Odd Rules Interaction: Rage does not always prevent you from conentrating on spells. [Archive]

MaxWilson

2018-11-24, 08:54 PM

Draw your attention to the wording of the part of the Rage feature that prevents you from casting:

If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

The first clause is the relevant bit: if another rules element is preventing you from casting spells (Wildshape, Tenser's Transformation, Antimagic Shell, etc) then Rage does not prevent you from doing so, but neither does it prevent you from concentrating on spells you have already cast.

I'm not arguing this is intended behavior, because obviously it's not. But at a purely RAW table this could make a barbarian/druid hybrid much more relevant.

You seem to be interpreting this as "If and only if you are able to cast spells currently, Rage prevents you from casting or concentrating on spells." But since Rage prevents you from casting spells, you are never able to cast spells while Raging, so this implies that you can always concentrate on spells while Raging, no special Wildshape/Tenser's shenanigans required.

Any "purely RAW" table which actually buys that tortuous argument deserves what it gets.

Eheheh. You're too Lawful. Here, I'll spell it out, in all of its dumb, troll-logic glory. In essence, the quirk here is that the wording is "If you CAN cast spells." There is ambiguity about whether "Can cast spells" refers to your CURRENT state, or your NORMAL state. What it's trying to say is: "If you posses an ability that enables you to cast a spell,"

However, since the wording is ambiguous, it can be interpreted to work in reverse as well. The logic is thus:

If you CAN cast spells, rage WILL prevent you from casting or concentrating.

and therefore, it is implied that

If you CAN'T cast spells, rage WILL NOT prevent you from casting or concentrating.

As I said, stupid. Unintentional. But clever.

If you CAN cast spells, rage WILL prevent you from casting or concentrating, therefore rage WILL NOT prevent you from casting or concentrating, therefore rage WILL prevent you...

Damon_Tor

2018-11-24, 08:56 PM

I don't follow your logic at all.

Say there's a feature that says "If you hold a public office, you cannot tell the truth while speaking." Does that mean you cannot tell the truth while speaking if you don't hold public office? No, of course not, because that's what an "If" statement means.

I'm aware this is an extremely literal reading of the rules.

Eheheh. You're too Lawful.

No, he isn't lawful enough.

Phhase

2018-11-24, 08:59 PM

If you CAN cast spells, rage WILL prevent you from casting or concentrating, therefore rage WILL NOT prevent you from casting or concentrating, therefore rage WILL prevent you...

I get the juxtaposition, but in general, most conditional rules are only "run" once per unique scenario =P.

Damon_Tor

2018-11-24, 09:02 PM

[COLOR="#008000"]Any "purely RAW" table which actually buys that tortuous argument deserves what it gets.

I wouldn't expect anyone to allow it. I never implied they should

PhantomSoul

2018-11-24, 09:05 PM

Say there's a feature that says "If you hold a public office, you cannot tell the truth while speaking." Does that mean you cannot tell the truth while speaking if you don't hold public office? No, of course not, because that's what an "If" statement means.

If we're being really "logic-y" about it, it implies that those who don't hold office aren't bound to that restriction through the general application of Gricean Maxims and, more broadly, the cooperative principle, but it doesn't mean that. If someone tells us, "if it rains, my lawn will be wet", we don't know whether the lawn is wet or not just because we know it didn't rain. Maybe they have sprinklers.

Ganymede

2018-11-24, 09:27 PM

The new season of House of Cards is out, and yet bored people are resorting to this for entertainment. Enough with perpetuating this nonsense and go get your Claire Underwood on.

Damon_Tor

2018-11-24, 10:59 PM

The new season of House of Cards is out, and yet bored people are resorting to this for entertainment. Enough with perpetuating this nonsense and go get your Claire Underwood on.

Season two to three of House of Cards was one of the largest quality drops from season to season I've ever seen on television. And now Spacey is gone. I can't even imagine the suffering that watching it would cause me now.

Son of A Lich!

2018-11-24, 11:23 PM

If a player came up to me and said "Hey, Son of a Lich! I have an idea for a Sorcerer/Barbarian build, is it cool I can cast spells while enraged, since I'm drawing on my red dragon heritage?" I'd probably shrug and say it was cool with me. House rule it on the spot, I haven't seen any serious issue with it's viability since reading through this thread.

-Nod nod-

Now, if a Player says "By the power invested in me, via RAW! I AM able to cast spells while raging under these conditions X, Y, Z under ordinance of sub-clause 2.18 subsection C - Vecna vs. Vox (2017)..." I would let the player know that in MY hand book, it says that anyone trying to pull this defense is liable to get booted in the back of the head with a firm slap... Oh look, your book says that Too! Here... Lean in nice and close, it's Really Fine print...

Ganymede

2018-11-24, 11:37 PM

Season two to three of House of Cards was one of the largest quality drops from season to season I've ever seen on television. And now Spacey is gone. I can't even imagine the suffering that watching it would cause me now.

Maybe your new hobby could be trying to imagine that suffering.

Schopy

2018-11-25, 01:19 AM

I feel this XKCD Comic is relevant to the topic: https://www.xkcd.com/1652/

Bravo, Damon_Tor, for finding this little gem. I like it! 😊 And i like the paradox it would create.

It would be interesting how this sentence was translated to other languages and if the same "ambiguity" can be found there.

R.Shackleford

2018-11-25, 01:33 AM

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-25, 01:55 AM

No. For many reasons others have already said...

Now, you can direct spells while raging (Spiritual Weapon) if you already cast the spell before raging... But you can't cast spells or concentrate on them while raging.

5e uses simple, down to earth, good old fashion American English. Trying to twist it via sablantics means that you're already wrong.

The simplest explination is the correct one. You can't cast spells or concentrate on them while raging.

But only if you are able to cast spell.

I didn't sew anything in 5e that you can cast that isn't a spell so it is always right.

But you can concentrate on something that isn't a spell you have cast. This look like something intentional to me.

MaxWilson

2018-11-25, 01:56 AM

I wouldn't expect anyone to allow it. I never implied they should

You did, however, claim that it's legal by RAW, and I disagree. It's clearly illegal by the plain meaning of the rules as written.

If != iff.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-25, 02:40 AM

You did, however, claim that it's legal by RAW, and I disagree. It's clearly illegal by the plain meaning of the rules as written.

If != iff.

Sorry, but the OP is totally right. It will almost never be relevant anyway, though.

But Phhase misrepresented the argument, which is probably why you thought the OP made this mistake.

The OP is not saying P->Q therefore ~P->~Q, which would be wrong. That would be the fallacy “denying the antecedent.” And you’re right to point out that it is equivalent to mistaking “if” for “if and only if.”

The OP is saying that ~P implies neither Q nor ~Q, which is correct.

qube

2018-11-25, 02:59 AM

Pffft ... Odd Rules Interaction? Here you go

If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

If you are able to cast Spells, you (can't cast them) or (concentrate on them while raging).

Congrats, rage made you permanently lose your spellcasting capability.

Draw your attention to the wording of the part of the Rage feature that prevents you from casting:

If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

The first clause is the relevant bit: if another rules element is preventing you from casting spells (Wildshape, Tenser's Transformation, Antimagic Shell, etc) then Rage does not prevent you from doing so, but neither does it prevent you from concentrating on spells you have already cast.why use Wildshape? you seem to ignore that rage itself prevents you from casting spells, and thus, according to your interpretetion, the (eqact same) quote never applies

Boci

2018-11-25, 03:13 AM

Pffft ... Odd Rules Interaction? Here you go

If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

If you are able to cast Spells, you (can't cast them) or (concentrate on them while raging).

Congrats, rage made you permanently lose your spellcasting capability.

why use Wildshape? you seem to ignore that rage itself prevents you from casting spells, and thus, according to your interpretetion, the (eqact same) quote never applies

No, that would be:

If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them, or concentrate on them while raging.

The lack of a comma links both parts to the end condition. Just like someone saying:

"I like sci-fi movies and books"

Is telling me they like sci-fi movies and sci-fi books, not sci-fi movies and books of all kind, which would be "I like sci-fi movies, and books".

5e uses simple, down to earth, good old fashion American English.

An if conditional is down to earth, good old fashioned English. You're not twisting anything by pointing out how they work.

Aimeryan

2018-11-25, 06:28 AM

why use Wildshape? you seem to ignore that rage itself prevents you from casting spells, and thus, according to your interpretetion, the (eqact same) quote never applies

This may depend on whether you loop through the text over and over or just go through it once for each use of Rage:

One parse per use of Rage

Rage does not prevent you from casting spells or concentrating on them until the state of the if statement has already been evaluated, hence the order is important. The first and only parse while Rage is up would resolve the if statement to true and then disable your spells/concentration. This would end when Rage ends.

Looping

For the first parse, the if statement would resolve to true (you can cast spells), hence the Rage feature would disable them.
For the second parse (which could be a fraction of a second later), the if statement would resolve to false (you cannot cast spells, because the Rage feature is preventing such), for which there is no defined behaviour.

You could interpret the behaviour of a false resolve to mean the then statement is reversed, although this would be bad logic. If so, this would lead to constantly switching between this part of the Rage feature being active and not active - which would, depending on the looping interval, stop you from casting or concentrating on a spell before you could derive any use out of doing so.

The other interpretation is that nothing changes with every parse after the first because nothing says it does if the statement resolves to false.

Conclusion

In either case (and subcase), the Rage feature would not be enough to bypass itself.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-25, 07:11 AM

This may depend... (Snip)

I think you’re misunderstanding the argument. The argument of the OP is that rage prevents you from casting/concentrating if you can cast spells.

If there is some way for a character to use a concentration spell/ability despite being unable to cast spells, then the RAW are silent on whether rage affects concentration (because the antecedent is false).

Further, in such situations (which I grant are essentially nonexistent) the DM would be expected to allow it because there is no RAW reason to not allow it. This is why they included the rule, after all... because had they not included it the assumption would be that you can cast/concentrate while raging if you can cast spells.

Arkhios

2018-11-25, 07:17 AM

Did you understand what I wrote?

I could ask you the same thing about what you quoted / wrote:

"If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging".

That alone is self-explanatory. You can't cast spells. Nor can you concentrate on them while raging.

Whatever you think there is between the lines, is intentional misreading of the rules.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-25, 07:35 AM

I could ask you the same thing about what you quoted / wrote:

"you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging".

That alone is self-explanatory. You can't cast spells. Nor can you concentrate on them while raging.

Whatever you think there is between the lines, is intentional misreading of the rules.

And that is the reason you never quote half a sentence.

You miss the meaning of "them", "them" isn't equal "spells", it's equal "spells you are able to cast".

Edit: look at your signature, you quoted something very nice.

MoiMagnus

2018-11-25, 08:00 AM

Arkhios

2018-11-25, 08:24 AM

And that is the reason you never quote half a sentence.

You miss the meaning of "them", "them" isn't equal "spells", it's equal "spells you are able to cast".

Edit: look at your signature, you quoted something very nice.

No, it isn't "spells you are able to cast".

"spells" is a plural as well.

If the rules say you can't cast spells or concentrate on them, then you can't.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-25, 08:26 AM

... Ability to do something =/= Possibility to do something.

I'm still very much able to swim, even if there is no environment for me to swim into. Or, i can swim, even if i can't.

qube

2018-11-25, 10:36 AM

This may depend on whether you loop through the text over and over or just go through it once for each use of Rage:Why would there be looping? Do you let your barbarians get a chance roll to see if they are in the lucky part of the loop where they can cast a spell? Of course not. You can't just invent something just because you don't want to deal with a contradiction. Oppositely, logic doens't have the quarrel with it. Logically

S => -S & -c
is equivalent to

S => -S
and
S => -c
We apply " (A=> -A) => -A" to the first part (which in layments terms is: A=> -A is a contradiction if A is true, ergo A is false"

-S equals true
and
S => -c
or

S equals false
and
S => -c
At means that S => -c has no bearing on the truth value of c. And in D&D, that means we default back to the general case.

So, you can concentrate
Q.E.D.

qube

2018-11-25, 10:40 AM

Or, i can swim, even if i can't.quite true; RAW is
gramatically correct
the implication is clear
a malevolent mind just can choose to interprete it the wrong way.

PhantomSoul

2018-11-25, 10:43 AM

I could ask you the same thing about what you quoted / wrote:

"If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging".

That alone is self-explanatory. You can't cast spells. Nor can you concentrate on them while raging.

Whatever you think there is between the lines, is intentional misreading of the rules.

I'd err on the side of generosity and call it projecting into the rules, but yeah, if you wanna rule lawyer into absurdity, then the rules actually don't specify what happens when you can't cast spells, in which case the DM is free to rule because RAW provides no information. That's the best case scenario here! (Well, the best case if you want to concentrate while raging.)

I submit as a further example for plain language:

- If you're free tonight, I'm making lasagna. (Reality: I'm making lasagna either way, but if you're free tonight this information is relevant to you. The second part is true regardless of the first part, and the first part is there because it informs the interpretation of why the second part is being said.)

I submit even for logic:

- If you're human, you're mortal. (You can be mortal regardless of your humanity; the "if part" being false doesn't mean the "then part" is false. You can only conclude that humans are mortal and that immortal things aren't human. This is why the "if" != "iff" comment earlier is relevant.)

Unoriginal

2018-11-25, 10:47 AM

Aelyn

2018-11-25, 11:08 AM

"if you are able to cast a spell, you can't cast them [...] while raging"

If something is preventing your from casting spells, then you are not able to cast spells, meaning that you still cannot cast spells while raging...
Right. But if you aren't able to cast spells, then rage is silent about your ability to concentrate on spells.

As said in the original post, it's an odd interaction that should almost never come up, but it may be possible to cast a concentration spell, then lose the ability to cast spells at all, and then go into a rage - and in that specific corner-case scenario, there's nothing preventing you from concentrating on the spell while raging, as the "no concentration" clause only kicks in if you're able to cast spells.

It's a rules oddity, almost certainly unintended, and I would expect all but the most RAW DMs put there to disallow it under the unwritten "are you serious" clause of DMing, but technically the argument is sound under RAW.

PhantomSoul

2018-11-25, 11:22 AM

It's a rules oddity, almost certainly unintended, and I would expect all but the most RAW DMs put there to disallow it under the unwritten "are you serious" clause of DMing, but technically the argument is sound under RAW.

Well, technically it's 100% in the grounds of ruling at its most generous; RAW doesn't say you can even in the most generous rule-lawyer interpretation, it just says nothing. The rules don't say you CAN, they're just arguably-at-best silent on whether you CAN'T.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-25, 11:39 AM

Right. But if you aren't able to cast spells, then rage is silent about your ability to concentrate on spells.
Sure, if you choose to blatantly ignore plain english in favor of this interpretation. The intent, and the way that I read it, is that if you are able to cast spells then you cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging.

This means that if you as a character are able to cast spells, as in they are something on your character sheet that you are able to do, you aren't able to do so while raging. It's not snapshotting your current situation, you have to create that interpretation whereas spellcasting ability is written into the game rules explicitly.

If you have spellcasting ability, you are able to cast spells. You are able (defined: have the ability to) to cast spells even when an effect restricts you from doing so. If you are raging and able to cast spells, you cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging.

I see a better argument for whether a magic item could be used to cast spells, but I still think that you wouldn't be able to use a magic item to cast while raging either.

bid

2018-11-25, 12:19 PM

The first clause is the relevant bit: if another rules element is preventing you from casting spells (Wildshape, Tenser's Transformation, Antimagic Shell, etc) then Rage does not prevent you from doing so, but neither does it prevent you from concentrating on spells you have already cast.
RAW only defines what happens when "you are able to cast Spells", not when you aren't.

In the same way that there are no rule that "prevents you" from staying eternally young.

So there's this guy running around a pit, shouting 29, 29, 29...
A passerby asks what's going on, and getting no answer looks down.
The guy pushes him in, and starts shouting 30, 30, 30...:smallbiggrin:

Aelyn

2018-11-25, 12:59 PM

Sure, if you choose to blatantly ignore plain english in favor of this interpretation. The intent, and the way that I read it, is that if you are able to cast spells then you cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging.
Agree. If you can cast spells, then you are unable to cast or concentrate on spells while raging. However, what do the rules say about your ability to concentrate on spells if you can't cast spells?

This means that if you as a character are able to cast spells, as in they are something on your character sheet that you are able to do, you aren't able to do so while raging. It's not snapshotting your current situation, you have to create that interpretation whereas spellcasting ability is written into the game rules explicitly.

If you have spellcasting ability, you are able to cast spells. You are able (defined: have the ability to) to cast spells even when an effect restricts you from doing so. If you are raging and able to cast spells, you cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging.
You're adding on an assumption about what the phrase "If you're able to cast spells" means here. It's actually very simple - you're able to cast spells if you're able to cast spells. If you're not, you're not.

(Again, please note that I agree that it's an oddity, goes against the probable intent, and that I, as a DM, would not allow it as a built-in strategy. I'm talking about strict RAW here.)

The rules for Rage don't say "If you have the Spellcasting ability, you are unable to cast spells or concentrate on spells while raging" - they just say "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

I see a better argument for whether a magic item could be used to cast spells, but I still think that you wouldn't be able to use a magic item to cast while raging either.
That is actually straight-up disallowed - if a magic item allows you to cast a spell, then you can cast a spell.

Here's an interesting hypothetical for you. Say a single-class Path of the Berserker Barbarian had attuned to a Helm of Telepathy and used its abilities to cast Suggestion (which has an eight-hour duration which requires concentration) on someone. During his next short rest, one hour later, they find a new item that they really like and attune to it, de-attuning from the Helm in the process. Now they have no ability to cast spells - not through class features, feats, attuned magical items, or anything else. They then go into a rage. Does the Suggestion end, and if so, why?

qube

2018-11-25, 01:21 PM

Here's an interesting hypothetical for you. Say a single-class Path of the Berserker Barbarian had attuned to a Helm of Telepathy and used its abilities to cast Suggestion (which has an eight-hour duration which requires concentration) on someone. During his next short rest, one hour later, they find a new item that they really like and attune to it, de-attuning from the Helm in the process. Now they have no ability to cast spells - not through class features, feats, attuned magical items, or anything else. They then go into a rage. Does the Suggestion end, and if so, why?Aelyn, I'll bounce one back to you:

A Path of the Ancestral Guardian barbarian casts the Clairvoyance spell (something he gets to do once per short rest, and is a concentration 10 minutes spell). That was his only ability to do cast spells, so until certain condition/changes happen (in this case a short rest), he in fact can no longer casts spells.

Does the Clairvoyance end, and if so, why?

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-25, 02:21 PM

SNIP
I read it as if you have the ability to cast spells, you are able to cast spells. Regardless of whether you are currently under the effects of a feature that makes it so that you can't cast spells, you are able to cast spells.

A Barbarian attuned to a magic item granting him a spell to cast is able to cast spells. A Druid who is wild shaped is able to cast spells, they're simply restricted from doing so while wildshaped. Concentration is also part of spellcasting duration per the rules, so while you maintain concentration on a spell you would be considered able to cast spells.

My belief is that the intended use of "If you are able to cast spells" in this case is to show that not all barbarians will have spellcasting ability, notably some subclasses get minor spellcasting ability and even though multiclassing is an optional rule the designers did take steps to balance with it in mind. I believe the difference in wording for Druid's Wild Shape simply saying "you can't cast spells" supports this because all druids have the ability to cast spells, there's no need to specify. The intent is that Barbarian's cannot cast or concentrate on spells period while raging and I believe that RAW does line up with that, unless you're stretching it beyond a reasonable degree.

To simplify, Rage only specified "if you are able to cast spells" because Barbarian's do not gain inherent spellcasting abilities. Your being able to cast spells is not nullified by an effect that says you cannot cast spells. Just because you cannot do so under one scenario does not mean you are unable to do. You cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging.

Regarding your hypothetical, I would say that no they wouldn't maintain the concentration. You're not able to cast Suggestion without the aid of the helmet, if you un attune to the helmet your concentration would end because you gain no magical benefits from the helmet. It's very specific that the source of the spell (a magical effect) is the helmet.

There's also this line found in the Spellcasting Section of the PHB:

Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item.
If you don't have access to the spell from the magic item, you cannot use the spell. This includes concentration as it's inherently a part of using the spell.

Aelyn

2018-11-25, 02:24 PM

Aelyn, I'll bounce one back to you:

A Path of the Ancestral Guardian barbarian casts the Clairvoyance spell (something he gets to do once per short rest, and is a concentration 10 minutes spell). That was his only ability to do cast spells, so until certain condition/changes happen (in this case a short rest), he in fact can no longer casts spells.

Does the Clairvoyance end, and if so, why?
I don't have Xanathar's, so I don't know how the ability is actually written, and unfortunately the phrasing is important here. Based on what you've said, it sounds like after casting Clairvoyance the character is unable to cast spells, which would mean that under strict RAW the rage wouldn't prevent concentration - and yes, I agree this is somewhat absurd and is not the intent of the rule. That can happen when rules are written without due consideration of how they interact.

The point of my example, however, was to provide an example of a situation where the character unambiguously has no ability to cast spells, yet is concentrating on a spell. Even if you interpret "able to cast spells" as "has a feature that would allow the character to cast spells", my example still wouldn't qualify. I would like to know if anyone feels that in this specific example, the rules would prevent you from concentrating and why.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-25, 02:34 PM

I can't believe there is two pages of discussion about this.

Nor should you be able to. This is because you don’t know what is being argued about.

Nobody thinks this:

"If X, then not-Y when Z" does not imply "if not-X, then Y when Z".

So, as long as you are trying to figure out why someone would make this argument, you’re not considering the actual argument.

The actual argument has merit. The actual argument, using your terms, is: “if not-X, then (Y or not-Y) when Z.”

So you’re left with the unanswered question of which is it? Y or not-Y? And since not-Y would be an exception, Y is the natural assumption. This is also proved by the fact that they bothered to specify this rule in the first place. It’s a classic example of the exception that proves the rule.

Aelyn

2018-11-25, 02:36 PM

Regarding your hypothetical, I would say that no they wouldn't maintain the concentration. You're not able to cast Suggestion without the aid of the helmet, if you un attune to the helmet your concentration would end because you gain no magical benefits from the helmet. It's very specific that the source of the spell (a magical effect) is the helmet.

There's also this line found in the Spellcasting Section of the PHB:

If you don't have access to the spell from the magic item, you cannot use the spell. This includes concentration as it's inherently a part of using the spell.
The PHB lists three things that would break concentration (p.203-204):

Casting another Concentration spell.
Taking damage (and failing your save).
Being incapacitated or killed.

It also states that the DM may rule that environmental phenomena may trigger a saving throw against losing concentration.

Can you point to any RAW that supports the idea that unattuning from the helm would make you lose concentration on the spell? The line from the PHB says you need to have access to the spell before casting it, it says nothing about maintaining access to the spell while concentrating on it.

Also, to confirm, does that also mean that you would rule that a creature hit with Feeblemind also stops concentrating on a spell, since it loses the ability to cast spells? Can you provide supporting RAW?

Zene

2018-11-25, 03:06 PM

Unoriginal

2018-11-25, 03:18 PM

The actual argument has merit. The actual argument, using your terms, is: “if not-X, then (Y or not-Y) when Z.”

So you’re left with the unanswered question of which is it? Y or not-Y? And since not-Y would be an exception, Y is the natural assumption. This is also proved by the fact that they bothered to specify this rule in the first place. It’s a classic example of the exception that proves the rule.

That argument has no merit.

X is required for Y to happen. if not-X, then not-Y.

Z simply provides a situation where not-Y happens even when X.

Or if you prefer:

If X, then Y.

If not-X, then not-Y.

If X and Z, then not-Y.

If not-X and Z, then not-Y.

This whole argument only exist because English doesn't innately have a differentiation between "having the capacity to do something" and "not being prevented to do something" and that differentiation has to be provided by context.

In other words:

If you are able to walk, then you can walk and keep walking.

If you are not able to walk, then you cannot walk and keep walking.

If you are able to walk and your legs are tied, then you cannot walk and keep walking.

If you are not able to walk and your legs are tied, then you cannot walk and keep walking.

Nice find! I love wonky little rules-lawyery loopholes like this.

Sorry you have to deal with multiple pages of people fighting you about it. Curse of the rules lawyer. :)

But yeah, it’s a solid loophole. Thanks for sharing.

It's not a solid loophole. It's not a loophole at all.

Ignoring linguistic principles does not a loophole make.

Aimeryan

2018-11-25, 03:28 PM

I think you’re misunderstanding the argument. The argument of the OP is that rage prevents you from casting/concentrating if you can cast spells.

What's that got to do with the price of milk? I was replying to the person I quoted, not the OP.

I agree with the OP's post.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-25, 04:00 PM

The PHB lists three things that would break concentration (p.203-204):

Casting another Concentration spell.
Taking damage (and failing your save).
Being incapacitated or killed.

It also states that the DM may rule that environmental phenomena may trigger a saving throw against losing concentration.

Can you point to any RAW that supports the idea that unattuning from the helm would make you lose concentration on the spell? The line from the PHB says you need to have access to the spell before casting it, it says nothing about maintaining access to the spell while concentrating on it.

Also, to confirm, does that also mean that you would rule that a creature hit with Feeblemind also stops concentrating on a spell, since it loses the ability to cast spells? Can you provide supporting RAW?

Every effect or feature that restricts your spellcasting in this way assumes you are already able to cast spells because they are inherent to a spellcasting class or a spell. Barbarian is the only exception because there are non spellcasting barbarian's who don't meet the requirements of this rule. That's why the phrase "if you are able to cast spells" is included. It's exactly the same as saying "You can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging". It needs to be worded the way it is because, again, not all Barbarian's are able to cast spells. The wording of class abilities assumes that multiclassing isn't being used, as it is an optional feature.

I get the feeling that we're not going to agree on this, however the way I see it is that with the strictest reading of RAW you cannot concentrate on spells as a Druid/Barbarian. The Spellcasting class feature that grants you the ability to cast spells is always present, even if you are Wild Shaped. Since you always have the ability to cast spells as a Druid, regardless of whether or not an effect has rendered you unable to do so for a time, you cannot cast or concentrate on them while Raging.

As far as your hypothetical goes, it was a mistake on my part to make assumptions like that. However that has no bearing on the specifics of a Druid/Barbarian Multiclass. My best attempt at rationalizing why I would say that they lose concentration is that without the knowledge of the spell or the magical influence of the helmet (or any item that works in this manner) they can't properly channel the magic as they have no spellcasting feature to speak of. They are literally not able (as in they do not have the ability) to cast Suggestion without it. I feel the need to repeat though, this is a separate issue from the Druid/Barbarian debate.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-25, 04:25 PM

That argument has no merit.

X is required for Y to happen. if not-X, then not-Y.

Z simply provides a situation where not-Y happens even when X.

The text doesn’t say X is required for Y to happen. That’s the point. The text says “if.” It does not say “if and only if.”

This whole argument only exist because English doesn't innately have a differentiation between "having the capacity to do something" and "not being prevented to do something" and that differentiation has to be provided by context.

Not sure if you’re trying to be ironic here, but you just did it.

I’m not being facetious, here, and to show what I mean: I can back up your argument: suppose a barbarian/sorcerer casts a concentration spell on himself, and then he enters into a zone of silence or even a dead magic zone... and then he rages... well, it would be totally absurd to rule that the barbarian maintains concentration in this case because he technically cannot cast a spell right now.”

But there’s a distinction to be made be between the OP’s point and this one. Whether it ever comes up is a different question, but the distinction is there.

It's not a solid loophole. It's not a loophole at all.

Ignoring linguistic principles does not a loophole make.

Linguistic principles are bounded within logic. They are not illogical.

What's that got to do with the price of milk? I was replying to the person I quoted, not the OP.

I agree with the OP's post.

Respectfully, I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to Unoriginal.

Aelyn

2018-11-25, 04:55 PM

Every effect or feature that restricts your spellcasting in this way assumes you are already able to cast spells because they are inherent to a spellcasting class or a spell. Barbarian is the only exception because there are non spellcasting barbarian's who don't meet the requirements of this rule. That's why the phrase "if you are able to cast spells" is included. It's exactly the same as saying "You can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging". It needs to be worded the way it is because, again, not all Barbarian's are able to cast spells. The wording of class abilities assumes that multiclassing isn't being used, as it is an optional feature.

Except it doesn't need to be worded this way. Here's a possible wording that could have been used and which would have cleared up this loophole:

"While raging, Barbarians cannot cast spells or concentrate on spells, even if they would otherwise be able to do so."

It has the "if able to cast spells" clause, and unfortunately this does have an effect.

I get the feeling that we're not going to agree on this, however the way I see it is that with the strictest reading of RAW you cannot concentrate on spells as a Druid/Barbarian. The Spellcasting class feature that grants you the ability to cast spells is always present, even if you are Wild Shaped. Since you always have the ability to cast spells as a Druid, regardless of whether or not an effect has rendered you unable to do so for a time, you cannot cast or concentrate on them while Raging.

Except you don't always have the ability to cast spells. It's pretty explicitly stated in the PHB: "While you are transformed... you can't cast spells."

As far as your hypothetical goes, it was a mistake on my part to make assumptions like that. However that has no bearing on the specifics of a Druid/Barbarian Multiclass. My best attempt at rationalizing why I would say that they lose concentration is that without the knowledge of the spell or the magical influence of the helmet (or any item that works in this manner) they can't properly channel the magic as they have no spellcasting feature to speak of. They are literally not able (as in they do not have the ability) to cast Suggestion without it. I feel the need to repeat though, this is a separate issue from the Druid/Barbarian debate.

I wasn't talking about the specific of a Druid / Barbarian multiclass. And it's not a matter of casting the Suggestion, it's a matter of concentrating on it.

Again, from a HIWPI and (believed) RAI perspective, I agree with you; this is a thread for pedantry and loopholes, however, so I'm arguing from a perspective of pure RAW.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-25, 05:52 PM

Except it doesn't need to be worded this way. Here's a possible wording that could have been used and which would have cleared up this loophole:

"While raging, Barbarians cannot cast spells or concentrate on spells, even if they would otherwise be able to do so."

It has the "if able to cast spells" clause, and unfortunately this does have an effect.
It's worded this way to be consistent with the other effects like it, the ones mentioned in the OP like Antimagic Field and Feeblemind. The structure in the details of effects is deliberately written to be consistent with other examples. Most of the time this consistency works to avoid confusion, except in the cases where people dig too deep and place alternative meanings for words into the intent.

Except you don't always have the ability to cast spells. It's pretty explicitly stated in the PHB: "While you are transformed... you can't cast spells."
You always have the Spellcasting class feature as a Druid. The Spellcasting class feature enables you to cast spells. Wildshape restricts you from casting spells but allows you to maintain concentration. You maintain your spellcasting class feature. As a spellcaster you have the ability to cast spells but you cannot cast or maintain concentration on them while raging. The rules found in the introduction of the PHB call for the most specific explanation we can find in conflicting rules. The most specific situation is you are a wild shaped spellcaster who is raging, therefore you cannot cast or concentrate on spells. Nothing in this statement is false and it's very clear and concise. The fact that this ties up nicely with the RAI means that it's also RAW according to Specific beats General.

I wasn't talking about the specific of a Druid / Barbarian multiclass. And it's not a matter of casting the Suggestion, it's a matter of concentrating on it.
And the answer that follows applies to this hypothetical as well.

Again, from a HIWPI and (believed) RAI perspective, I agree with you; this is a thread for pedantry and loopholes, however, so I'm arguing from a perspective of pure RAW.
Whether you agree with it or not, the RAI is decided by Jeremey Crawford. People seem to think that bringing up his tweets is discrediting but there's no one better informed on the intent of 5E's design to turn to. We did not write them, he's the lead rules designer. We can disagree with the intent, but that doesn't mean it's not the intent.

Here (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/898171513131732993?lang=en) and Here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016) show that the intent is very clear that Rage makes concentration impossible . Concentration is impossible while raging. That's as specific as we can read the rules, therefore it is also the RAW. RAW and RAI agree. Everyone is happy and understands.

The fact that reversing the order of Wild Shaping/Raging is enough to make this inapplicable is reason enough for me to disagree with the proposed "loophole", even if it was the intended reading.

Wasp

2018-11-25, 06:00 PM

This thread is enormously entertaining.

Aelyn

2018-11-25, 07:02 PM

IYou always have the Spellcasting class feature as a Druid. The Spellcasting class feature enables you to cast spells. Wildshape restricts you from casting spells but allows you to maintain concentration. You maintain your spellcasting class feature. As a spellcaster you have the ability to cast spells but you cannot cast or maintain concentration on them while raging. The rules found in the introduction of the PHB call for the most specific explanation we can find in conflicting rules. The most specific situation is you are a wild shaped spellcaster who is raging, therefore you cannot cast or concentrate on spells. Nothing in this statement is false and it's very clear and concise. The fact that this ties up nicely with the RAI means that it's also RAW according to Specific beats General.

So, quick question - if you can't cast spells, are you able to cast spells?

And the answer that follows applies to this hypothetical as well.

I'm not sure that it does. Your argument in the case of the Druid / Barbarian is that it still has the Spellcasting class feature, even in wild shape. In my scenario, there is nothing that would allow the Barbarian to cast spells at the time they go into their rage, but you are still arguing that a rule which has an explicit "if you are able to cast spells" clause still applies.

Whether you agree with it or not, the RAI is decided by Jeremey Crawford.

The reason I said "believed" is that we cannot prove what the RAI is. But again, I agree that the RAI is that you cannot concentrate while raging. I don't know why you seem to think I think that the technical RAW is the intent.

Here and Here show that the intent is very clear that Rage makes concentration impossible . Concentration is impossible while raging. That's as specific as we can read the rules, therefore it is also the RAW. RAW and RAI agree. Everyone is happy and understands.

That's... not how RAW works. Sometimes someone can intend to say one thing but actually say another, especially when it comes to something like this. The intent may be for raging to always prevent concentration, but that's not what it actually says in the book.

The rules as written is that Raging only prevents Concentration if you are able to cast spells. There are circumstances where it is possible to be concentrating on a spell while unable to cast spells. Therefore, RAW, there are instances where a Raging Barbarian is able to concentrate on a spell, even if that's clearly not the intent of the rule.

EDIT: Either way, we're agreed that the intent is that concentration should not be permitted while raging. As far as I'm concerned, this is just an amusing linguistic quirk, and the debate is purely academic. No need to get het up about it :smallsmile:

ThePolarBear

2018-11-25, 07:27 PM

The reason I said "believed" is that we cannot prove what the RAI is.

Just tweet JC. You do not need ABSOLUTE proof - it's unreachable and unreasonable. You just need REASONABLE proof, and that can come in form of a tweet from the guy appointed to such a task.

Aelyn

2018-11-25, 07:56 PM

Just tweet JC. You do not need ABSOLUTE proof - it's unreachable and unreasonable. You just need REASONABLE proof, and that can come in form of a tweet from the guy appointed to such a task.
I already agree with you what the RAI is. My point is that RAI and RAW are not the same thing.

In fairness, I accept that you can get a definite answer on RAI from the developers for D&D. Most of the other games I play have much tighter-lipped dev teams, so it's hard to get a clear statement.

Either way, I wasn't trying to claim that the RAI as stated in this thread was wrong, merely that, at that point, it hadn't been corroborated so was still an assumption.

Sigreid

2018-11-25, 08:03 PM

It's these kinds of reasonings that have them constantly doing sage advice and errata to clarify things no one was confused about and leading to confusion.

bid

2018-11-25, 08:49 PM

Nice find! I love wonky little rules-lawyery loopholes like this.

Sorry you have to deal with multiple pages of people fighting you about it. Curse of the rules lawyer. :)

But yeah, it’s a solid loophole. Thanks for sharing.
Nuhuh, weak and pointless.

It's not a solid loophole. It's not a loophole at all.

Ignoring linguistic principles does not a loophole make.
Well, you don't even need "linguistic principles" for that. As long as you don't fail your Aristotle.

It's as big a loophole as "if you are a dog, you are an animal" if you aren't a dog.
Since neither cats nor rocks are dogs, that should show you how useless it becomes.

Except as an educational tool, for those who wish to learn.:smallbiggrin:

BarneyBent

2018-11-25, 08:56 PM

This is not a “technical” reading of the rules. It is wrong.

Reading the rules like this is the equivalent of interpreting “if you need me, I’ll be in the other room” as meaning that if you don’t need that person, they’ll be somewhere else. It might be material for a Dmitri Martin joke but it’s not, in any sense, the actual meaning.

If statements, and many others, have different meanings based on context. This is not just a “oh, well obviously they didn’t intend to say it like that, but technically they did due to an error/oversight”, this is the genuine meaning of these words.

This use of the word “if” is so common that I think it’s fair to say it is now part of the definition and no logic or understanding of linguistic principles is even required. The use of the word “if” followed by a phrase (“you can cast spells”) in order to provide context to an associated phrase (“you can no longer cast or concentrate on spells”) without being conditional is sufficiently well understood that it qualifies, semantically, as a definition of the word “if”.

Again, “If you visit New York, I’m staying in Hell’s Kitchen” doesn’t imply I’m staying somewhere else when the person I’m speaking to isn’t in New York, I’m just giving them some information that is relevant to the hypothetical, but not conditional upon it. Just as “if you can cast spells, you can’t cast or concentrate while raging” doesn’t imply that if I can’t cast spells, I can cast or concentrate on them while raging. “If” is not playing the role of a conditional there, it is playing the role of introducing a hypothetical and then providing information relevant to that hypothetical, nothing more.

Even if you were to argue that this use of “if” is not sufficiently common to qualify, semantically, as a definition of “if”, it is covered by the pragmatics of the sentence (I think specifically it’s an implicature, possibly conversational implicature, but I’m no expert and it’s been a while since I looked at these in any detail).

In short, this is a rubbish argument based on a poor understanding of both pragmatics and semantics and is not RAW (let alone RAI).

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-25, 10:45 PM

So, quick question - if you can't cast spells, are you able to cast spells?

I can't offer any more explanation to my reasoning beyond what has already been shared in the thread, however I will follow up your constant additional questions (I can't help but feel they're intended to carry us farther away from the simple solution, I apologize if I'm making a harsh assumption) with some questions of my own.

Since you're allowed to maintain concentration while Wild Shaped, as well as maintaining all of the benefits of your features from any source then are you able to benefit from the first bulleted effect of War Caster while Wild Shaped? It's my understanding that War Caster is a go to feat for Moon Druid's to maintain concentration while they're using the animals Con score, your proposal makes this impossible as they would fail to meet the prerequisites of the feat, since they are no longer able to cast spells.

This proposal suggests that by RAW a Druid loses their War Caster feat while Wild Shaped, do you agree?

Just food for thought on how this interpretation of the rules has some far reaching side effects.

Sindeloke

2018-11-25, 11:40 PM

With this reading, it would actually be of use to a Barbarian with a UA Artificer in their party, as it would allow the barb to concentrate on an infused spell while Raging. Considering that both Fly and Haste are on the Artificer's spell list, along with the fact that the Artificer lacks the spell slots needed to concentrate on the former for the entire party should the situation call for it, this seems like it'd be a pretty handy (if extremely cheesy) trick to me. I doubt most DMs would actually let that fly, of course, but if you can pull it off, you might as well, right?

TBH as a DM I see no reason to not let that fly. We don't use Artificer ourselves, but what's cheesy about letting a class function as intended? If we assume the barbarian is balanced relative to other martials like paladin and fighter, we must assume that the effect of a third party casting haste or fly on them is also balanced relative to casting haste or fly on a paladin or fighter. Likewise, if we assume artificers are balanced, we assume it's okay to offload concentration on a spell like haste or fly to a paladin or fighter, even when using their strongest class features like Action Surge and Smite and including Con proficiency or +Cha to concentration saves. Ergo it must be okay to offload concentration to the raging barbarian too, since rage is supposedly balanced against those even when under the effect of such spells. Forcing the infusion to drop off as soon as rage happens seems like an unfair nerf to artificer and doesn't achieve anything other than limiting effective party composition.

Although you don't need to exploit the clumsy wording of rage for that, you can just houserule reasonable things whenever you want. Exploiting clumsy wording is only good for generating several pages of outrage on a forum thread :smallbiggrin:

MaxWilson

2018-11-26, 12:23 AM

Right. But if you aren't able to cast spells, then rage is silent about your ability to concentrate on spells.

As said in the original post, it's an odd interaction that should almost never come up, but it may be possible to cast a concentration spell, then lose the ability to cast spells at all, and then go into a rage - and in that specific corner-case scenario, there's nothing preventing you from concentrating on the spell while raging, as the "no concentration" clause only kicks in if you're able to cast spells.

It's a rules oddity, almost certainly unintended, and I would expect all but the most RAW DMs put there to disallow it under the unwritten "are you serious" clause of DMing, but technically the argument is sound under RAW.

No it isn't. It's a willful misinterpretation of the plain language in the text, and as pointed out numerous times it isn't even logically consistent--reading it as "if you are currently able to cast spells" leads to a self-contradiction when you both are and are not able to cast spells. Proof by contradiction is a classic disproof, and it easily falsifies this interpretation.

It won't fly at the table, but it also doesn't fly under RAW. It's just plain wrong.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-26, 12:36 AM

Guys, a good example for this will be:

If you can run, I will run with you tonight and I will sleep later.

If you can't run then the first part can't happen.

If you can't run then I still sleep, maybe earlier or later but it can happen if you can run and if you can't.

Anyway, the example that people gave have nothing to do with the discussion because there are two parts to the original text.

One is the spell part:
If you can cast spells then you can't cast spells - the raging barbarian role.
If you can't cast spell then you can't cast spells - you need to be able to do something in order to do it.

If you can cast spells you can't concentrate on them(the spells you can cast) - the raging barbarian role.
If ypu can't cast spells then you don't meet the condition that will prevent you from concentrate on the spells you can cast.

The roles tells you what you can or can't do.
Concentrating on a spell is something that a character can do in 5e, if there is nothing that prevent them from doing so then they can do it.

** I know the role say that they need to be spells you are able to cast but I didn't wanted to add the word "able" every time.

I have to say that it will be usable at my table but I run a pure RAW table.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-26, 01:28 AM

This is not a “technical” reading of the rules. It is wrong.

“It’s wrong” isn’t an argument.

Reading the rules like this is the equivalent of interpreting “if you need me, I’ll be in the other room” as meaning that if you don’t need that person, they’ll be somewhere else. It might be material for a Dmitri Martin joke but it’s not, in any sense, the actual meaning.

No. It is decidedly not equivalent to this. It is equivalent to: “If you don’t need that person, that person might be in the room or might be anywhere else.” However, this is not an analogous example because of the context of “I’ll be in the other room.” We know something about the logic of people and rooms and people being in rooms. You can’t logically be in a room waiting to be found if needed and also be somewhere else. This is why your example is not analogous.

In fact, saying “If you need me, I’ll be in the other room.” Is not properly an “If” construction at all. It’s equivalent to just saying: “I’ll be in the other room.”

- - -

Many “if... then...” constructions can be put forward as examples to prove the point in either direction. The question has to be one of whether the same contexts apply.

For example: “If she surfs, I’ll take her to the beach.” Does not tell us that “if she does not surf, I will take her to the beach.” It also does not tell us that “if she does not surf, I will not take her to the beach.”

It only promises what will be done if she does surf. In the event that she does not, it is noncommittal.

Without context to justify the commitment, we are in error to read a noncommittal statement as committal.

Example: “If I take her to the beach, I’ll take her to Bondi Beach.” Here it is correct reasonable (but not strictly correct) to read this as an If-and-only-If because we know that you can’t go to a different beach and satisfy the conditional (unless you also go to Bondi, which is why I said reasonable as opposed to correct) ... So context makes the claim correct reasonable (though it is strictly still an error). edited for correctness (pun intended) - thank you PhantomSoul for pointing out my mistake.

Example: “If I take her to the beach, I’ll pack my swimsuit.” Here it would be obviously wrong to claim an If-and-only-If because of what we know about swimsuits and places we take them. You might also take a swimsuit to the pool or to a laundromat, for example.

If statements, and many others, have different meanings based on context. This is not just a “oh, well obviously they didn’t intend to say it like that, but technically they did due to an error/oversight”, this is the genuine meaning of these words.

Just because “if” statements have different meanings based on context does not mean you get to invent the context when none is given. The statement does not provide the context that you are claiming it does.

This use of the word “if” is so common that I think it’s fair to say it is now part of the definition and no logic or understanding of linguistic principles is even required.

It is precisely because the misuse and misunderstanding of the word “if” is ubiquitous that we need a logical, linguistic framework in which to determine the meaning. And, as you correctly point out, this framework must include a consideration of context.

The use of the word “if” followed by a phrase (“you can cast spells”) in order to provide context to an associated phrase (“you can no longer cast or concentrate on spells”) without being conditional is sufficiently well understood that it qualifies, semantically, as a definition of the word “if”.

This is precisely the misunderstanding. Also, the fact that you think it qualifies, semantically, provides no insight here - because the semantics are precisely what we are debating.

Again, “If you visit New York, I’m staying in Hell’s Kitchen” doesn’t imply I’m staying somewhere else when the person I’m speaking to isn’t in New York, I’m just giving them some information that is relevant to the hypothetical, but not conditional upon it.

Yes but here you are justified in your assumption, because you have context. In the present discussion, no such context exists.

In short, this is a rubbish argument based on a poor understanding of both pragmatics and semantics and is not RAW (let alone RAI).

“This is a rubbish argument” is not an argument. You are providing the context that you think most reasonably applies to the text, however this context - however reasonable - is never actually provided.

Merudo

2018-11-26, 03:18 AM

So, quick question - if you can't cast spells, are you able to cast spells?

That right here is the crux of the debate.

Suppose a spellcaster can't cast spells (because of Wildshape, Tenser's Transformation, Antimagic Shell, etc).

If you think that character is always considered to be able to cast spells (because spellcasting is a class feature), then clearly you can never concentrate on a spell while raging.

On the other hand, suppose you think that a character who can't cast spells is by definition unable to cast spells. By the "plain English" interpretation of the rules, it's clear a spellcaster who can't cast spells can still concentrate on one of them while under the effect of rage. I really don't see how a sane person could argue that "If you are able to cast spells" clause somehow applies when you are in fact not able to cast spells.

PhantomSoul

2018-11-26, 08:23 AM

It is precisely because the misuse and misunderstanding of the word “if” is ubiquitous that we need a logical, linguistic framework in which to determine the meaning. And, as you correctly point out, this framework must include a consideration of context.

To call it a misuse or a misunderstanding of "if" would be a misunderstanding of "if"; linguistics already provides ample way to account for this use of "if" in two ways (either you take it as definitional/denotational [as you probably should, treating the structure as idiomatic] or you apply the principle of cooperation alongside normal interpretation [probably where the meaning would come from historically]), but (most) people get by perfectly well in the real world without needing an academic analysis. That said, yes, context is definitely useful.

Example: “If I take her to the beach, I’ll take her to Bondi Beach.” Here it is reasonable (but not strictly correct) to read this as an If-and-only-If because we know that you can’t go to a different beach and satisfy the conditional (unless you also go to Bondi, which is why I said reasonable as opposed to correct) ... So context makes the claim reasonable (though it is strictly still an error).

Example: “If I take her to the beach, I’ll pack my swimsuit.” Here it would be obviously wrong to claim an If-and-only-If because of what we know about swimsuits and places we take them. You might also take a swimsuit to the pool or to a laundromat, for example.

These are nice examples, but for a reason you don't elaborate more on: there's a crucial difference between them where “If I take her to the beach, I’ll take her to Bondi Beach.” involves the "then part" being a subset of the "if part" (to through in the technical sense of "entail", the consequent entails the antecedent), whereas “If I take her to the beach, I’ll pack my swimsuit.” doesn't have that same trait. Adding that in, it's strictly correct to treat the first sentence as equivalent to an if-and-only-if sentence from a logical perspective -- though, in reality, maybe she decides she'd rather go to a different beach and so it all goes astray anyway. (You mention it's "an error" to treat is as if-and-only-if, but based on exactly your logic I'd say it isn't an error.)

EDIT to build: “If I take her to the beach, I’ll pack my swimsuit.” could actually be a nice illustration (that I gather you agree with, but for illustration and since I didn't really mention the other example): taking the "packing part" out of the future for the consequent to make the sentence “If I take her to the beach, I’ll have my swimsuit.”, you get the nice case where maybe you have your swimsuit in your car anyhow because you do laps three times a week, or you packed the swimsuit in case you went to the beach (not knowing whether you would, but wanting to be prepared just in case). Additionally, flipping the antecedent to not be take-her-to-the-beach but rather just thinking you'll take her to the beach, you can still get the effect (maybe you pack the swimsuit either way).

PeteNutButter

2018-11-26, 09:29 AM

This is too much RAW cheese even for me. It belabors the poor language.

"If you are able to cast spells," is clearly in there not as a condition for the following sentence, but because default barbarians cannot cast spells. If it just instead said, "You cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging," you'd have confused players flipping the pages looking for the section on barbarian spellcasting.

I'm normally very harsh on the poor rules wording of 5e, but in this case, I think most other wording methods would be either unnecessarily confusing or overly long. In its current form, no one legitimately has any confusion of intent. You can also interpret "if you are able to cast spells," as ever able to cast spells, not just currently.

If you are in a position to cheat, you cannot cheat or lie about cheating. Technically you can lie about cheating, as long as you aren't currently in a position to cheat, provided you cheated before this rule took effect. :smalltongue:

MoiMagnus

2018-11-26, 10:15 AM

If the rules were written by logicians, it would be
"You can't cast spell or concentrate spells when raging"

But if you put that on the rules, some peoples will be like "Wait, have I missed a spell-caster feature of the barbarian? This rule implicitly says that I am supposed to be able to cast spells. So there must be a forgotten spell-caster ability in the class, or in a previous version of the class and it was deleted and they forgot to delete that line."

So to prevent people from wondering "why is there a line about spells in the barbarian class?", the "if clause" is added as a precision. Because normal peoples don't like universal quantification on the empty set.

Contrast

2018-11-26, 10:42 AM

But if you put that on the rules, some peoples will be like "Wait, have I missed a spell-caster feature of the barbarian? This rule implicitly says that I am supposed to be able to cast spells. So there must be a forgotten spell-caster ability in the class, or in a previous version of the class and it was deleted and they forgot to delete that line."[/B]

It's worth pointing out that totem barbarians get ritual casting of concentration requiring spells at level 3. Barbarian spell casting is hardly something you have to jump through hoops to acquire.

Aimeryan

2018-11-26, 10:46 AM

I'm normally very harsh on the poor rules wording of 5e, but in this case, I think most other wording methods would be either unnecessarily confusing or overly long. In its current form, no one legitimately has any confusion of intent

It can very simply and clearly be made unambiguous (props to Aelyn for this):

While raging, Barbarians cannot cast spells or concentrate on spells, even if they would otherwise be able to do so.

That is clear, short, and unambiguous. The text in the book, however, leads to the RAW interpretation the OP post mentions - although it is true that incorrect usage (usually by certain cultures) can lead to the phrase having a different meaning than its literal interpretation.

Bloodcloud

2018-11-26, 11:07 AM

I'm a lawyer. If I tried such a ridiculous argument in a court room, I'd get laughed out.

This is such a clearly misguided, obviously of bad faith interpretation. Trying to pretend it to be RAW is specious.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 11:08 AM

It's worth pointing out that totem barbarians get ritual casting of concentration requiring spells at level 3. Barbarian spell casting is hardly something you have to jump through hoops to acquire.

Being required to pick a specific subclass is a hoop. The majority of Barbarian subclasses do not get any form of spellcasting, base class abilities can't assume you take any specific subclass option. The distinction is very clearly made to show players that Barbarian's do not get an inherent ability to cast spells, but if they have the ability either through their subclass, items or multiclassing, it is limited while raging.

It can very simply and clearly be made unambiguous (props to Aelyn for this):

While raging, Barbarians cannot cast spells or concentrate on spells, even if they would otherwise be able to do so.
That is clear, short, and unambiguous. The text in the book, however, leads to the RAW interpretation the OP post mentions - although it is true that incorrect usage (usually by certain cultures) can lead to the phrase having a different meaning than its literal interpretation.

This doesn't actually fix this. Now we're just arguing over how well defined "otherwise" is in support of or against this "loophole". All that's been done is put "if you are able to cast spells" at the end of the sentence. This doesn't make it read any differently, those in favor of the proposal can still nitpick and those against can still point at the spellcasting rules.

Contrast

2018-11-26, 11:34 AM

Being required to pick a specific subclass is a hoop. The majority of Barbarian subclasses do not get any form of spellcasting, base class abilities can't assume you take any specific subclass option. The distinction is very clearly made to show players that Barbarian's do not get an inherent ability to cast spells, but if they have the ability either through their subclass, items or multiclassing, it is limited while raging.

My point was merely that someone confused about barbarian rages referring to spellcasting would only have to look 2 pages to find any confusion dispelled. The argument would have more weight if spellcasting was a totally foreign feature which had to be imported from feats/multiclassing (optional rules) or a splatbook, rather than an intrinsic possible feature of the class in the PHB.

This doesn't actually fix this. Now we're just arguing over how well defined "otherwise" is in support of or against this "loophole". All that's been done is put "if you are able to cast spells" at the end of the sentence. This doesn't make it read any differently, those in favor of the proposal can still nitpick and those against can still point at the spellcasting rules.

I am intrigued by your response here. Off the top of my head a Ring of Spell storing with a 8 hour Hex cast into it, with the barbarian casts and then unattunes to the ring is a way for a barbarian to be concentrating while unable to cast spells. What loop hole have you identified in that wording? I don't really see how the definition of otherwise is relevant as the wording identifies any normally allowed spellcasting or concentrating is disallowed. Seems pretty ironclad to me. Unless you define 'otherwise' as meaning 'otherwise except in this case...' for no reason suggested in the text?

To rephrase it back the way it is at the moment its basically been rearranged to 'If you can cast spells or are concentrating on a spell, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging', which fixes the 'issue'.

For the avoidance of doubt - I agree with OP that anyone actually trying to get this past a DM at an actual table is silly and should be told to stop faffing about.

qube

2018-11-26, 11:53 AM

Being required to pick a specific subclass is a hoop. The majority of Barbarian subclasses do not get any form of spellcasting, base class abilities can't assume you take any specific subclass option.if we were talking Rage vs Consult the Spirits (Path of the Ancestral Guardian, xanatar's guide) I'd say you have a point - as a book now can't predict what future books will do.

But the same book? the same class, in fact?? sorry, but a barbarians base abilities SHOULD take into account that the player might pick one of the three core subclasses. I haven't got a clue why you think they "can't", considering it boils down to wirtten text.

If the rules were written by logicians, it would be
"You can't cast spell or concentrate spells when raging"

But if you put that on the rules, some peoples will be like "Wait, have I missed a spell-caster feature of the barbarian? This rule implicitly says that I am supposed to be able to cast spells. So there must be a forgotten spell-caster ability in the class, or in a previous version of the class and it was deleted and they forgot to delete that line."Well then, Why not write something like

while raging, a barbarian cannot concentrate on spells, cast spells, or activate spells from magic items.

... that's the 3.5ed Rage syntax, and nobody was confused about that.

MaxWilson

2018-11-26, 11:54 AM

I am intrigued by your response here. Off the top of my head a Ring of Spell storing with a 8 hour Hex cast into it, with the barbarian casts and then unattunes to the ring is a way for a barbarian to be concentrating while unable to cast spells.

At best that is a way for the barbarian's ability to concentrate on spells to be put into an unknown state (no guidance from the PHB), which means... the DM has to make a call. What call would be most reasonable for that situation?

When RAW is silent, as in this particular corner Ring of Spell Storing corner case, the DM does his job. That's why you have a DM in the first place.

The only exception happens when you are playing 5E as a CRPG without a DM, in which case the question is "how did the programmer code up the Rage/concentration interaction?" I'm confident that you'll find he just coded it up as "Rage prevents concentration or spellcasting," full stop, because why would you do otherwise?

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 12:03 PM

My point was merely that someone confused about barbarian rages referring to spellcasting would only have to look 2 pages to find any confusion dispelled. The argument would have more weight if spellcasting was a totally foreign feature which had to be imported from feats/multiclassing (optional rules) or a splatbook, rather than an intrinsic possible feature of the class in the PHB.

I am intrigued by your response here. Off the top of my head a Ring of Spell storing with a 8 hour Hex cast into it, with the barbarian casts and then unattunes to the ring is a way for a barbarian to be concentrating while unable to cast spells. What loop hole have you identified in that wording? I don't really see how the definition of otherwise is relevant as the wording identifies any normally allowed spellcasting or concentrating is disallowed. Seems pretty ironclad to me. Unless you define 'otherwise' as meaning 'otherwise except in this case...' for no reason suggested in the text?

For the avoidance of doubt - I agree with OP that anyone actually trying to get this past a DM at an actual table is silly and should be told to stop faffing about.
The bolded part is our current problem.

The defined argument is that a Druid/Barbarian Multiclass (or a barbarian who is otherwise unable to cast spells through an external feature when they normally would have been able to through another external feature) would be able to maintain concentration, because the being unable to concentrate is apparently only applicable if you are currently able to cast spells.

The spellcasting feature (or a magic item) grants you the ability to cast spells, the Wild Shape feature limits your current ability. You can still cast spells, except when Wild Shaped. The proposal is based around "Except in this case" even when you always retain your spellcasting ability feature (or feature that grants you the ability to cast spells apparently we need to specify this difference) or are currently concentrating on a spell that you were able to cast through an item. For this argument to work you have to treat the exception as the norm.

I understand the way people are drawing this conclusion, I don't agree with the interpretation. I don't think that you could convince someone reasonably that it's allowed by RAW without choosing to ignore specifics to the contrary. It's nitpicking to an absurd degree.

if we were talking Rage vs Consult the Spirits (Path of the Ancestral Guardian, xanatar's guide) I'd say you have a point - as a book now can't predict what future books will do.

But the same book? the same class, in fact?? sorry, but a barbarians base abilities SHOULD take into account that the player might pick one of the three core subclasses. I haven't got a clue why you think they "can't", considering it boils down to wirtten text.

No base class ability assumes you have access to features from a specific subclass. Not a single one. Primal Path's are something all Barbarian's get, it is never assumed that you always picked the one that gives you spellcasting. Base class abilities are deliberately written to be all inclusive to the potential subclass you pick.

Note that I never said that they don't take into account the possibility that you do, that's the entire reason that Rage has this phrasing in it in the first place, it just never assumes that you are specifically a Totem Warrior.

Well then, Why not write something like

while raging, a barbarian cannot concentrate on spells, cast spells, or activate spells from magic items..
Because you don't activate spells from magic items, you cast them via activating the magic item. You're already unable to do so with the rules as they're written, why add a redundant line?

Contrast

2018-11-26, 12:06 PM

At best that is a way for the barbarian's ability to concentrate on spells to be put into an unknown state (no guidance from the PHB), which means... the DM has to make a call. What call would be most reasonable for that situation?

There is guidance in the PHB on what breaks concentration though. Deattuning from a magic item is not listed. If a DM made that house rule I'd accept it without a quibble but that's not what we're talking about here. I assume from your response that you accept a DM could reasonably rule that the barbarian continued to concentrate, leaving us in the situation of a barbarian who is concentrating without the ability to cast.

If your response to an argument about RAW wording is 'well RAW is Rule 0, DM ignores the book and does whatever' then it feels like you've conceded that the RAW doesn't say what you want it to say.

Edit - Faffing about with rings of spell storing and multiclass druid/barbarians is, I feel, missing the point slightly. Lets say a DM has the God Of Magic bestow the barbarian the one time ability to cast any spell he choses but once he does so, he permanently loses any ability to every cast any spell of any sort ever again. The barbarian, in his wisdom, casts Hex. Voila, a barbarian who cannot cast who is concentrating on a spell. Hopefully we don't need to argue any more about that :smallbiggrin:

BurgerBeast

2018-11-26, 12:12 PM

Adding that in, it's strictly correct to treat the first sentence as equivalent to an if-and-only-if sentence from a logical perspective -- though, in reality, maybe she decides she'd rather go to a different beach and so it all goes astray anyway. (You mention it's "an error" to treat is as if-and-only-if, but based on exactly your logic I'd say it isn't an error.)

Yes. You’re right. I originally saw this, too... but then I confused myself and edited in the parentheses... silly me.

If it just instead said, "You cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging," you'd have confused players flipping the pages looking for the section on barbarian spellcasting.

This may be true, but the text would be correct, and those confused players would be making an unjustified inference. I’d rather write properly than write improperly to cater to the presupposed errors of my audience. This is one of the reasons why such errors are so ubiquitous.

If people could just read without making false inferences, we’d be fine. Instead people cater to those false inferences and in an attempt to be clear they create more confusion, or worse they end up saying something they didn’t mean to say. This is a case in point.

You can’t remedy a mistake by catering to it.

Willie the Duck

2018-11-26, 12:12 PM

Well then, Why not write something like

while raging, a barbarian cannot concentrate on spells, cast spells, or activate spells from magic items.

... that's the 3.5ed Rage syntax, and nobody was confused about that.

3e did assume multiclassing in its base rule structure. 5e did not. That might have something to do with it (or at least all the components except activating spells from magic items, for which I have no answer).

BurgerBeast

2018-11-26, 12:15 PM

3e did assume multiclassing in its base rule structure. 5e did not. That might have something to do with it (or at least all the components except activating spells from magic items, for which I have no answer).

It seems more likely to me that they were anticipating the unwarranted complaints about “lack of clarity” from people who make false inferences... and then, in an effort to be clear to those people, they accidentally changed the meaning of what they wanted to say.

Again, everyone (but especially writers) needs to stop catering to people who can’t read... because doing so will lead to bigger problems.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 12:24 PM

If people could just read without making false inferences, we’d be fine. Instead people cater to those false inferences and in an attempt to be clear they create more confusion, or worse they end up saying something they didn’t mean to say. This is a case in point.
Boy if this isn't some sweet irony.

We'll all just have to live with disagreeing on this, regardless of who ends up being the "most correct". Both sides have had their lines drawn in the sand since yesterday and have been throwing the same recycled stones at each other, believing that the other side is making the false inferences.

Contrast

2018-11-26, 12:26 PM

No base class ability assumes you have access to features from a specific subclass. Not a single one. Primal Path's are something all Barbarian's get, it is never assumed that you always picked the one that gives you spellcasting. Base class abilities are deliberately written to be all inclusive to the potential subclass you pick.

Note that I never said that they don't take into account the possibility that you do, that's the entire reason that Rage has this phrasing in it in the first place, it just never assumes that you are specifically a Totem Warrior.

Equally 'You can't cast spells or concentrate on spells while raging' doesn't suddenly become an invalid statement if you are a beserker. I note that rage also doesn't work in heavy armour, despite barbarians not getting heavy armour prof. How will all the barbarians cope with their confusion until they get to the multiclass section or equipment section :smallbiggrin:

Because you don't activate spells from magic items, you cast them via activating the magic item. You're already unable to do so with the rules as they're written, why add a redundant line?

...wait but you're the one arguing for the unnecessary insertion of the phrase 'If you are able to cast spells...' :smalltongue:

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 12:34 PM

Equally 'You can't cast spells or concentrate on spells while raging' doesn't suddenly become an invalid statement if you are a beserker. I note that rage also doesn't work in heavy armour, despite barbarians not getting heavy armour prof. How will all the barbarians cope with their confusion until they get to the multiclass section or equipment section :smallbiggrin:

...wait but you're the one arguing for the unnecessary insertion of the phrase 'If you are able to cast spells...' :smalltongue:
No I'm not, I believe it's very necessary because a Barbarian isn't always able to cast spells (or benefit from rage while wearing heavy armor for that same reason). If you believe that I've been arguing the opposite I don't know how better to tell you.

It's also worth noting, not having heavy armor proficiency doesn't mean you can't wear heavy armor. You cannot cast a spell unless given the ability to do so. All characters (Wizards, Barbarian, Monk, ALL CLASSES) are able to wear heavy armor, facing penalties if they lack proficiency. It says as much in the character creation guidelines of the PHB.

noob

2018-11-26, 12:44 PM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 12:51 PM

It was intended that people could concentrate on spells they used before the rage that prevents them from casting spells or else instead of using the complex and long wording of "If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
They would have just said "you can not cast spells or concentrate on spells while raging" which is simpler and shorter and do not leave that weird interpretation in the picture.
Here (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/898171513131732993?lang=en) and Here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016) show that the intent is very clear that Rage makes concentration impossible.

I can accept that the proposable made by OP is plausible as RAW with a specific interpretation of it, even though I disagree with that interpretation. However the intent has never been to allow Barbarian's to concentrate on spells while raging. Trying to pass this of as RAI is objectively incorrect.

MaxWilson

2018-11-26, 01:07 PM

This thread is like a munchkin arguing that "The rules say that if you're a Barbarian, you can Rage only a limited number of times per day, therefore by RAW if you're NOT a Barbarian you can Rage as much as you want."

And anyone who buys that argument deserves what they get.

noob

2018-11-26, 01:20 PM

Here (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/898171513131732993?lang=en) and Here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016) show that the intent is very clear that Rage makes concentration impossible.

I can accept that the proposable made by OP is plausible as RAW with a specific interpretation of it, even though I disagree with that interpretation. However the intent has never been to allow Barbarian's to concentrate on spells while raging. Trying to pass this of as RAI is objectively incorrect.

Still it means that this rule is really badly written if they needed the fac to make clear that you can not cast or concentrate on spells while raging.
They could have made that clear in the base description of the ability by using a simpler sentence that is easier to parse.

Edenbeast

2018-11-26, 01:25 PM

Right. I think I've got it..

"If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana.

noob

2018-11-26, 01:28 PM

Right. I think I've got it..

"If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

If you are not able to cast spells, your name is Trump.

If your DM does not approve, he's an Obama judge..

Sorry.
I think we are supposed to avoid politics in gitp.

qube

2018-11-26, 01:43 PM

3e did assume multiclassing in its base rule structure. 5e did not. That might have something to do with it (or at least all the components except activating spells from magic items, for which I have no answer).but 5e has
a lot of spellcasting races
a feat in core that gives spellcasting.
a core barbarian option that gets to cast spells (namely Totem)
yeah, sure, the 3.5 barbarian could multiclass in wizard or sorcerer ( :smallconfused: ) But all in all, spellcasting barbarians are significantly more prevelent in 5E then it is in 3.5E

It's also worth noting, not having heavy armor proficiency doesn't mean you can't wear heavy armor. You cannot cast a spell unless given the ability to do so.that's a dual standard. You can trigger the heavy armor restriction with the right item (heavy armor), just like can you can trigger the spellcasting trigger with the right item (like that helm of suggestion).

This thread is like a munchkin arguing that "The rules say that if you're a Barbarian, you can Rage only a limited number of times per day, therefore by RAW if you're NOT a Barbarian you can Rage as much as you want."http://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/05183767f1ef5e729886f4f3897403a685dd23-wm.jpg
...
...
But I don't. This hasn't got anything to do with munchkinism. We're talking about a very simple, general vs specifc , situation
The general rule is that people can concentrate on spells
(spellcasters can do it on their spells, people with helm of suggestion can do it on their suggestion; races with concentration spell can do it as well, ... )
The specific rule doesn't apply (as the if condition isn't forfilled)
Ergo, it's the general rule that applies
Oppositely to your example, there's nothing that suggest that the general rule would be that people can rage; so your analogy fails.

Bottomline:

There's nothing munchkin or powerplay or min-max
in acknowledging that - while obviously not the intent
- as it is written, the OP's interpretation is correct.
If you can't cast spells, the specific rule that forbids
concentration on your spell, doesn't apply.

D&D 5E RAW isn't perfect.
it's not a crime to acknowledge this

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 02:07 PM

but 5e has
a lot of spellcasting races
a feat in core that gives spellcasting.
a core barbarian option that gets to cast spells (namely Totem)
yeah, sure, the 3.5 barbarian could multiclass in wizard or sorcerer ( :smallconfused: ) But all in all, spellcasting barbarians are significantly more prevelent in 5E then it is in 3.5E

All optional, which is why Rage has to specify whether you have a class/feature that grants you the ability to cast spells. A level 2 Standard Human Barbarian has access to rage, and no spellcasting. However if he multiclasses Druid, attunes to a helm of telepathy or chooses his primal path as Totem Warrior, then he is now able to cast spells, therefore the clause in rage applies.

that's a dual standard. You can trigger the heavy armor restriction with the right item (heavy armor), just like can you can trigger the spellcasting trigger with the right item (like that helm of suggestion).
Restrictions while wearing heavy armor don't mean that you aren't capable of wearing heavy armor, just like being restricted in your ability to cast spells doesn't mean that you are flatout unable to cast spells.

But I don't. This hasn't got anything to do with munchkinism. We're talking about a very simple, general vs specifc , situation
The general rule is that people can concentrate on spells
-(spellcasters can do it on their spells, people with helm of suggestion can do it on their suggestion; races with concentration spell can do it as well, ... )
-The specific rule doesn't apply (as the if condition isn't forfilled)
-Ergo, it's the general rule that applies
There isn't actually a general rule that allows everyone to concentrate on spells. To concentrate on a spell you have to be able to cast a spell, as it's tied to the duration of the spells effect. You never reach the point where you're concerned about the concentration aspect of a spell if you were never able to cast the spell. In fact the only specific rule we have is that Druid's are given the ability to concentrate on a spell while they're not allowed to cast spells, which doesn't exactly support the proposed idea that concentration is something that everyone is allowed to do.

There's nothing munchkin or powerplay or min-max in acknowledging that - while obviously not the intent - as it is written, the OP's interpretation is correct. If you can't cast spells, the specific rule that forbids concentration on your spell, doesn't apply. D&D 5E RAW isn't perfect. it's not a crime to acknowledge this

And I don't agree with this, my interpretation of RAW is that you can't concentrate on spells while unable to cast them unless you're given the ability to specifically do so. A Druid is given the ability to do so while Wild Shape, not while also Raging.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-26, 02:07 PM

A friendly reminder that RAW does not exist per se in 5e, and certainly the rules are not written for close parsing. If you're doing so, you're merely injecting your own beliefs and structures into something that cannot support them in either direction.

That is, attempting to apply the tools of formal logic to informal writing is inherently flawed and gives a false sense of certainty.

Here, there is a natural reading (that a raging barbarian can neither cast nor concentrate on spells even if they were otherwise able to) that fits the obvious intent and fictional identity. There is also an unnatural, strained, close-parsing reading, that while fitting according to formal grammars, creates absurdity. This is not uncommon. Every text, no matter how closely worded, has instances of this same issue. Yes, this includes the law itself. And judicial canon is clear--you follow the natural reading not the one that produces absurdity.

noob

2018-11-26, 02:11 PM

To concentrate on a spell you have to be able to cast a spell
False.
Tenser Transformation disagree strongly with you.
Polymorph too.(there is tons of people who polymorphs themselves in shapes that does not allows them to cast spells and yet they do not just instantly stop being polymorphed)
when I did read the start of the thread I believed it meant "You can use tenser transformation then rage and keep being tenser transformed for double beefiness"

MaxWilson

2018-11-26, 02:25 PM

But I don't. This hasn't got anything to do with munchkinism. We're talking about a very simple, general vs specifc , situation
The general rule is that people can concentrate on spells
(spellcasters can do it on their spells, people with helm of suggestion can do it on their suggestion; races with concentration spell can do it as well, ... )
The specific rule doesn't apply (as the if condition isn't forfilled)
Ergo, it's the general rule that applies
Oppositely to your example, there's nothing that suggest that the general rule would be that people can rage; so your analogy fails.

Citation needed.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 02:30 PM

False.
Tenser Transformation disagree strongly with you.
Polymorph too.(there is tons of people who polymorphs themselves in shapes that does not allows them to cast spells and yet they do not just instantly stop being polymorphed)
when I did read the start of the thread I believed it meant "You can use tenser transformation then rage and keep being tenser transformed for double beefiness"

The fact that those spells require concentration to persist in effect is a specific exception.

Edenbeast

2018-11-26, 02:41 PM

False.
Tenser Transformation disagree strongly with you.
Polymorph too.(there is tons of people who polymorphs themselves in shapes that does not allows them to cast spells and yet they do not just instantly stop being polymorphed)

That's because the wording of both spells clearly states that you can't cast spells until the spell ends. There is no mention that you lose concentration. The spell does require concentration, meaning that if you take damage, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain the concentration.
Compare this to rage, which states that you can neither cast spells, nor concentrate.

noob

2018-11-26, 02:45 PM

That's because the wording of both spells clearly states that you can't cast spells until the spell ends. There is no mention that you lose concentration. The spell does require concentration, meaning that if you take damage, you must make a constitution saving throw to maintain the concentration.
Compare this to rage, which states that you can neither cast spells, nor concentrate.
It says that if you are able to cast spells you can not cast spells nor concentrate.
If they removed the "if you are able to cast spells" part and added "on spells" at the end of the sentence the rule would be shorter and clearer.
So it is clear that since they do not want to make uselessly clumsy rules that choosing a more complex sentence opening that possibility meant that the creator of that rule wanted barbarians to cast tenser transformation then rage and keep being transformed.(but as usual there is disagreement between the ones making the rules and the people answering rule questions)
It is strictly inferior if you want to fight to decide "I am going to be a barbarian wizard and then have so many levels in wizard I can cast tenser transformation then rage" rather than deciding "I am going barbarian all the way down"

Willie the Duck

2018-11-26, 03:11 PM

A friendly reminder that RAW does not exist per se in 5e, and certainly the rules are not written for close parsing. If you're doing so, you're merely injecting your own beliefs and structures into something that cannot support them in either direction.

That is, attempting to apply the tools of formal logic to informal writing is inherently flawed and gives a false sense of certainty.

Eschewing the navel gazing that would be engaging the original question, this is the clear answer. Even if the rules do say what the OP is implying, so what? The writer's have stated that they are writing this game for real, normal, much-more-well-adjusted-than-us-nutjobs-here-on-internet-gaming-forums people to pick up and play, not for the benefit of people who get enjoyment out of this kind of word-parsing.

Even if this were the case of an unambiguously RAW absurd corner case (Something like 3e's drown-healing)--then what? I think we all agree a reasonable DM would step in and rule, so that's not the point. If it's "isn't it neat?" I would say no,not really--that's just what (potentially) happens when you write naturally rather than in an attempt to inoculate yourself from rules pedantry.

HMS Invincible

2018-11-26, 03:13 PM

Whoever wrote this op is a troll and all of you who sided with him should be reported for being accessories to trolling.

noob

2018-11-26, 03:14 PM

Eschewing the navel gazing that would be engaging the original question, this is the clear answer. Even if the rules do say what the OP is implying, so what? The writer's have stated that they are writing this game for real, normal, much-more-well-adjusted-than-us-nutjobs-here-on-internet-gaming-forums people to pick up and play, not for the benefit of people who get enjoyment out of this kind of word-parsing.

Even if this were the case of an unambiguously RAW absurd corner case (Something like 3e's drown-healing)--then what? I think we all agree a reasonable DM would step in and rule, so that's not the point. If it's "isn't it neat?" I would say no,not really--that's just what (potentially) happens when you write naturally rather than in an attempt to inoculate yourself from rules pedantry.
the sentence was not written in a natural way if they wrote naturally they would have not used an if unless they did intend to help the poor person who decided to multiclass barbarian and wizard up to levels high enough in wizard to get tenser transformation and which somehow decide to go melee(that person even with that extra rule is going to underperform).

Edenbeast

2018-11-26, 03:19 PM

It says that if you are able to cast spells you can not cast spells nor concentrate.
If they removed the "if you are able to cast spells" part and added "on spells" at the end of the sentence the rule would be shorter and clearer.

I mostly play 3.5 still, which uses a very clear description. 5e uses a shorter description to say the same thing. At least, that's how I understand it.

So it is clear that since they do not want to make uselessly clumsy rules that choosing a more complex sentence opening that possibility meant that the creator of that rule wanted barbarians to cast tenser transformation then rage and keep being transformed.

I think that's an over-interpretation.

qube

2018-11-26, 03:25 PM

All optional, which is why Rage has to specify whether you have a class/feature that grants you the ability to cast spells.no. Consider that it was a response to

"3e did assume multiclassing in its base rule structure."

Sorry, but 3e multiclassing was significantly more optional then the totem barbarian subpath.

And I don't agree with this, my interpretation of RAW is that you can't concentrate on spells while unable to cast them unless you're given the ability to specifically do so.That doesn't make sense. By your logic, you wouldn't be able to concentrate on a spell you cast from a scroll.

> The general rule is that people can concentrate on spells

Citation needed.for what? that people can concentrate on their spells?

If a spell must be maintained with Concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry, and the spell specifies how long you can concentrate on it.

General rule.
You cast bless, you can concentrate on it for up to 1 minute.

if you can cast spells, you can't concentrate on them

Speficic rule. Which doesn't apply if you're able to circumvent the if clause

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-26, 03:30 PM

Willie the Duck

2018-11-26, 03:36 PM

the sentence was not written in a natural way if they wrote naturally they would have not used an if unless they did intend to help the poor person who decided to multiclass barbarian and wizard up to levels high enough in wizard to get tenser transformation and which somehow decide to go melee(that person even with that extra rule is going to underperform).

The idea that the rules should be written towards that amazingly specific instance, rather than what would generally make sense to the novice picking up the book is... well I don't know what to say, I disagree that this ought be the audience the writer's should write to. Having 'You can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging' in the barbarian section, with no clause explaining how you are expected to have spells on a class which doesn't automatically get them (in all archetype, to those who pointed out totem barbarians) does not clear things up, it creates confusion.

For what? that people can concentrate on their spells?

I could be wrong, but I think he means all of it. As in make a chain of the quoted rules--including the ones which dictate (for 5e) how general vs specific work (I cannot believe how many people forget that that is an in-game convention) and lay out the A-->B-->C of your logical argument.

mormon_soldier

2018-11-26, 03:39 PM

The OP is misusing the contrapositive.

If you are (able to cast Spells[A]), you can't (cast them or concentrate on them while raging[B]).

If A, then -B.
The only other conclusion you can draw from this is If B, then -A. (If you can cast or concentrate on spells while raging, you are unable to cast spells. )

Which is as tight a bow as you could think to put on spell casting and concentration being mutually exclusive with raging.

noob

2018-11-26, 03:55 PM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 04:06 PM

no. Consider that it was a response to

"3e did assume multiclassing in its base rule structure."

Sorry, but 3e multiclassing was significantly more optional then the totem barbarian subpath.
What 3E assumes isn't relevant, it was simply for perspective on why it's written how it is. 3E has a more specific and strict writing style, 5E attempts to write things in a simple matter. This would be simple if people weren't picking it apart piece by piece to find their favorite interpretation.

That doesn't make sense. By your logic, you wouldn't be able to concentrate on a spell you cast from a scroll
Scrolls are magic items that give you knowledge of a spell.

Also as far as scrolls are concerned, you can't cast them without having that spell on your class spell list. Not a good argument.

You can be unable to cast spells but be able to concentrate which happens very often right after you cast tenser transformation.
It doesn't happen very often, it happens in very specific scenarios that have rules written on whether you are able to maintain the concentration.

The only edge case that has much room for debate is becoming un-attuned to a magic item that granted you the spell to cast. Even this scenario can be argued against in raw because to use a spell (concentration is part of this) you must have knowledge of the spell through your features or a magic item, as per the spellcasting rules. I can see this being argued in favor of leniency from table to table, but I just can't accept a RAW interpretation where someone believes that they can maintain concentration as a Raging Barbarian.

noob

2018-11-26, 04:10 PM

It doesn't happen very often, it happens in very specific scenarios that have rules written on whether you are able to maintain the concentration.

Sorry but tenser transformation does not says "you can concentrate on tenser transformation"
https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/Tenser%27s_Transformation

It is just that not being able to cast spells is not the same thing as not being able to concentrate on spells.

Unoriginal

2018-11-26, 04:20 PM

qube

2018-11-26, 04:24 PM

Scrolls are magic items that give you knowledge of a spell.So?

And I don't agree with this, my interpretation of RAW is that you can't concentrate on spells while unable to cast them unless you're given the ability to specifically do so
~~ you.

OK, now we're adding a second goalpost, knowledge of a spell.

... great. But the thing is ... wat part of RAW are you basing your interpretation on? Because I see nothing that might even hint to what you claim.

An argument of "Yeah, I know the rules say "cow", but I'm gonna interprete that as "chicken" ", is perhaps cool for you, but has nothing of argumentative value.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-26, 04:25 PM

The specific rule doesn't apply (as the if condition isn't forfilled)

Problem is: it would be true if it was provable that there is a specific rule to apply - or better, if and only if there is an implication. And there are none, but there are reasons to believe that the correct RAW reading is, in fact, that the particular phrase is NOT an implication.

As such, it is not reasonable to argue in favor of that reading, even if it ends up as being confirmed as the intended one.

Again, i can swim even if i can't.

qube

2018-11-26, 04:25 PM

Good thing that the Barbarian's feature DOES say that you can't concentrate on spells while raging.on when you're able to cast spells mate,

which you aren't if you're under Tenser's Transformation

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 04:31 PM

Sorry but tenser transformation does not says "you can concentrate on tenser transformation"
https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/Tenser%27s_Transformation

It is just that not being able to cast spells is not the same thing as not being able to concentrate on spells.

You have to concentrate on Tenser's Transformation to maintain the spell, in casting it you are given exception. It's pretty self explanatory.

So?

And I don't agree with this, my interpretation of RAW is that you can't concentrate on spells while unable to cast them unless you're given the ability to specifically do so
OK, now we're adding a second goalpost, knowledge of a spell.

... great. But the thing is ... wat part of RAW are you basing your interpretation on? Because I see nothing that might even hint to what you claim.

I'm basing this interpretation on the Known and Prepared spells section of the spellcasting rules:

Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item.
It's pretty specific that to use a spell, you require knowledge of the spell from some source. I'm not adding goalposts.

An argument of "Yeah, I know the rules say "cow", but I'm gonna interprete that as "chicken" ", is perhaps cool for you, but has nothing of argumentative value.

So instead of arguing against my interpretation, you're just going to discredit it by blatantly misrepresenting it as too absurd to be argued against. I feel like there's a term for that.

Aelyn

2018-11-26, 04:53 PM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 05:10 PM

Okay, does amyone here actually insist on the strict-RAW interpretation, or does everyone here agree that the RAI and the HYWPI is that you can't concentrate while raging?

I believe the RAW says one thing, and yet I - as both a player and a DM - would expect the game to be played according to what I see as RAI. I'm only debating the RAW because I find this kind of debate enjoyable, and I want to confirm we're all on the same page.

The only edge case that has much room for debate is becoming un-attuned to a magic item that granted you the spell to cast. Even this scenario can be argued against in raw because to use a spell (concentration is part of this) you must have knowledge of the spell through your features or a magic item, as per the spellcasting rules.
[citation needed]
I could quote the entirety of chapter 10 of the players handbook, where it says that all spells follow the same rules while casting and that duration(concentration) is one of the rules. I would recommend reading it though, there are a surprising amount of rules to casting a spell.

As far as being on the same page though, like I've said before, I don't think that's going to happen because nobody here wants to flex on their interpretation of RAW. PhoenixPhyre hit the nail on the head, depending on how finely you decide to look you can do almost anything by RAW. I remember a thread a while back where someone had "discovered" there was no restriction on what actions you could take while dead and then tried to convince everyone that by RAW you can act while dead, effectively being immortal.

I understand the interpretation where you would be able to maintain concentration while raging. I think it's a short sighted interpretation that chooses to ignore other rules in favor of this conclusion being plausible, but I do understand it. I do not agree with it and I've presented my case against it.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-26, 05:14 PM

Right. I think I've got it..

"If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana.

I know that you are being facetious, but this does shed some light on the heart of the matter.

Based solely on the proposition "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

It does logically follow that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana.”

That is an unbiased reading. You cannot deny that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana” is true if your reason is “If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.”

You must find reason elsewhere.

So, even though nobody here is claiming that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana,” the reasons are coming from elsewhere.

And that’s the point. This particular passage does not say that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana.” So, if you want to know whether you can be unable to cast spells and not be a banana, you’ll need to look somewhere else. And we do.

qube

2018-11-26, 05:21 PM

Again, i can swim even if i can't.Yes, yes, obviously.

Can is used to say that someone or something is able to do something, either now, or as a natural characteristic, as a continuing skill, as something learnt
-- blog.oxforddictionaries.com

in the sentence, you use it with different meaning (it's something you learned, but aren't able do it now).

But likewise, lets look at your statement.

i can swim even if i can't

Lets say, you learned how to swim (something you learned), but currently have an anchor strapped to your leg (something that prevents you from doing what you learned). Now lets plug this into an if/then statement.

if you can swim, you'll be fine

would you agree you're in hot water (pun intented :smalltongue: ) ?

------------------------

Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item.

It's pretty specific that to use a spell, you require knowledge of the spell from some source. yeah ... but I don't then see how you justify one-time use items. ESPECIALLY if you take into the senario one could discards the piece of paper once the spell is cast.

Here's the RAW of concentration (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Spells#toc_22). Where does it say your concentration ends when you lose your ability to cast them. And in fact, recall when you said

It's pretty specific that to use a spell, you require knowledge of the spell from some source. I'm not adding goalposts.No? Then Tenser's Transformation doesn't work. After all, you said

And I don't agree with this, my interpretation of RAW is that you can't concentrate on spells while unable to cast them unless you're given the ability to specifically do so. A Druid is given the ability to do so while Wild Shape, not while also Raging.

Tenser's Transformation, like wild shape, prevents you to cast spells
But Tenser's Transformation doesn't give you the ability to concentrate on spells.
...
so, according to you, not moving the goalpost, Tenser's Transformation breaks it's own concentration.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-26, 05:21 PM

I know that you are being facetious, but this does shed some light on the heart of the matter.

editing...

You better edit it good, you did write some egregious non-sense there :D

BurgerBeast

2018-11-26, 05:38 PM

You better edit it good, you did write some egregious non-sense there :D

Done. And I think you meant I’d better edit it well... ;)

And I’m used to being told I’m wrong (Ben even egregiously so) when I’m not... logic is widely misunderstood, which is why most people have math...

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 05:40 PM

SNIP
I'm getting a bit tired of repeated the same thing over and over and over and over to you. Read my previous responses, they answer the reasoning behind my thoughts on concentration. You're misrepresenting my point of view and I don't appreciate it.

If you don't understand how I'm coming to that interpretation, I don't honestly know what else to say.

That's a joke. It doesn't matter if you understand how I'm coming to that interpretation, I already don't honestly know what else to say to explain it to you.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-26, 05:41 PM

Yes, yes, obviously. [...] would you agree you're in hot water (pun intented :smalltongue: ) ?

It depends on the temperature of the water, and if i'm close to any water at all. :D

Jokes aside, discussing the tone and meaning is important. There is a possibility of what the OP points out. However, i feel it should be sold as the POSSIBILITY. Which is not what happens in the OP or in your post. What RAW means is what is important here, and as PhoenixPhyre noted, RAW in this edition is also a step of interpretation.

If it strikes at odd, it is possible that it IS odd. If you have reasons to point to as to why it is odd, then it's reasonable to take it as odd.

Same applies for unintended/right/wrong or whatever.

How you take it for might or might not end up as true.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-26, 06:02 PM

A friendly reminder that RAW does not exist per se in 5e, and certainly the rules are not written for close parsing. If you're doing so, you're merely injecting your own beliefs and structures into something that cannot support them in either direction.

I’m not sure if you don’t know what per se means or if you are just making this up. 5e has rules. Those rules are written in the books. The words in the books are the Rules As Written, per se.

This has nothing to do with what anyone believes. Nobody’s beliefs can change the words that are written in the pages, that is to say: the RAW.

That is, attempting to apply the tools of formal logic to informal writing is inherently flawed and gives a false sense of certainty.

Logic is logic. “Formal” logic is just a standardized way of communicating logic.

That’s like telling someone who points out a math mistake to stop applying “formal” math, because this is merely informal math we’re doing here, so this math is actually correct... just not “formally” correct.

And then when asked to explain how it is correct, you say “it’s obvious what is meant.”

And then when asked how it’s obvious, “well that’s how everyday English is used, even though you disagree, because I have access to the official and exclusive common-sense way of understanding everyday English, which makes it obvious to me that they meant to write something that is different than what is written.”

And then when it’s pointed out that they wrote what they wrote regardless of what they meant: “it’s wrong to look at this written math and consider it Math As Written per se because even though this is written math it is not Math As Written.”

ThePolarBear

2018-11-26, 06:33 PM

Based solely on the proposition "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."
It does logically follow that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana.”

No, it doesn't. 3rd time?

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-26, 06:42 PM

I’m not sure if you don’t know what per se means or if you are just making this up. 5e has rules. Those rules are written in the books. The words in the books are the Rules As Written, per se.

This has nothing to do with what anyone believes. Nobody’s beliefs can change the words that are written in the pages, that is to say: the RAW.

Logic is logic. “Formal” logic is just a standardized way of communicating logic.

That’s like telling someone who points out a math mistake to stop applying “formal” math, because this is merely informal math we’re doing here, so this math is actually correct... just not “formally” correct.

And then when asked to explain how it is correct, you say “it’s obvious what is meant.”

And then when asked how it’s obvious, “well that’s how everyday English is used, even though you disagree, because I have access to the official and exclusive common-sense way of understanding everyday English, which makes it obvious to me that they meant to write something that is different than what is written.”

And then when it’s pointed out that they wrote what they wrote regardless of what they meant: “it’s wrong to look at this written math and consider it Math As Written per se because even though this is written math it is not Math As Written.”

No. We've had this discussion before. Formal logic has predicate axioms that must apply for the systematics to apply. They don't apply to natural language. At all. The existence or absence of logical fallacies implies nothing about the truth or falsity of statements, only about the derivation of such statements. This is doubly true when the statements are not those of formal logic.

Not only that, but in this case there is no statement in the text that asserts that the written rules have primacy over anything else. In fact, there are statements to the exact contrary. Thus, BY RAW, RAW doesn't exist as anything meaningful.

The text exists. Different readings of the text exist. But none of those readings are privileged over others except by the normal "rules" (which are more guidelines) of textual interpretation. And the clause-by-clause, word-by-word, context-and-meaning-discarding, intent-oblivious, loophole-hunting interpretation that this forum pushes as "the one and only true RAW, long may it reign" is absolutely excluded as a valid tool for this edition by explicit Word of God.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-26, 06:53 PM

I’m not sure if you don’t know what per se means or if you are just making this up. 5e has rules. Those rules are written in the books. The words in the books are the Rules As Written, per se.

This has nothing to do with what anyone believes. Nobody’s beliefs can change the words that are written in the pages, that is to say: the RAW.
And those against the idea have gone over, ad nauseum, about how the specific exception of not being able to concentrate while raging is RAW. The context is important.

Sage Advice Compendium: Jeremy Crawford Defines RAW as a rule interpreting tool:
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for.
When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m
studying what the text says in context, without regard to the
designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective;
it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished
we’d published or thought we’d published.

This proposal ignores the context to support itself, choosing to only observe two variables instead of the rules as a whole.
-You are a Druid
-You cast and concentrate on a spell
-You Wild Shape, you can't cast spells but given explicit permission to maintain concentration
-You do not lose your spellcasting ability, it's a class feature that you retain while Wild Shaped as per the rules of Wild Shape
-You are also a Barbarian
-You Rage
-If you are able to cast spells (as a Druid, you are able) you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

Do note that even though the context in this situation uses Druid's Spellcasting ability as the determining factor, the Spellcasting rules on chapter 10 make it clear that you can acquire spellcasting ability through many different features as well as magic items. This is how I interpret it. I haven't made anything up, all of these rules are written in the book and I've taken as much of the context into consideration as I can to determine this.

However, no matter how RAW you or I or anyone else may see this, a DM gets the final say and decides what is and isn't allowed. The rules are a guideline up for interpretation, the DM is law and at his table he decides the rules.

You're not winning yourself points by constantly insinuating that everyone who disagrees with this is illogical and can't read. You're coming off as a bit rude.

BurgerBeast

2018-11-26, 06:58 PM

No, it doesn't. 3rd time?

“No, it doesn’t” isn’t an argument.

If the antecedent is false, an implication is always true. You can learn this in any logic 101 course or with a quick google search. You can find plenty of examples.

If you’re happy being wrong, that’s your business.

MaxWilson

2018-11-26, 07:11 PM

I know that you are being facetious, but this does shed some light on the heart of the matter.

Based solely on the proposition "If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

It does logically follow that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana.”

That is an unbiased reading. You cannot deny that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana” is true if your reason is “If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.”

You must find reason elsewhere.

So, even though nobody here is claiming that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana,” the reasons are coming from elsewhere.

And that’s the point. This particular passage does not say that “If you are not able to cast spells, you're a banana.” So, if you want to know whether you can be unable to cast spells and not be a banana, you’ll need to look somewhere else. And we do.

“No, it doesn’t” isn’t an argument.

If the antecedent is false, an implication is always true. You can learn this in any logic 101 course or with a quick google search. You can find plenty of examples.

If you’re happy being wrong, that’s your business.

You're misunderstanding formal logic.

You've claimed that "A -> B" implies that "!A -> C". This is wrong.

For all A, for all B, and for all C, !A -> (A -> C) is true, but isn't the claim you made. Perhaps it's what you meant to claim but if so you need to improve your communication skills.

The formal logic statement, "if you cannot cast spells, then if you can cast spells, " is logically true but also irrelevant because the PHB text is not written in formal logic. You can tell because the PHB doesn't define its terms, basically ever, and has built-in ambiguities about the temporal scope of "can cast" which lead immediately to contradictions if interpreted the way you are trying to interpret them. ("If A AND B then !A." "If you can cast spells, then if you are raging you can't cast spells." Clearly the text is not meant to be read that way.)

A && !A is [I]never true in formal logic.

Xetheral

2018-11-26, 08:49 PM

The text exists. Different readings of the text exist. But none of those readings are privileged over others except by the normal "rules" (which are more guidelines) of textual interpretation.

Well said. I would add that application of those guidelines is itself debatable.

And the clause-by-clause, word-by-word, context-and-meaning-discarding, intent-oblivious, loophole-hunting interpretation that this forum pushes as "the one and only true RAW, long may it reign" is absolutely excluded as a valid tool for this edition by explicit Word of God.

Whether the "Word of God" is relevant to which guidelines of interpretation it is appropriate to use is, of course, itself debtable. :)

The sense I get is that many posters, when they make a "RAW" argument, are trying (sometimes unknowingly) to map the natural language of the rules to statements in formal logic. The disagreements are inevitably about (1) which such map is "correct" and (2) whether its even possible for any such map to be "correct". I think you and I agree that the answer to #2 is "no", but plainly others disagree with us.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-26, 09:03 PM

Well said. I would add that application of those guidelines is itself debatable.

Whether the "Word of God" is relevant to which guidelines of interpretation it is appropriate to use is, of course, itself debtable. :)

The sense I get is that many posters, when they make a "RAW" argument, are trying (sometimes unknowingly) to map the natural language of the rules to statements in formal logic. The disagreements are inevitably about (1) which such map is "correct" and (2) whether its even possible for any such map to be "correct". I think you and I agree that the answer to #2 is "no", but plainly others disagree with us.

Which statement (in bold) only heightens my certainty that such a mapping is impossible. If there was a clear "right" answer, there wouldn't be such disagreement. :smallcool:

There is no "right" answer. There are answers that fit the "plain meaning" of the text better than others. There are answers that fit one particular table's needs better than others. There are answers that only work at a very few tables. But no answer can be evaluated without reference to the table at which it is to be implemented. "RAW" discussions in a vacuum are worse than useless:

1) they cause heat, not light, promoting dissention and disagreement
2) they encourage a particular style of argumentation and rules (ab)use that focuses on winning arguments, not enhancing fun.
3) they turn on tiny differences in text wording that were a) likely unintended and b) not that meaningful in context.
4) they promote loophole hunting, which translates into munchkinism
5) they turn the community inward on itself, excluding newcomers and those not "hip to the lingo". This is very visible on other forums and even parts of this one where there is a "received interpretation"--anyone who bucks that (unwritten) consensus is shunned and condescended to. Everyone Knows That... This is toxic to a game community. It's also horrible PR--who wants to introduce their friends to a game populated by navel-gazing people that will rip apart any slight statement looking for tiny "gotcha" errors?

All of these are my opinion, but every "Rules Interaction" or "Look at this loophole I found" post hardens me in them.

qube

2018-11-27, 01:24 AM

I'm getting a bit tired of repeated the same thing over and over and over and over to you. Read my previous responses, they answer the reasoning behind my thoughts on concentration. You're misrepresenting my point of view and I don't appreciate it.What am I misrepresenting on your point?

When you say

And I don't agree with this, my interpretation of RAW is that you can't concentrate on spells while unable to cast them unless you're given the ability to specifically do so. A Druid is given the ability to do so while Wild Shape, not while also Raging.

Is your point not that if something says you can't cast spells, but if doesn't say you can keep concentrating on spells, that you can't keep concentrating on spells?

You can say I should reread what you said, but no where have you adress the issues that creates. Like Tenser's Transformation. Something that
makes you unable to cast spells
doesn't mention you can keep concentrating on spells
yet inherently requires that you can.

So if you honestly don't know what else to say - could you adress that? Where does RAW provide you with the criteria that lets you decide
"Oh, here you can concentrate on spells while unable to cast spells"
and
"Oh, here you can't concentrate on spells while unable to cast spells"

It depends on the temperature of the water, and if i'm close to any water at all. :D

Jokes aside, discussing the tone and meaning is important. There is a possibility of what the OP points out. However, i feel it should be sold as the POSSIBILITY. Which is not what happens in the OP or in your post. What RAW means is what is important here, and as PhoenixPhyre noted, RAW in this edition is also a step of interpretation.

If it strikes at odd, it is possible that it IS odd. If you have reasons to point to as to why it is odd, then it's reasonable to take it as odd.
Quite true, but would you agree that the following statement strikes as odd?

if you can swim, you can't and you drown

... it's even more odd in natural language then logics, because in natural language, there's usually an inerent assumption that if the hypothesis is wrong, the opposite of the conclusion happens.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-27, 04:37 AM

“No, it doesn’t” isn’t an argument.

And neither is "it logically follows" without an explanation.
Unless you think it is based on some a priori knowledge, at that point both are arguments.

If the antecedent is false, an implication is always true.

And? Yeah, "you are able to cast spells or you are a banana". Still, there's no connection between your banananess and your rage-o-meter. It doesn't logically follow.

UNLESS you meant that "you are a banana" follows your ability to cast spells...
...
...
...

Quite true, but would you agree that the following statement strikes as odd?

if you can swim, you can't and you drown

... it's even more odd in natural language then logics, because in natural language, there's usually an inerent assumption that if the hypothesis is wrong, the opposite of the conclusion happens.

Because in natural language you are used to use causal statements, not only conditional ones. That's why the "while raging" is usually read as "it's the rage that causes x and y, pay attention if you are able to cast spells at all!" and the whole argument disappears, making any other interpretations "odd". Mixing conditional statements and causal ones can be a mess.

Your example strikes as odd for another reason, too: there is no explicit reason as the "why". When you read the phrase, you have 2 reactions: "what?" and "why?". "What?" is passed over as you analyze the phrase critically, and the "why?" is still amiss. It leaves a reason out, and while possible, it doesn't loook convincing.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-27, 07:07 AM

To the banana guy.
The role say nothing when you are able to cast spells.

It is:

If A

Then

B

Not:

If A

Then

B

If not A

Then

C

And neither is "it logically follows" without an explanation.
Unless you think it is based on some a priori knowledge, at that point both are arguments.

And? Yeah, "you are able to cast spells or you are a banana". Still, there's no connection between your banananess and your rage-o-meter. It doesn't logically follow.

UNLESS you meant that "you are a banana" follows your ability to cast spells...
...
...
...

Because in natural language you are used to use causal statements, not only conditional ones. That's why the "while raging" is usually read as "it's the rage that causes x and y, pay attention if you are able to cast spells at all!" and the whole argument disappears, making any other interpretations "odd". Mixing conditional statements and causal ones can be a mess.

Your example strikes as odd for another reason, too: there is no explicit reason as the "why". When you read the phrase, you have 2 reactions: "what?" and "why?". "What?" is passed over as you analyze the phrase critically, and the "why?" is still amiss. It leaves a reason out, and while possible, it doesn't loook convincing.
I have to say that I only saw people use "if" as a conditional(maybe because I grow by mathematicians and programmers).

I can not think on a single causal use for it and even if, I knew any causal use for it, I will never think that anyone will use it in a text for roles.

My problem it that I don't think roles are a causal thing.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-27, 07:58 AM

I have to say that I only saw people use "if" as a conditional(maybe because I grow by mathematicians and programmers).

I can't believe that your mother never said something along the lines of "If you behave, i'll give you a candy". While better represented with "since, then", In english language, you know that behaviour is the cause of the candy. You KNOW that there's an implicit "else, not", in the context of the phrase. You KNOW that it's the fact of you behaving or not that makes so that you'll receive a candy or not, along with a thousand other things that are simply assumed to go in a certain way: You are both going to be alive to give and receive the candy, for once. Or that the phrase is only valid for a specific amount of time.

It's just this simple: not being in a formal environment should not be treated as being in a formal environment.

I will never think that anyone will use it in a text for roles.

For rules that are written, explicitly, in natural language? Yes, you should not only think about it, you should EXPECT it. And critically think it over as a serious possibility. Again, the rules are not a formal logic writing and should not be read that way.

Willie the Duck

2018-11-27, 08:47 AM

Again, the rules are not a formal logic writing and should not be read that way.

Let's make that an even more un-contentious statement and get rid of the 'should.' Simply put, the rules of 5e are not intended as an exercise in formal logic writing, and the gaming community as a whole will not be lauding/praising people for playing little 'look what happens when I read the rules as formal logic!' games, as happened at other times and with other editions.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-27, 09:14 AM

I can't believe that your mother never said something along the lines of "If you behave, i'll give you a candy". While better represented with "since, then", In english language, you know that behaviour is the cause of the candy. You KNOW that there's an implicit "else, not", in the context of the phrase. You KNOW that it's the fact of you behaving or not that makes so that you'll receive a candy or not, along with a thousand other things that are simply assumed to go in a certain way: You are both going to be alive to give and receive the candy, for once. Or that the phrase is only valid for a specific amount of time.

It's just this simple: not being in a formal environment should not be treated as being in a formal environment.

For rules that are written, explicitly, in natural language? Yes, you should not only think about it, you should EXPECT it. And critically think it over as a serious possibility. Again, the rules are not a formal logic writing and should not be read that way.

Maybe I didn't understand you but I can see a clear condition in your candy example.

If I behave I am will get candy.
If I won't behave I will not know what will happen.

Btw, my parents never gave ua conditions for stuff like this, they gave us rewards and punishments base on what we did.

Personally, I expect the roles to only have one meaning, to be understandble and to be logical. After all when I need to check something in the roles I want it to be easy and fast, I don't want to delay my players when I choose an answer for them.
Logical roles(my opinion) are also easier to change for my game when I see the need to change them.

MThurston

2018-11-27, 09:57 AM

SMH. 5 pages!

First part of the rule. You can not cast spells while you are raged. This means any spells. Spells from rings, spells from wands, spells from weapons, any spells.

Now that we have that clear let's move on. If you can't cast spells why would the second part be mentioned?

Second part, you can not concentrate on spells.

Pretty clear to me.

Any spell cast before rage can not be concentrated on when you rage.

There is no need for the second part unless they wanted spells you are concentrating on to stop.

It is the only logical conclusion.

Anything else is hopeful word play.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-27, 10:20 AM

Maybe I didn't understand you but I can see a clear condition in your candy example.

If I behave I am will get candy.
If I won't behave I will not know what will happen.

Btw, my parents never gave ua conditions for stuff like this, they gave us rewards and punishments base on what we did.

I've been mixing up terms: yes it is a conditional sentence in english. It is not necessarily correctly translated with a single material conditional. In a conversation, it can, behind the shadow of doubt, carry a causal meaning. Let me rephrase.

In a conversation, you'll get the meaning behind the phrase due to a plethora of unsaids and happenings that can go back in time for all your life. A simple "finish your homework" could mean different things depending on the mood of the conversation, and that and other factors will help convey the intention behind it. There might be an implicit "or else", for example, and that implicit can be perfectly clear to the listener. Such a situation cannot be accounted with the simple analysis of the phrase as is. A simple formal logic 1:1 CANNOT cover for this situation and doesn't bother to read into anything but the phrase itself.

This is also true for comunication in written form, albeit to a different, variable degree.

And also true when there are spelling errors or logical implications that are not explicitly stated.

You, not doing what you are supposed to do, know that there might something bad happening. But the connection "if do not do,then bad thing" is there, implicit. It is a cause, possibly the ONLY cause, to what will happen, due to situations that are out of scope of what the words can convey or that you are able to imagine.

And even without an explanation, you will know that, if you did something bad and worthy of reprimand, you will connect the reprimand to the bad thing you did.

Even if that something doesn't happen, there will be causes, known or unknown, for that to not have happened, that would add to the logical analysis of the WHOLE situation, but to which you have no access.

There is a causal relationship in a phrase like the one of the mother (causal conditional, prehaps) that is not easily translated in formal logic. But formal logic is NOT the only logic, not the one that, as other said, is out to catch these meanings or cover the possibilities, nor is a simple A -> B the correct translation in all cases.

Personally, I expect the roles to only have one meaning, to be understandble and to be logical. After all when I need to check something in the roles I want it to be easy and fast, I don't want to delay my players when I choose an answer for them.
Logical roles(my opinion) are also easier to change for my game when I see the need to change them.

(Why do you keep writing "roles"? It's rules we are writing about, right? :D)

Point is: not accounting that a natural language doesn't translate directly in formal logic is an error in and of itself. Applying formal logic to a non formal environment doesn't mesh well if you are not more than VERY capable and thorough. There are many logic branches out there, too, that can help into accounting for some problmes that are apparent when the two thigns are mixed without reason, such as vacous truths. It is expected from you to read it as a natural language, with all the contradictions and problems that can come up - including misundertstandings.

I also expect life to be always peaceful and to have rules to cover every possible situation. That's an utopic wish, however, and expecting that is foolishness.
Edit: This makes me i fool. But one that realizes that reality is not that simple and tries to approach things in different ways, trying to find something that makes sense more than something that doesn't, trying to not forget that other possibilities are there, no matter how absurd they look.

MaxWilson

2018-11-27, 10:32 AM

Quite true, but would you agree that the following statement strikes as odd?

if you can swim, you can't and you drown

... it's even more odd in natural language then logics, because in natural language, there's usually an inerent assumption that if the hypothesis is wrong, the opposite of the conclusion happens.

Try "even if you can swim, you can't swim or hold your breath while sleeping." Not odd at all to say in natural English, except for being trite. Anyone who reads that and thinks, "therefore I can hold my breath while sleeping if I don't know how to swim" is wrong.

Furthermore, even if arguendo the rule were written explicitly in formal logic, as "(you can cast spells immediately before raging, ignoring action economy costs and spell slot costs) entails (you can't cast spells or concentrate while raging)," DMs exist for a reason, and one of their functions is to tell you what happens even in situations not explicitly spelled out in the rules. In the swimming case that means that if you sleep underwater, you drown, even if you can't swim, because the DM is not an idiot and knows that sleeping people can't hold their breath underwater. In the case of raging, you have to persuade the DM that not being able to cast spells due being in wildshape makes it easier to concentrate while raging. Good luck with that.

Let's make that an even more un-contentious statement and get rid of the 'should.' Simply put, the rules of 5e are not intended as an exercise in formal logic writing, and the gaming community as a whole will not be lauding/praising people for playing little 'look what happens when I read the rules as formal logic!' games, as happened at other times and with other editions.

But munchkin rules lawyering is the only way I can beat Waldorf and save Greyhawk!

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-27, 10:57 AM

Just think--if formal logic always applied, we wouldn't need fuzzy logic. But we do. Because the world is fuzzy. Most meaningful statements cannot be phrased as predicates of formal logic. Because humans aren't logical, nor are our meanings derived from logic at their core. Humans use logic as a tool, but human thought isn't logical. Logic is one way in which we formalize the analysis of certain subsets of thought, not an expression of all possible thoughts. Logic is something we use later, not something we start with.

Illogical =/= wrong. Logical =/= right.

Let P = "I like peaches"
Let Q = "Apples are heavier than atoms"
P =/> Q, yet Q is true.

qube

2018-11-27, 11:32 AM

Hey, I just thought of another one

If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

... so ... can I chose the later (I mean, that is an "or", right?); that way I still can cast spells :smallamused:

Let P = "I like peaches"
Let Q = "Apples are heavier than atoms"
P =/> Q, yet Q is true.

I very much disagree. P => Q. Because Q is true.

If roses are red, then violets are blue
If roses aren't red, then violets are blue

Are both true statements (presuming the famous rhime is true) (dispite their being no immediate causation or correlation between the two)

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-27, 11:50 AM

Hey, I just thought of another one

If you are able to cast spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging.

... so ... can I chose the later (I mean, that is an "or", right?); that way I still can cast spells :smallamused:

No. You could rephrase that for formal purposes as "you can neither cast them nor concentrate on them while raging". Because natural english makes no formal distinction between inclusive or and exclusive or. Essentially, that "conditional" prefatory clause is really surplussage there to make the sentence flow better and let you know that if (like many barbarians) you can't normally cast spells, you can ignore this sentence.

I very much disagree. P => Q. Because Q is true.

If roses are red, then violets are blue
If roses aren't red, then violets are blue

Are both true statements (presuming the famous rhime is true) (dispite their being no immediate causation or correlation between the two)

P => Q if and only if there is a connection between P and Q such that -Q => -P. Since the truth value of Q is independent of the truth value of P, P =/> Q (nor does Q imply P). Invalid logic (If roses are red, then violets are blue) is indeterminate--the truth value of the second statement could be anything.

But the point is that humans, at their core, don't think logically. We're not computers doing boolean logic operations. It's rather more complex than that. Logical languages (such as formal computer languages) are hard for humans to work with (compared to natural languages) precisely because they lack the ambiguity and "flex" of natural languages. It's the very presence of surplus words, redundant constructions, alternate equivalent phrasings, and yes, ambiguity, that make natural languages so useful for conveying ideas. Every conlang that has tried to eliminate these runs aground on the sheer complexity of the ideas being conveyed, things that natural language does effortlessly. Every attempt to do Natural Language Parsing has run into issues--even the best are basically doing statistical matching against training sets and are incapable of getting real meaning out of it.

If human languages were "logical", NLP would be trivial. It's one of the hardest problems (along with machine vision) in applied linguistics today.

qube

2018-11-27, 12:57 PM

No. You could rephrase that for formal purposes as "you can neither cast them nor concentrate on them while raging". Because natural english makes no formal distinction between inclusive or and exclusive or. Essentially, that "conditional" prefatory clause is really surplussage there to make the sentence flow better and let you know that if (like many barbarians) you can't normally cast spells, you can ignore this sentence.err ... nothing in this quote supports your "no" statement. In fact, indeed, because natural english language doesn't make the distinction, both are technically possible.

P => Q if and only if there is a connection between P and Q such that -Q => -P. Since the truth value of Q is independent of the truth value of P, P =/> Q (nor does Q imply P). Invalid logic (If roses are red, then violets are blue) is indeterminate--the truth value of the second statement could be anything.
Except, that conncetion exists

If roses are red, then violets are blue
If roses aren't red, then violets are blue

If violets aren't blue, then roses aren't red
If violets aren't blue, then roses are red

What I did was just a simple example of the truth table.

1 => 1
1 =/> 0
0 => 1
0 => 0

Look at the quote:

Let P = "I like peaches"
Let Q = "Apples are heavier than atoms"
P =/> Q, yet Q is true.
You can't both claim P=/>Q and Q is true. Becuase if Q is true, the truth table clearly tells us, it doesn't matter what P is. Both 1 => 1 and 0 => 1.

There is no P possible where P =/> 1

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-27, 01:06 PM

err ... nothing in this quote supports your "no" statement. In fact, indeed, because natural english language doesn't make the distinction, both are technically possible.

Except, that conncetion exists

If roses are red, then violets are blue
If roses aren't red, then violets are blue

If violets aren't blue, then roses aren't red
If violets aren't blue, then roses are red

What I did was just a simple example of the truth table.

1 => 1
1 =/> 0
0 => 1
0 => 0

Look at the quote:

Let P = "I like peaches"
Let Q = "Apples are heavier than atoms"
P =/> Q, yet Q is true.
You can't both claim P=/>Q and Q is true. Becuase if Q is true, the truth table clearly tells us, it doesn't matter what P is. Both 1 => 1 and 0 => 1.

There is no P possible where P =/> 1

That's not what implies means in formal logic. If P and Q are independent, then P does not imply Q, because knowing P tells you nothing about Q. And if P implies Q, then knowing P is sufficient to know Q. In your statement, knowing P tells nothing.

Willie the Duck

2018-11-27, 01:27 PM

But munchkin rules lawyering is the only way I can beat Waldorf and save Greyhawk!

At this point, the thread is delving more into 'Statler and Waldorf' territory.

qube

2018-11-27, 01:34 PM

That's not what implies means in formal logic.euh ... please do explain what you mean with formal logic, because what you claim, I sure as heck saw differently at uni.

In fact, to quote just the random top link (https://mtnmath.com/whatth/node20.html) google gave,

Others such as implication represented by -> can be constructed from these three. A -> B is the same as A ^ B v -A . A implies B requires that either both A and B are true or A is false.

if you're confused (probbably by lack of parenthesis), "A ^ B v -A" means "(A and B) or not A".
And I hope you're not confused by "is the same as"

MaxWilson

2018-11-27, 01:38 PM

That's not what implies means in formal logic. If P and Q are independent, then P does not imply Q, because knowing P tells you nothing about Q. And if P implies Q, then knowing P is sufficient to know Q. In your statement, knowing P tells nothing.

euh ... please do explain what you mean with formal logic, because what you claim, I sure as heck saw differently at uni.

In fact, to quote just the random top link (https://mtnmath.com/whatth/node20.html) google gave,

Others such as implication represented by -> can be constructed from these three. A -> B is the same as A ^ B v -A . A implies B requires that either both A and B are true or A is false.

if you're confused (probbably by lack of parenthesis), "A ^ B v -A" means "(A and B) or not A".
And I hope you're not confused by "is the same as"

On this point, qube is correct, PhoenixPhyre is incorrect.

In formal logic, A -> B is synonymous with !A OR B.

Snowbluff

2018-11-27, 01:58 PM

Any "purely RAW" table which actually buys that tortuous argument deserves what it gets.

Well, the argument isn't at all tortuous. It follows perfectly.

And I don't see how this would be a bad thing. Barbarians multiclass horribly due to the spellcasting restrictions, half of the classes are pretty crummy options. Even with this, you'd have to cast the spell, NOT go into rage because it would end on your turn, then next round start raging with the concentration up.

I mean, I've played a moon druid barb and I can tell you that without also concentrating on a spell, just setting up a transformation and rage correctly is a pain at the start of each fight that might only last 3-5 rounds.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-27, 01:59 PM

euh ... please do explain what you mean with formal logic, because what you claim, I sure as heck saw differently at uni.

In fact, to quote just the random top link (https://mtnmath.com/whatth/node20.html) google gave,

Others such as implication represented by -> can be constructed from these three. A -> B is the same as A ^ B v -A . A implies B requires that either both A and B are true or A is false.

if you're confused (probbably by lack of parenthesis), "A ^ B v -A" means "(A and B) or not A".
And I hope you're not confused by "is the same as"

What you're calling "implication" is more properly "material implication" and has known paradoxes (like the one we're discussing). Yes, it's easier to use than strict implicature, but tells us very little unless we do lots of extra work.

A more solid, but less practical for mathematical manipulation, definition is something like "A -> B if and only if B is a logical consequence of A" and requires more than truth-table analysis. Note that I used =>, not -> -- there's a difference. => is Logical Consequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence), while -> is Material implication.

And what I meant to say is that Q does not follow from P (ie I was talking about logical consequences, not material implication). Because, as I said, material implication is just about useless for discussing anything other than toy problems. Logical consequence is the relevant term, because that's the only one that gives us any information.

And note that informal english uses => to render "if/then" rather than formal logic's use of ->.

But I admit, I was sloppy with exact wording. In part because I rebel at doing formal logic for games.

Cynthaer

2018-11-27, 05:53 PM

Dimers

2018-11-27, 07:03 PM

If you know only spells with a somatic component and you have something in each hand, then you can't cast spells. :smallbiggrin: So, cast a spell and concentrate on it, pick up your sword, rage, maintain concentration. No wildshape needed for this.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-28, 01:24 AM

I am but I didn't want a twxt wall.

First, "Do your homework" is a command, the punishment for disobedience should be known in the system it being given(as a former soldier I know command very good).

I mafe a mistake with the "o" and "u", oops.

Maybe because I always try to apply logic I have hard time to understand people and explaining stuff to them(one of the only problems I see in my autism).

I think I understand your point.
I am still going to give the barb at my table to rage and keep concentration as I see it as a nice and fun thing for the player to do.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-28, 04:55 AM

First, "Do your homework" is a command, the punishment for disobedience should be known in the system it being given(as a former soldier I know command very good).

No it isn't. It's a phrase that can be used to convey a command - like the use i suggested. Since we are communicating, you took the POSSIBLE "or else" as a describer of THE, not the suggested POSSIBLE, context.

In this situation it is an error, but it was an example of what a human usually does when in a conversation: it sorts of "jumps to conclusions"... or better, it projects experiences and its own context into something that isn't necessarily there.

In fact, "finish your homework" is a perfectly serviceable sentence to be used as part of a list of things NOT to do, for example.

Sorry for the wall of text. I felt it was kind of necessary for clarity.

Maybe because I always try to apply logic I have hard time to understand people and explaining stuff to them(one of the only problems I see in my autism).

Just remember that "logic" isn't a big unified field. There are different types of logic, systems, and so on, that can work under different rules. As such, MaxWilson statement isn't necessarily always true.

I am still going to give the barb at my table to rage and keep concentration as I see it as a nice and fun thing for the player to do.

Which is the important point, and given the explanation i agree 100%. I might not do the same, but that's another topic :D

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-28, 07:26 AM

No it isn't. It's a phrase that can be used to convey a command - like the use i suggested. Since we are communicating, you took the POSSIBLE "or else" as a describer of THE, not the suggested POSSIBLE, context.

In this situation it is an error, but it was an example of what a human usually does when in a conversation: it sorts of "jumps to conclusions"... or better, it projects experiences and its own context into something that isn't necessarily there.

In fact, "finish your homework" is a perfectly serviceable sentence to be used as part of a list of things NOT to do, for example.

Sorry for the wall of text. I felt it was kind of necessary for clarity.

Just remember that "logic" isn't a big unified field. There are different types of logic, systems, and so on, that can work under different rules. As such, MaxWilson statement isn't necessarily always true.

Which is the important point, and given the explanation i agree 100%. I might not do the same, but that's another topic :D

As I see it, we both gave good argumentation.

I don't think any of us got the upper hand in this discussion so I will leave it.

It was nice and fun to have this discussion, thank you :)

Aimeryan

2018-11-28, 08:26 AM

One thing I haven't see pointed out yet:

Some people who buy the OP's argument have said that the rule as written is ambiguous, confusing, or poorly-worded, in that it fails to accurately convey "you cannot concentrate on anything while raging".

Given that the PHB has been out for over four years and this is the first time (we know of) that anybody has come to a different conclusion, I'd say that's just demonstrably false.

Once you see it... (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/590518-the-trouble-is-that-once-you-see-it-you-can-t)

Sometimes things aren't obvious until pointed out, then its difficult to not see it.

Amdy_vill

2018-11-28, 08:50 AM

I don't follow your logic at all. You can't cast spells while raging and you can't concentrate on spells while raging. So if you cast a concentration spell before raging, the spell will end as soon as you rage because you stop concentrating.

The first part? The first part is just there because barbarians don't gain any spellcasting. So if you get it from a racial or from multiclassing, rage is not compatible.

his logic is

step one: do something with spells that stops your form casting spells

step two: rage

step three: because step one prevents your from casting more spells the clause of ragging does not trigger.

step four: rage and have con spells up.

I would rule this as an exploit of the rules and wording and probably not allow it.

McSkrag

2018-11-28, 11:47 AM

Frankly I am amazed and impressed this thread is still going. When I first saw it I thought it would get a couple of comments at the most.

Also, RAW and RAI you cannot cast or concentrate on spells while raging.

MaxWilson

2018-11-28, 11:51 AM

Just remember that "logic" isn't a big unified field. There are different types of logic, systems, and so on, that can work under different rules. As such, MaxWilson statement isn't necessarily always true.

Out of curiosity, which statement are you referring to? That "A AND !A" is never true in formal logic?

I'm aware that there are metalogics and alternate logics that you can construct. I'm not aware of any uses for them, and they aren't what I was referring to when I said "formal logic."

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-28, 01:25 PM

his logic is

step one: do something with spells that stops your form casting spells

step two: rage

step three: because step one prevents your from casting more spells the clause of ragging does not trigger.

step four: rage and have con spells up.

I would rule this as an exploit of the rules and wording and probably not allow it.

No, that is only one option.

The other one is making the barb consecrat on a spell when he have no way of casting.
Like making him lose attunement to a spell storing ring or making him cast from a one time event(If I remember right the luck blade can give you limited wish casting, just make him use it for something like hex as the last spell, the blade will lose his ability to grent wishs).

After the one time casting he will have no ability to cast spells and the rule say nothing if the condition isn't met so the barb is able to keep the consideration up when raging.

It is very specific like the tenser transformation one, it is probably not the intension but someone can read it that way(I read it that way from the first time I saw the role).

Snowbluff

2018-11-28, 01:27 PM

No, that is only one option.

The other one is making the barb consecrat on a spell when he have no way of casting.
Like making him lose attunement to a spell storing ring or making him cast from a one time event(If I remember right the luck blade can give you limited wish casting, just make him use it for something like hex as the last spell, the blade will lose his ability to grent wishs).

After the one time casting he will have no ability to cast spells and the rule say nothing if the condition isn't met so the barb is able to keep the consideration up when raging.

It is very specific like the tenser transformation one, it is probably not the intension but someone can read it that way(I read it that way from the first time I saw the role).

If you don't agree with the OP reading these are good ways around the limitation.
A Tenser's barb might be an interesting build.

noob

2018-11-28, 01:53 PM

You're misunderstanding formal logic.

You've claimed that "A -> B" implies that "!A -> C". This is wrong.

For all A, for all B, and for all C, !A -> (A -> C) is true, but isn't the claim you made. Perhaps it's what you meant to claim but if so you need to improve your communication skills.

The formal logic statement, "if you cannot cast spells, then if you can cast spells, " is logically true but also irrelevant because the PHB text is not written in formal logic. You can tell because the PHB doesn't define its terms, basically ever, and has built-in ambiguities about the temporal scope of "can cast" which lead immediately to contradictions if interpreted the way you are trying to interpret them. ("If A AND B then !A." "If you can cast spells, then if you are raging you can't cast spells." Clearly the text is not meant to be read that way.)

A && !A is [I]never true in formal logic.
A && !A can be true in classic logic it just means that you have false is true which means that everything is both false and true which is not a problem at all.
But it have nothing to do with the discussion since we do not have contradictions.

Here we have that when you are able to cast spells raging makes you unable to cast spells and to concentrate.
this sentence does not says what rage does to your ability to concentrate on spells when you are unable to cast spells since this loss of ability happens only if you are able to cast spells and rage.

here A is being able to cast spells.
B is "Raging makes you lose the ability to cast spells or concentrate on spells"
We have if A then B.
Which means that if non A then either B or not B or any percentage of B in Fuzzy logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic).
implications works that way in all the logic systems I know(linear, intuitive logic(which is classical logic except there is not the rule that not not A is A),classical logic, Fuzzy logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic). and a bunch of others)
So that means that the rule does not defines whenever rage keeps prevents you from concentrating on spells if you are unable to cast spells which is a rule mistake if the intent was to have rage always prevent concentration.
So we conclude that if the intent was to always prevent concentrating or casting spells during rages the rule was badly written since it could be made shorter and easier to read if they only told B directly.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-28, 02:11 PM

Out of curiosity, which statement are you referring to? That "A AND !A" is never true in formal logic?

"A -> B is synonymous of !A OR B in formal logic". Which, if i read it correctly, you meant as "one is logically equivalent for the other".
I honestly do not even think i read the post where you wrote what you wrote you wrote in your quote above :D

I do understand that it is not what you meant with "formal logic", i guessed you meant classical.
But classical is not the only logic.

Edit: sorry, having fun with "wrote" :D

MaxWilson

2018-11-28, 02:26 PM

"A -> B is synonymous of !A OR B in formal logic". Which, if i read it correctly, you meant as "one is logically equivalent for the other".

Nitpick: I think you mean this: "In formal logic, A -> B is synonymous with !A OR B." And yes, it means that each entails the other. One if never true without the other being true for the same variable assignments.

Anyway, I repeat that if although there are alternate logics where implication has a different definition, I'm not aware of any uses for any such logic nor was I referring to those logics.

I do understand that it is not what you meant with "formal logic", i guessed you meant classical.
But classical is not the only logic.

Yes, I know. But I didn't say it was the only logic. I said it was true for (classical, propositional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus)) formal logic, and therefore establishes that the PHB is not written in that kind of logic. If calling that "formal logic" was confusing to you in context, I regret the choice of words, but unless you think the PHB is written in one of those alternate logics I hardly think it's relevant.

The PHB is written in a weird mix of game jargon and natural language, not in propositional logic statements.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 02:42 PM

5e uses simple, down to earth, good old fashion American English. Trying to twist it via sablantics means that you're already wrong.

Exactly, casting fireball at someone is an attack.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 03:01 PM

Exactly, casting fireball at someone is an attack.

Casting a spell at someone is casting a spell, making an attack is making an attack. Making an attack requires an attack roll. Fireball doesn't make an attack roll.

I understand that you're being facetious but you're not proving a point, it doesn't take a long hard look to figure out what an attack is defined as.

Snowbluff

2018-11-28, 03:02 PM

Exactly, casting fireball at someone is an attack.

Is this a 3e joke?
Because in 3e Fireball wasn't an attack.
Until it was.
Then sneak attack has to be changed with how it worked with spells because it affected attacks and would proc on fireball hypothetically.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 03:50 PM

Is this a 3e joke?

it's a 5e joke?
i was poking fun at Shackleford's assertion that 5e is plain english...
when the concept of whether something is an attack has been hotly discussion ad nauseum on this forum.

Casting a spell at someone is casting a spell, making an attack is making an attack. Making an attack requires an attack roll. Fireball doesn't make an attack roll.

I understand that you're being facetious but you're not proving a point, it doesn't take a long hard look to figure out what an attack is defined as.

But "attack" in 5e is NOT "attack" in "simple, down to earth, good old fashion American English"
That is literally my point.

moreover, even your definition of "attack" is incorrect incomplete. grapple is an attack that doesn't make an attack roll.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 03:59 PM

it's a 5e joke?
i was poking fun at Shackleford's assertion that 5e is plain english...
when the concept of whether something is an attack has been hotly discussion ad nauseum on this forum.

But "attack" in 5e is NOT "attack" in "simple, down to earth, good old fashion American English"
That is literally my point.

moreover, even your definition of "attack" is incorrect. grapple is an attack that doesn't make an attack roll.

However it gives specific exception to the rules that you need to make an attack roll to be making an attack, as well as still being call a melee attack.

I still fail to see your point on how this doesn't read plainly.

MaxWilson

2018-11-28, 04:08 PM

moreover, even your definition of "attack" is incorrect incomplete. grapple is an attack that doesn't make an attack roll.

Even this statement is controversial. As far as I can tell from the PHB, grapple is clearly not an attack because it has no attack roll.

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

Grapple costs an attack but does not constitute an attack. (This is plausible from an in-world viewpoint: Sanctuary might prevent you from stabbing Father Ryan, because that's sacrilege, but it's plausible that you wouldn't be deterred from grabbing his arm and hauling him in for questioning about the bloody knife in his hand.)

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 04:16 PM

Grapple costs an attack but does not constitute an attack. (This is plausible from an in-world viewpoint: Sanctuary might prevent you from stabbing Father Ryan, because that's sacrilege, but it's plausible that you wouldn't be deterred from grabbing his arm and hauling him in for questioning about the bloody knife in his hand.)
It's called a "special melee attack" also saying that if you have the extra attack feature this attack replaces one of them.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 04:20 PM

However it gives specific exception to the rules that you need to make an attack roll to be making an attack, as well as still being call a melee attack.
I still fail to see your point on how this doesn't read plainly.

english:
If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends.

5e:
If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends.

silly designers stated they intended sanctuary to break if you attacked someone...
but the 5e rules aren't english...

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 04:33 PM

english:
If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends.

5e:
If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends.

silly designers stated they intended sanctuary to break if you attacked someone...
but the 5e rules aren't english...

You're really going to have to explain to me how that doesn't read exactly as it functions.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 04:42 PM

You're really going to have to explain to me how that doesn't read exactly as it functions.

I do not believe you are arguing in good faith.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 04:56 PM

I do not believe you are arguing in good faith.
I can't argue at all if I legitimately don't understand the point you're trying to make by telling me that the designers intent to not allow sanctuary to remain active when the warded creature attacks is somehow not conveyed by the text quite literally saying that the spell ends if they attack. How is it silly that their intent is properly conveyed with the rules as written?

Please explain what you're trying to tell me.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 05:36 PM

I can't argue at all if I legitimately don't understand the point you're trying to make by telling me that the designers intent to not allow sanctuary to remain active when the warded creature attacks is somehow not conveyed by the text quite literally saying that the spell ends if they attack. How is it silly that their intent is properly conveyed with the rules as written?

Please explain what you're trying to tell me.

The designers were clear that the intent was if the warded creature make any attempts to harm an enemy.
However, a sanctuaried creature could still cause lots of harm and damage to an enemy. (Spirit Guardians)

Therefore, their intent is NOT properly conveyed with the rules as written.

If a player said, i will ready my action to attack if the wizard attacks. and the evil wizard casts fireball, does his readied action trigger?
you say nope cuz he didn't attack, does the player say, "come on, you know what i meant?"

MaxWilson

2018-11-28, 05:41 PM

The designers were clear that the intent was if the warded creature make any attempts to harm an enemy.
However, a sanctuaried creature could still cause lots of harm and damage to an enemy. (Spirit Guardians)

Therefore, their intent is NOT properly conveyed with the rules as written.

If a player said, i will ready my action to attack if the wizard attacks. and the evil wizard casts fireball, does his readied action trigger?
you say nope cuz he didn't attack, does the player say, "come on, you know what i meant?"

Another example: a charmed enemy is not forbidden from Lightning Bolting you to death, notwithstanding that "A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects." That's goofy.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 05:51 PM

Another example: a charmed enemy is not forbidden from Lightning Bolting you to death, notwithstanding that "A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects." That's goofy.

Yes, that is a much less tortured example.

Sanctuary JC explicitly said RAW was not RAI

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 06:08 PM

Yes, that is a much less tortured example.

Sanctuary JC explicitly said RAW was not RAI

Sanctuary has been errata'd to fit with the intent, so the RAW does match now.

I do understand your point of view now. You're arguing the difference between hostile action being described as an "attack" for simplicity against the more rigid definition given by the books. I agree there are cases where there's a disconnect. Your example of readying your action against a wizards attack could definitely be twisted into a strict interpretation like you mentioned.

The example MaxWilson gave isn't one of them however, as the Charmed Condition states that you can't attack the charmer or target that charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects. The area of effect for Lightning Bolt would target them, therefore you can't cast it in that direction.

Here's the reference in PHB:

If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.

EDIT: There's also the section called Adjudicating Area of Effects in the DMG

Many spells and other game features create areas of effect, such as the cone and the sphere. If you’re not using miniatures or another visual aid, it can sometimes be difficult to determine who’s in an area of effect and who isn’t. The easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call.

If you would like more guidance, consider using the Targets in Areas of Effect table. To use the table, imagine which combatants are near one another, and let the table guide you in determining the number of those combatants that are caught in an area of effect. Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine the amount to add or subtract.

For example, if a wizard directs burning hands (a 15-foot cone) at a nearby group of orcs, you could use the table and say that two orcs are targeted (15 ÷ 10 = 1.5, rounded up to 2). Similarly, a sorcerer could launch a lightning bolt (100-foot line) at some ogres and hobgoblins, and you could use the table to say four of the monsters are targeted (100 ÷ 30 = 3.33, rounded up to 4).

This approach aims at simplicity instead of spatial precision. If you prefer more tactical nuance, consider using miniatures.

Conveniently, Lightning Bolt is explicitly mentioned.

ThePolarBear

2018-11-28, 06:23 PM

Nitpick: I think you mean this: "In formal logic, A -> B is synonymous with !A OR B."
And yes, it means that each entails the other. One if never true without the other being true for the same variable assignments.

I meant "logically equivalent". Which is what you are describing.

Anyway, I repeat that if although there are alternate logics where implication has a different definition, I'm not aware of any uses for any such logic nor was I referring to those logics.

So what? You declared someone correct, someone incorrect based on wording that is not a fact FOR ALL formal logic systems, implying something in what you wrote. If one used A formal logic, the other B formal logic, then both would be correct. Context was important, and it was missing everywhere,you read an implicit that both parts were discussing in the same field.

There are types of logic that reject laws of classical logic that are still formal. And are used, even if you do not know them.
Your statement is what was important for my point, same as the one made by BloodSnake'sCha : " This is what i assumed is being used" is not really what is used; for you, in the discussion between users.

You have had an idea, made a statement. That statement doesn't hold true for every possible case. It was a problem of context, or premise if you prefer. Which is again the same problem with "logic to the phb".

I said it was true for (classical, propositional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus)) formal logic

That's not what you wrote. In propositional logic it's true. In "formal" logic - which isn't really A logic but... a group, let's say - is not for all possible candidates. So, for "formal" logic, what you wrote is not necessarily true. The difference in "meant" and "written", due to the nature of language, was part of the point i was making when i named you, as a further example of NOT using "formal logic" for discussion, furthermore when different logics have potentially fundamental differences.

If calling that "formal logic" was confusing to you in context, I regret the choice of words, but unless you think the PHB is written in one of those alternate logics I hardly think it's relevant.

That's why i didn't quote you in saying "that's wroooong!!!!". I was not going about how the phb is written in some ways in the particular post AND i understood "classical logic". It's the fact that i did understand that that allowed me to make such comment: i understand that it's true, SOMETIMES, so i need to understand that it is in fact true sometimes.

I was explaining, exactly like you, that applying incorrect assumptions leads to invalid results. It's not as easy as saying "A->B". It's an example i put forward to strenghten a point for a person with which i was having an exchange of ideas.

The PHB is not that relevant as an argument for our discussion and my discussion with BloodSnake'sCha. It was the starting point, or spark, for showing my idea. Tto show how the concept, normally applied, could ALSO apply to the phb. But again, in context, the fact that you wrote something "incorrectly" by leaving to interpretation was relevant for the point i was making at the moment.

You are no more "right or wrong" than anyone else here discussing "formal logic". Your comment was coincise, i just happened to take that as an example.

The PHB is written in a weird mix of game jargon and natural language, not in propositional logic statements.

I agree. It possibly follows its own logic. Fallacious, inconsistent and whatever :D

MaxWilson

2018-11-28, 06:40 PM

I meant "logically equivalent". Which is what you are describing.

Yes, but I corrected the quote text. You misquoted me slightly.

The PHB is not that relevant as an argument for our discussion and my discussion with BloodSnake'sCha. It was the starting point, or spark, for showing my idea. Tto show how the concept, normally applied, could ALSO apply to the phb. But again, in context, the fact that you wrote something "incorrectly" by leaving to interpretation was relevant for the point i was making at the moment.

It's a long thread, but I don't think my post that you quoted was in any way a response your discussion with BloodSnake'sCha. I guess your next remark maybe explains why you mentioned it anyway:

You are no more "right or wrong" than anyone else here discussing "formal logic". Your comment was coincise, i just happened to take that as an example.

Okay then. Thanks for clearing that up.

Snowbluff

2018-11-28, 07:42 PM

it's a 5e joke?
i was poking fun at Shackleford's assertion that 5e is plain english...
when the concept of whether something is an attack has been hotly discussion ad nauseum on this forum.

That's great. Sounds like they made the same mistake as in 3e. XD

Even this statement is controversial. As far as I can tell from the PHB, grapple is clearly not an attack because it has no attack roll.
Specific beats general.

When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a Special melee Attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them. It's an attack but this isn't indicative of anything else being an attack if not stated as such.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 08:29 PM

Sanctuary has been errata'd to fit with the intent, so the RAW does match now.
not quite, because there are still loopholes.

but that wasn't the point.
the designers say that 5e was simple plain english, but revert to clinical definitions and the application of college logic classes to adjudicate a rule.

if dnd was plain english this thread would not contain pages of "A -> B is synonymous of !A OR B in formal logic"

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 08:50 PM

not quite, because there are still loopholes.

but that wasn't the point.
the designers say that 5e was simple plain english, but revert to clinical definitions and the application of college logic classes to adjudicate a rule.

if dnd was plain english this thread would not contain pages of "A -> B is synonymous of !A OR B in formal logic"

The problem in this case is that people are trying to apply a specific formula of logic to it that this proposed interaction can exist. 5E's rules are mostly consistent with themselves unless you really start to nitpick the incredibly fine details.

I'm also curious to what other loopholes with Sanctuary exist after the errata, I was under the impression that Spirit Guardian's interaction was the problem offender seeing as the errata was made with that in mind.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-28, 09:01 PM

The problem in this case is that people are trying to apply a specific formula of logic to it that this proposed interaction can exist. 5E's rules are mostly consistent with themselves unless you really start to nitpick the incredibly fine details.

I'm also curious to what other loopholes with Sanctuary exist after the errata, I was under the impression that Spirit Guardian's interaction was the problem offender seeing as the errata was made with that in mind.

a favorite at my tables is, grapple then cast sanctuary.
you can drag people into danger..

new wording says you cause damage.

if i drop you from a height, am i causing falling damage?
if i drag you through spike growth, am i causing the damage or the spell?
if I hold you in a fire pit, am i causing the damage or the fire?

can i cast spike growth while sanctuaried, if no one is in the zone?
if so, does an enemy willfully walking into it break sanctuary?

what about non damaging aura like fear?

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 09:23 PM

a favorite at my tables is, grapple then cast sanctuary.
you can drag people into danger..

new wording says you cause damage.

if i drop you from a height, am i causing falling damage?
if i drag you through spike growth, am i causing the damage or the spell?
if I hold you in a fire pit, am i causing the damage or the fire?

can i cast spike growth while sanctuaried, if no one is in the zone?
if so, does an enemy willfully walking into it break sanctuary?

what about non damaging aura like fear?
As far as the Spike Growth scenario is concerned, RAW would be decided by whether it was your own spike growth you're dragging them through or an allies. I see your point though, it's hard to say whether environmental hazards can be attributed to the warded creature.

Draz0000

2018-11-28, 10:29 PM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-28, 10:42 PM

"If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

My question is why wasn't this phrase written as "You can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging." if that is what the intent is? Which I think it is. I wonder if this way of writing is a stylistic choice they made and can be found other places in the book.

It's because the Barbarian class doesn't have any natural access to spellcasting when they get the rage feature but can later gain the ability to do so depending on a variety of circumstance. The other effects with similar wording (Tenser's Transformation and Wild Shape) that limit your ability to cast spells are only usable if you are already able to cast spells.

Willie the Duck

2018-11-28, 10:47 PM

"If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them or concentrate on them while raging."

My question is why wasn't this phrase written as "You can't cast or concentrate on spells while raging." if that is what the intent is? Which I think it is. I wonder if this way of writing is a stylistic choice they made and can be found other places in the book.

Undoubtedly because of the confusion that would cause for new players, wondering where the spellcasting feature for their (non-totem) barbarian was and how they had missed it. That is the stylistic choice that I believe they were making. This edition, like the Mentzer edition way back when, was made for the 10 year olds picking up the book and trying to run it without help, not people on internet forums looking for loopholes.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-29, 12:21 AM

Undoubtedly because of the confusion that would cause for new players, wondering where the spellcasting feature for their (non-totem) barbarian was and how they had missed it. That is the stylistic choice that I believe they were making. This edition, like the Mentzer edition way back when, was made for the 10 year olds picking up the book and trying to run it without help, not people on internet forums looking for loopholes.

I think the new player will find the spell casting barbarian if he will look at barbarian class at the PHB.

If he will read it all he will see that totem barbarian geting it and realize that it is there for the totem ones.

Or he can ask in a forum.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-11-29, 07:39 AM

I think the new player will find the spell casting barbarian if he will look at barbarian class at the PHB.

If he will read it all he will see that totem barbarian geting it and realize that it is there for the totem ones.

Or he can ask in a forum.

I will repeat again, base class features are not written assuming that you take a particular subclass. There's also no guarantee that the reader will even look at the Totem Warrior subclass since it's not a subclass listed in the Basic Rules, which many tables (new ones most of all) may be using instead of a PHB.

Willie the Duck

2018-11-29, 08:58 AM

Or he can ask in a forum.

Jesus wept, how is it not getting through your skull that people who visit forums... or would care in the least what we have to say... are not the target audience*? By the very act of being here, you, me, everyone else here is part of the "oh, yeah, and these guys also buy the books" sub-market that are in fact too-into the game to be part of the primary buying audience. We are not the people that the designers do (or should) cater to.
*For the way the book is written, not for the book itself.

The books are perfectly playable by you or I, provided we aren't deliberately looking for trouble in the parsing of the words*, and at the same time -- unlike the last two attempts (and grand failures) of building games with inarguable, unimpeachable rulesets-- the game is once again as accessible to new gamers as the RC or 80's redbox/90's blackbox versions, leading to this massive resurgence in the game (and gaming as a whole, as a hallow effect).
*And, in actuality, nothing in the specific example brought up by this thread is particularly game breaking, given that we're finding maybe 1-2 ways the game changes depending on your reading, and only for very rare situations.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-29, 09:00 AM

Undoubtedly because of the confusion that would cause for new players, wondering where the spellcasting feature for their (non-totem) barbarian was and how they had missed it. That is the stylistic choice that I believe they were making. This edition, like the Mentzer edition way back when, was made for the 10 year olds picking up the book and trying to run it without help, not people on internet forums looking for loopholes.

This isn't exactly fair. WotC encourages the rules lawyer approach.
Mearls rules using plain english. He is chastized by JC publicly.
JC rules using loopholes, cryptic yoda-speak, and literal RAW, even if it goes against intended, reasonable, and fun. He is official.

if DnD wanted plain english, they would write the book that way, and the official sage advice would reflect that.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-29, 09:40 AM

This isn't exactly fair. WotC encourages the rules lawyer approach.
Mearls rules using plain english. He is chastized by JC publicly.
JC rules using loopholes, cryptic yoda-speak, and literal RAW, even if it goes against intended, reasonable, and fun. He is official.

if DnD wanted plain english, they would write the book that way, and the official sage advice would reflect that.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen him use cryptic yoda-speak or loophole hunting. I've seen him

1. state exactly what's printed.
2. state the straightforward reading of that text.
3. state how he would rule it
4. state how the developers intended for it to be read
5. stating that his readings (as well as the text itself) are merely guidance and should be considered as such, not as binding rules.

1 and 2 are merely restating the text. That is, stating "RAW" to as much precision as he understands it. Which (he being fallible) is flawed at times. 3 & 4 are persuasive evidence (ie used to persuade, not dictate) about RAI, and 5 is the real heart of the matter. He's giving guidance on how the developers understand a particular piece of text. He is NOT giving the binding rules of the game, pronouncing on the one-true-way-to-play, or any other such thing.

And 99% of SA is just literal book cites. As in "page YYY says <begin quote>". Mainly because people are too lazy to read for themselves.

Joe the Rat

2018-11-29, 09:56 AM

No, that would be:

If you are able to cast Spells, you can't cast them, or concentrate on them while raging.

The lack of a comma links both parts to the end condition. Just like someone saying:

"I like sci-fi movies and books"

Is telling me they like sci-fi movies and sci-fi books, not sci-fi movies and books of all kind, which would be "I like sci-fi movies, and books".

An if conditional is down to earth, good old fashioned English. You're not twisting anything by pointing out how they work.
Not sure if this has come up, but it's clear that the solution is to wildshape into a panda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves).

MaxWilson

2018-11-29, 10:10 AM

This isn't exactly fair. WotC encourages the rules lawyer approach.
Mearls rules using plain english. He is chastized by JC publicly.
JC rules using loopholes, cryptic yoda-speak, and literal RAW, even if it goes against intended, reasonable, and fun. He is official.

If by "official" you mean "the designated corporate representative," then yes. He's the guy on the WotC organizational chart who has to deal with Twitter so that his bosses can ignore it.

Mearls is IMHO more credible though and has more useful insights. Mearls isn't much of a powergamer, doesn't usually think about weird rule synergies, and sometimes gets rules wrong, but that is itself an insight into 5E's design (because it's an insight into the designers).

In short, Jeremy's "official" status has very little to do with the game itself and more to do with corporate public relations. If you don't work for WotC or a game bookstore, Mearls matters more than Crawford, and if you want to run a good game, guys like Justin Alexander and Courtney Campbell matter more than Mearls and Crawford put together.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-29, 10:15 AM

If by "official" you mean "the designated corporate representative," then yes. He's the guy on the WotC organizational chart who has to deal with Twitter so that his bosses can ignore it.

Mearls is IMHO more credible though and has more useful insights. Mearls isn't much of a powergamer, doesn't usually think about weird rule synergies, and sometimes gets rules wrong, but that is itself an insight into 5E's design (because it's an insight into the designers).

In short, Jeremy's "official" status has very little to do with the game itself and more to do with corporate public relations. If you don't work for WotC or a game bookstore, Mearls matters more than Crawford, and if you want to run a good game, guys like Justin Alexander and Courtney Campbell matter more than Mearls and Crawford put together.

nicely put.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen him use cryptic yoda-speak.

There are plenty, but i am not going to search his twitter feed to prove it.

He is NOT giving the binding rules of the game

I understand your stance on this statement, I disagree with it at it's core.

Willie the Duck

2018-11-29, 10:30 AM

This isn't exactly fair. WotC encourages the rules lawyer approach.
...
if DnD wanted plain english, they would write the book that way, and the official sage advice would reflect that.

I concede, WotC has, to a greater or lesser degree (PhoenixPhyre being pretty accurate about what they have done in his numbered points, regardless of whether one agrees on the officiality they speak with), talked out of both sides of their mouth on this thing. I do think that, overall, the rulings over rules ethos and de-emphasis of creating a single, inarguable ruleset has come across fairly adamantly, even if they occasionally break the spirit of that ethos with Sage Advice. Regardless, if that's what you use to evidence that they want the rules lawyer approach, than the resolution is simple: submit this scenario to SA and ask them what they think is correct.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-29, 10:38 AM

Jesus wept, how is it not getting through your skull that people who visit forums... or would care in the least what we have to say... are not the target audience*? By the very act of being here, you, me, everyone else here is part of the "oh, yeah, and these guys also buy the books" sub-market that are in fact too-into the game to be part of the primary buying audience. We are not the people that the designers do (or should) cater to.
*For the way the book is written, not for the book itself.

The books are perfectly playable by you or I, provided we aren't deliberately looking for trouble in the parsing of the words*, and at the same time -- unlike the last two attempts (and grand failures) of building games with inarguable, unimpeachable rulesets-- the game is once again as accessible to new gamers as the RC or 80's redbox/90's blackbox versions, leading to this massive resurgence in the game (and gaming as a whole, as a hallow effect).
*And, in actuality, nothing in the specific example brought up by this thread is particularly game breaking, given that we're finding maybe 1-2 ways the game changes depending on your reading, and only for very rare situations.

In this world where Google is everywhere(I saw villages in threed world countries use smartphones(but no TV or computers)) people use Google.

When you ask Google about D&D he sand you to a lot of forums.

When I was a new player I ask Google a lot of stuff because the friend who made me join RPGs wasn't always available and he was the DM so I couldn't ask the DM.

In the first weeks I was reading from the forums Google sand me to.
Only a 2 years later I joined the forums.

Aimeryan

2018-11-29, 11:23 AM

Sanctuary has been errata'd to fit with the intent, so the RAW does match now.

Still works for Invisibility, in which Spiritual Guardians would not break it due to not being an 'attack' (yet in plain English would absolutely be so).

Snowbluff

2018-11-29, 11:26 AM

Still works for Invisibility, in which Spiritual Guardians would not break it due to not being an 'attack' (yet in plain English would absolutely be so).

I wouldn't count a passive effect as an attack either way. For example if you have fire shield and invisibility up, I wouldn't remove invis when someone hits you and triggers fire shields damage.

Aimeryan

2018-11-29, 11:36 AM

I wouldn't count a passive effect as an attack either way. For example if you have fire shield and invisibility up, I wouldn't remove invis when someone hits you and triggers fire shields damage.

The attack is that you can actively and purposely hurt people with Spiritual Guardians (by excluding and then moving into range). Fire Shield is a bad analogue as it is indeed purely passive in its damage capability.

NaughtyTiger

2018-11-29, 11:47 AM

The attack is that you can actively and purposely hurt people with Spiritual Guardians (by excluding and then moving into range). Fire Shield is a bad analogue as it is indeed purely passive in its damage capability.

Fire Shield is a great analog, because your own fire shield will pop sanctuary but not invisibility.

Is there a reason to think this is intended behavior?

Aimeryan

2018-11-29, 12:11 PM

Fire Shield is a great analog, because your own fire shield will pop sanctuary but not invisibility.

Is there a reason to think this is intended behavior?

Oh, in the reverse direction, yes that is true! Fire Shield acting in a purely defensive manner will break your Sanctuary because 5e's 'attack' was not plain English and therefore was not covering things it should - which made them change it and then cover things it shouldn't. Well pointed out!

Willie the Duck

2018-11-29, 12:46 PM

In this world where Google is everywhere(I saw villages in threed world countries use smartphones(but no TV or computers)) people use Google.

When you ask Google about D&D he sand you to a lot of forums.

When I was a new player I ask Google a lot of stuff because the friend who made me join RPGs wasn't always available and he was the DM so I couldn't ask the DM.

In the first weeks I was reading from the forums Google sand me to.
Only a 2 years later I joined the forums.

I really don't know how you think this addresses the point. The existence of google does not mean people use google to play D&D. Given the size of this board compared to the supposed number of people playing D&D, if this board is in fact one of the first boards to come up when discussing D&D, that's actually evidence towards most D&D players not being on forums. It certainly does not speak to how many people are going to be coming here to ask questions about rules issues, rather than 1) going to Sage Advice, or much more likely 2) the DM just reading the rule and deciding on an interpretation.

Regardless, I very well could be wrong. WotC closing their own forums seems like solid evidence on top of the persistent story that forums in general were declining in relevance (along with isolated evidence like Dragonsfoot's increasingly desperate donation drives or Shannon Appelcline buying TBP for tuppence and relying on a volunteer mod staff). But things could have turned around recently. I doubt we have enough solid evidence to truly support a position. Regardless, our opinions don't matter in this situation. It isn't up to a vote. I am describing what I see, not dictating a universal truth. WotC has certainly telegraphed (outside the caveat I made to NaughtyTiger) that they prefer a rulings-over-rules approach, and a less rigorous but more accessible language to their ruleset. And the influx of new and returning gamers seems like it supports that narrative. I contend we can't know for sure what their internal corporate mindset is. We certainly can see inside the windows of the factory better than we could back in the TSR days, when it was completely black-box (excepting what they wanted known, and published in Dragon).

Cynthaer

2018-11-29, 04:57 PM

I don't know that anyone's stated it outright, but I see some people implying that if the 5e PHB isn't written entirely in "plain English" (which it isn't), then applying formal logic to it is appropriate.

For the record, that's not true. The 5e PHB is written in a combination of (A) plain English and (B) technical jargon, and neither of these supports formal logic rules.

To understand the former, the tool you need is linguistics, and to understand the latter, the tool you need is the game's own technical definitions.

Even looking at a game like Magic: the Gathering, which is written entirely in technical jargon*, you still wouldn't use formal logic to understand it. Logic won't tell you in what order to resolve triggered effects or whether a creature with "regenerate" actually "dies".
(Albeit jargon that's intended to read as intuitively as possible.)

My point is, it doesn't matter how much of the PHB isn't written in "plain English", because none of it is written as formal logic propositions.

BloodSnake'sCha

2018-11-30, 01:48 AM

I really don't know how you think this addresses the point. The existence of google does not mean people use google to play D&D. Given the size of this board compared to the supposed number of people playing D&D, if this board is in fact one of the first boards to come up when discussing D&D, that's actually evidence towards most D&D players not being on forums. It certainly does not speak to how many people are going to be coming here to ask questions about rules issues, rather than 1) going to Sage Advice, or much more likely 2) the DM just reading the rule and deciding on an interpretation.

Regardless, I very well could be wrong. WotC closing their own forums seems like solid evidence on top of the persistent story that forums in general were declining in relevance (along with isolated evidence like Dragonsfoot's increasingly desperate donation drives or Shannon Appelcline buying TBP for tuppence and relying on a volunteer mod staff). But things could have turned around recently. I doubt we have enough solid evidence to truly support a position. Regardless, our opinions don't matter in this situation. It isn't up to a vote. I am describing what I see, not dictating a universal truth. WotC has certainly telegraphed (outside the caveat I made to NaughtyTiger) that they prefer a rulings-over-rules approach, and a less rigorous but more accessible language to their ruleset. And the influx of new and returning gamers seems like it supports that narrative. I contend we can't know for sure what their internal corporate mindset is. We certainly can see inside the windows of the factory better than we could back in the TSR days, when it was completely black-box (excepting what they wanted known, and published in Dragon).

Well, the ask in forums part of my comment above wasn't the core of my argument, it was just a side comment.
It was the equivalent of writing that he can ask people, were ever he will find them(DM, friends, Google, other players...).

It may have been the whatup group people usually(I can see it in my country) make for the games.

noob

2018-11-30, 10:09 AM

Cynthaer

2018-11-30, 11:39 AM

nothing of this discussion stops the rule from being badly written: they could have made a non ambiguous rule by either going all the Barb/wizard synergy way and explaining that you were allowed to concentrate on spells that prevents spellcasting or they could have went all the way of maximum simplicity and told "a barbarian can not cast spells or concentrate on spells during a rage"

That's fine, but it's still not badly written. If you're not looking to play word games with it, it's clear that the "if" clause is simply there to reassure players that whose barbarians can't cast spells anyway that they haven't missed something.

This is bog standard in technical writing, and I do it all the time when explaining new software features to salespeople. I would never just write/say "the edit button will be disabled while the process runs" if only some users have the edit button in the first place, because then a whole bunch of users will get hung up on trying to figure out what that means.

Instead, I would always write "if you have access to the edit function, the edit button will be disabled while the process runs" or something similar. And that is exactly what is going on here in the PHB, for exactly the same reason.

You are confusing "simplicity" and "conciseness", under the mistaken belief that adding context to a logically complete statement can only open new interpretations.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-30, 12:12 PM

That's fine, but it's still not badly written. If you're not looking to play word games with it, it's clear that the "if" clause is simply there to reassure players that whose barbarians can't cast spells anyway that they haven't missed something.

This is bog standard in technical writing, and I do it all the time when explaining new software features to salespeople. I would never just write/say "the edit button will be disabled while the process runs" if only some users have the edit button in the first place, because then a whole bunch of users will get hung up on trying to figure out what that means.

Instead, I would always write "if you have access to the edit function, the edit button will be disabled while the process runs" or something similar. And that is exactly what is going on here in the PHB, for exactly the same reason.

You are confusing "simplicity" and "conciseness", under the mistaken belief that adding context to a logically complete statement can only open new interpretations.

I totally agree with this. Natural, non-confusing language is replete with redundant information. In fact, that redundancy actually aids understanding as it gives multiple channels to convey the same information. In contrast, one of the hardest things about most "word problems" in math or science is that we pack as much information into as few words as possible. Thus, missing a single bit of information messes you up. Not so with normal natural language. It's loosely bound--miss a thread here or there and it all hangs together.

Another thing 5e does that natural language does is puts more information right in front of you instead of making you look it up in a glossary. Not everything, but most things.

As an example of this, see Darkvision. Instead of just using a defined term in a glossary (like 3e), 5e writes out all the parameters right there in front of you each time. That way, when reading a racial description you can just read it instead of having to flip between parts of the book. Same with ASI text--every class has them individually.

Xetheral

2018-11-30, 12:32 PM

I totally agree with this. Natural, non-confusing language is replete with redundant information. In fact, that redundancy actually aids understanding as it gives multiple channels to convey the same information. In contrast, one of the hardest things about most "word problems" in math or science is that we pack as much information into as few words as possible. Thus, missing a single bit of information messes you up. Not so with normal natural language. It's loosely bound--miss a thread here or there and it all hangs together.

Another thing 5e does that natural language does is puts more information right in front of you instead of making you look it up in a glossary. Not everything, but most things.

As an example of this, see Darkvision. Instead of just using a defined term in a glossary (like 3e), 5e writes out all the parameters right there in front of you each time. That way, when reading a racial description you can just read it instead of having to flip between parts of the book. Same with ASI text--every class has them individually.

Although with Darkvision, they didn't write it the same way each time, resulting in the need to issue errata in the sixth printing to make them all work the same way. That's a downside to not using cross-references--you have to be quite careful. :)

Of course, when using cross-references, although the chance of inconsistency is reduced, the magnitude of the error if you use a mistaken cross-reference is potentially much greater.

MaxWilson

2018-11-30, 12:35 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-11-30, 12:41 PM

Although with Darkvision, they didn't write it the same way each time, resulting in the need to issue errata in the sixth printing to make them all work the same way. That's a downside to not using cross-references--you have to be quite careful. :)

Of course, when using cross-references, although the chance of inconsistency is reduced, the magnitude of the error if you use a mistaken cross-reference is potentially much greater.

Right. Tradeoffs in everything. But I'd say that one instance (or set of instances) where it works differently (that is inconsistency) is much better than having a non-functional feature entirely.

I'm not actually bothered by inconsistency as long as each thing in the same category (player races, monsters, spells, etc) work the same or there are obvious reasons for differences. The hobgoblin of little minds and all that...

Another benefit of 5e's design is that reference hierarchies are much flatter and more deliberate. Most features don't interact with each other directly--those that do say they do. There's basically only 2 layers--the General rules found in the non-character chapters and the specifics found in spells and class/race descriptions. No more having to dig through multiple layers of "is this more specific than that? What's the primary source for Y? Does it apply to this thing printed in book Z?". It drastically cuts down on the rule interpretation overhead. You rarely have to go outside the feature for context; even then, you rarely have to reach beyond a single layer in the general rules (what is an attack? What does it mean to do something at advantage?).

qube

2018-11-30, 05:48 PM

This is bog standard in technical writing, and I do it all the time when explaining new software features to salespeople. I would never just write/say "the edit button will be disabled while the process runs" if only some users have the edit button in the first place, because then a whole bunch of users will get hung up on trying to figure out what that means.

Instead, I would always write "if you have access to the edit function, the edit button will be disabled while the process runs" or something similar. And that is exactly what is going on here in the PHB, for exactly the same reason.Hmmm ... but is your analogy relevant?

'cause the OP's point is that you put yourself in a position where you are concentrating, yet aren't able to cast spells. So, in analogy, by spec, the user can put himself in a no-function, yet enabled button, state.

So ... why can you have a program that doesn't have edit functionality, but an edit button that still works? (by spec, not by bug). With such odd behavior for a button, I seriously doubt it would be a good idea to add irrelevant conditions; as - since we're talking about natural language - one could easily assume that

if you have access to the edit function, the button will be disabled while the process runs

implies if you don't have the edit fuction, the button will remain in his previous state.

Cynthaer

2018-11-30, 06:04 PM

Hmmm ... but is your analogy relevant?

'cause the OP's point is that you put yourself in a position where you are concentrating, yet aren't able to cast spells. So, in analogy, by spec, the user can put himself in a no-function, yet enabled button, state.

So ... why can you have a program that doesn't have edit functionality, but an edit button that still works? (by spec, not by bug). With such odd behavior for a button, I seriously doubt it would be a good idea to add irrelevant conditions; as - since we're talking about natural language - one could easily assume that

if you have access to the edit function, the button will be disabled while the process runs

implies if you don't have the edit fuction, the button will remain in his previous state.

You're coming at this from the wrong direction.

Your approach starts with actively choosing to read the sentence as a formal logic proposition, and from there infers strange ways that people could read it. Picking apart the difference between the button's actual behavior and the OP's interpretation of the rage/concentration interaction is circular logic, because it assumes the OP's interpretation is correct.

My point is that in real life, people read these constructions in the same way: "If [Condition A that may or may not apply to you specifically], then [thing that is universally true but only matters to people who meet Condition A]".

That's just a provably true thing about how people use language.

Aimeryan

2018-12-01, 10:46 AM

Instead, I would always write "if you have access to the edit function, the edit button will be disabled while the process runs" or something similar. And that is exactly what is going on here in the PHB, for exactly the same reason.

Unfortunately, the analogy does not match:

Your example is as so: If x, then not x while y.

The rage rule for spells is: If x, then not x and not z while y.

The difference is quite important here; in your example, it is fairly obvious that if 'If x' is false then x is already not x and thus is a truism and therefore unnecessary to state that it is also the case while y. In the rage rule for spells, the state of z is not obvious if 'If x' is false, so leaving out the case for 'If x' being false has importance.

My point is, it doesn't matter how much of the PHB isn't written in "plain English", because none of it is written as formal logic propositions.

First, let me state my disapproval for the term 'plain English' being used here - it is anything but plain to require social context to understand the meaning of the sentence rather than the literal interpretation. Nevertheless, I understand the term's use here and will acquiesce to using it.

I disagree with your statement here; the importance of there being rules that outright conflict with 'plain English' interpretations is that it establishes a precedent for other rules to also do the same, which leads to a fundamental point of the opening post that it could be ruled as such.

Note, I feel it needs be stated once more that few people, if any, are saying that they would rule it by literal interpretation. Furthermore, few people, if any, are saying that it can only be ruled by literal interpretation; I think everyone agrees that a 'plain English' interpretation exists here, alongside the more literal interpretation.

The opening post, I surmise, is 'tongue-in-cheek'. The follow up discussion that the rule could have been written so as to avoid a literal interpretation leading to the conflict with the intended meaning is the more serious part of this thread.