On Concentration - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Erevan Nov 06, 2014 18:20:14	I’m seeking input on two concentration-related questions. Some of this has been discussed with no resolution (that I could find), so I'm hoping to get a general consensus. Class Features Several class features use concentration, but the language leaves some small wiggle room: Fey Patron Warlock’s Dark Delirium: “…is charmed or frightened by you for 1 minute or until your concentration is broken (as if you are concentrating on a spell)." Draconic Sorcerer’s Draconic Presence “For 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were casting a concentration spell)…” I take that to mean that, when actively using these features, a character’s concentration is being consumed, and no concentration spell could be cast without interrupting the feature. The authors could have made it more explicit, along the lines of "while you concentrate" or "casting a spell that requires concentration interrupts the effect." Since they didn't, I'm unsure. What’s your take? Invocations Some Eldritch Invocations make *concentration*-based spells at-will and non-slot-consuming: Ascendant (Levitation), Mask of Many Faces (Alter Self), etc. How are you as DMs interpreting this? If a warlock that’s levitating casts Mask of Many Faces, would you rule that it cancels the prior spell/invocation? Thanks to any who offer opinions!
#2 Ansbach Nov 06, 2014 18:28:56	My take is that it is pretty straightforward - you can't concentrate on two things at once, so when you concentrate on something new you lose concentration on the old and it ends. I'm not sure that I see any alternative or ambiguity, myself. That and concentration might end when you take damage, via the RAW.
#3 bawylie Nov 06, 2014 19:45:36	Agreed
#4 Tiarn Nov 06, 2014 21:52:03	They don't need to make it more explicit, it's clearly stated under the rules for spells that have a duration of "concentration". Page 203 gives you these rules and what "breaks" your concentration and ends the spell. One of those things is "Casting another spell that requires concentration." Both features you have mentioned work "as if you were casting a concentration spell/concentrating on a spell" (they work out to be the same thing) ergo, they will both break if you cast another concentration spell (or use an ability that works as if you had). The invocations that are at-will and require concentration work the same way. If you cast/use a second one, the first one immediately ends. (Though, at-will, you could just use it again if you chose, thus ending the second ability). Also, I think this is the wrong forum for this, you'd likely get a quicker response in the Rules Questions one for things like this, just an FYI.
#5 Aliraza142 Nov 14, 2014 23:47:16	Do you mean with magical healing? Healing by Hit Dice? is this per short long rest or per long rest? At present, there are too many possible changes. Also, what about martial healing, like fighters Second wind?
#6 Sorxores Nov 17, 2014 10:33:30	Erevan wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Erevan

Nov 06, 2014 18:20:14

I’m seeking input on two concentration-related questions. Some of this has been discussed with no resolution (that I could find), so I'm hoping to get a general consensus.

Class Features

Several class features use concentration, but the language leaves some small wiggle room:

Fey Patron Warlock’s Dark Delirium:

“…is charmed or frightened by you for 1 minute or until your concentration is broken (as if you are concentrating on a spell)."

Draconic Sorcerer’s Draconic Presence

“For 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were casting a concentration spell)…”

I take that to mean that, when actively using these features, a character’s concentration is being consumed, and no concentration spell could be cast without interrupting the feature. The authors could have made it more explicit, along the lines of "while you concentrate" or "casting a spell that requires concentration interrupts the effect." Since they didn't, I'm unsure. What’s your take?

Invocations

Some Eldritch Invocations make concentration-based spells at-will and non-slot-consuming: Ascendant (Levitation), Mask of Many Faces (Alter Self), etc. How are you as DMs interpreting this? If a warlock that’s levitating casts Mask of Many Faces, would you rule that it cancels the prior spell/invocation?

Thanks to any who offer opinions!

Ansbach

Nov 06, 2014 18:28:56

My take is that it is pretty straightforward - you can't concentrate on two things at once, so when you concentrate on something new you lose concentration on the old and it ends. I'm not sure that I see any alternative or ambiguity, myself. That and concentration might end when you take damage, via the RAW.

bawylie

Nov 06, 2014 19:45:36

Agreed

Tiarn

Nov 06, 2014 21:52:03

They don't need to make it more explicit, it's clearly stated under the rules for spells that have a duration of "concentration". Page 203 gives you these rules and what "breaks" your concentration and ends the spell. One of those things is "Casting another spell that requires concentration."

Both features you have mentioned work "as if you were casting a concentration spell/concentrating on a spell" (they work out to be the same thing) ergo, they will both break if you cast another concentration spell (or use an ability that works as if you had).

The invocations that are at-will and require concentration work the same way. If you cast/use a second one, the first one immediately ends. (Though, at-will, you could just use it again if you chose, thus ending the second ability).

Also, I think this is the wrong forum for this, you'd likely get a quicker response in the Rules Questions one for things like this, just an FYI.

Aliraza142

Nov 14, 2014 23:47:16

Do you mean with magical healing? Healing by Hit Dice? is this per short long rest or per long rest? At present, there are too many possible changes. Also, what about martial healing, like fighters Second wind?

Sorxores

Nov 17, 2014 10:33:30

Erevan wrote: