get nothing. You're odd point was "sometimes players don't take a short rest because they don't need it", umm ok what dose that have to do with anything we're talking about? Do you think Mike Mearls thought the guy asking the question meant "if my friends are taking a short rest but I choose not to because I can't get benefits of it, can I still hold concentration" lol. Phrase it however you like, its a nonsense argument.

Not sure why then, Hex, a spell that can last 24 hours, that was made for a Warlock who depends on short rests, but would break during any short rest, despite Dungeon Master guide stating an average 2 short rests per day.

It really isn't, its one of the most complained about classes in the game (excluding Monk) regarding pact magic and lack of spell slots. They would be fine yes, i'm just saying why take something away that is just based on opinion when you can give a player something a creator of the game said was ok to do. But thats some DM's for you I guess, power trips.

Personal views as in it doesn't state you can't and Sage Advice says its fine. Its only negative to me when the interpretation takes something small but meaningful away from a player that in no way breaks the game. If there was Sage Advice against it i'd say fine, its clear it was meant to not work. But with no clear indication PLUS Sage Advice saying yes, to me that leans in favour of the player and now its taking something away which lessens enjoyment for the player but gives the DM more authority I guess.

At the very least, if your player had already rolled a Walrock and was playing assuming this was ok to do and when they eventually go to do it you say no, i'd hope you'd give in and say this campaign i'll allow it but next time so you're aware I don't think you should be allowed. But if you tell the player as soon as they mention they're playing a Warlock prior to the campaign starting, sure thats fine, a DM can homebrew anything as long as they're upfront about it.

Sorry, so you think his question was basically "I know its not possible for me to get the benefits of a short rest with Hex up, but can I concentrate on Hex while I pretend to take a short rest?" and Mike Mears says "Yes, as long as you don't sleep you can pretend to take a short rest with no added benefits" lol. Thats an odd interpretation since not getting the benefits of a short rest is equivalent to absolutely nothing. So the answer is of course you can concentrate on a spell doing absolutely nothing. That explanation made me laugh thanks.

Sage Advice is the best thing we have to interpreting rules that are no clearly stated or vague. To ignore them is fine (its homebrew i'd say) but fine again as long as its upfront prior to campaign. But if its a matter of one person has Sage Advice saying they can, and the DM has their view that they can't, well seems hard to side with the DM if its happening in the moment. But again, a good DM would allow it and then next campaign say no more.

Yes, its a DM's call, but I think you need to give up on the Sage Advice argument of it, that was funny but not convincing.

Also,  sage advice says you can but you're saying "yes you can concentrate during a short rest but you don't get benefits" which doesn't make any sense. If you don't get the benefits then you didn't take a short rest. Sage advice would have clearly just stated you're not taking a short rest if concentrating, or something to that degree. The implication that the idea of a short rest is getting the benefits is obvious it seems.

I think its just an agree to disagree scenario. Its fair to interpret it that way but it is an interpretation, so it would be fair to go the other way as well. I've seen reddit posts asking the same, and there definitely are some who agree with you, they are typically less than majority but definitely are some. To me, why I said i'd argue with the DM about it is, it comes to a point of personal preference only in this matter as short rests don't state (or long rests for that matter) anything about concentrating on a spell. It just specifically states what you can't do "like cast a spell" for example. To think you can't stand guard while concentrating on a spell, or lean against a tree and rest while concentrating on a spell seems odd to me but again to each their own. But the rub is, you're now taking away something from one of your players based solely on your own personal view that could impact their character a great deal and isn't at all game breaking (again most assume you can do this already). This is where a DM can say "I don't like it, but, because its not specifically stated anywhere and you as a player believe its ok to do per the rules i'll allow it". When you play as a Warlock or any other character, you can certainly not use this rule. But to take it away from a player based on personal views to me is not how a DM should conduct a game. Personally, i'd tell my DM "fine, if thats how you feel, please introduce a new character to the group next session because i'm no longer playing a Warlock in your campaign". Just remember its about the players, not about your way or the highway.