17
\$\begingroup\$

When you become an object, do you keep the ability to concentrate on spells?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Someone_Evil The only reason I don't think that's relevant is because the logic seems to focus on being turned into a creature (à la Polymorph, not True Polymorph). In the other answer which mention a Jeremy Crawford ruling, it very much sounds like he was only considering the possibility of turning into another creature. \$\endgroup\$ – Axoren Oct 20 at 20:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Oh, sorry. Was jumping from this question: A question about true polymorphing yourself, but this is maybe more relevant: Can you True Polymorph yourself into an object? \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Oct 20 at 20:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Someone_Evil In this case, it isn't a question about True Polymorph's duration because I'm not the caster; I'm the victim of it. What they've said about concentrating being associated with memory seems dubious, but is more related. Just wasn't sure if there was an official ruling one way or the other. \$\endgroup\$ – Axoren Oct 20 at 20:30
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Is this how sentient items come to be? \$\endgroup\$ – ldog Oct 21 at 22:05
25
\$\begingroup\$

You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated.

There is nothing that explicitly says you are incapacitated while you are an object, but it is quite clear that you are.

The incapacitated condition says:

An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions.

Notably, a creature that is only incapacitated can still use its movement. A penny is... just a penny - that cannot take actions or reactions. The Dungeon Master's Guide defines an object as:

a discrete, inanimate item.

You are incapacitated, nay, worse than incapacitated - inanimate. And the rules for concentration say:

You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated

To be clear, this is not RAW in the most strict sense, hence my opening statement: there is nothing that explicitly says you are incapacitated while you are an object.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I like this answer a lot better than the memory argument that's been shown a couple of times already. A very clear argument for being incapacitated by definition (even though it applies to creatures not objects, it is de facto incapacitation) plus the ruling that incapacitation drops concentration. \$\endgroup\$ – Axoren Oct 20 at 20:35
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ This might be sophistry, but this feels like the all humans are socrates problem... the incapacitated condition does not state that any creature that can't take actions or reactions is incapacitated, and so I'm not convinced that RAW inanimate implies incapacitated based on what you cited. \$\endgroup\$ – Foon Oct 21 at 15:04
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I added a note at the end. Yes, to claim this is a strictly RAW ruling is affirming the consequent. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Oct 21 at 15:08
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I would vote that this is actually pretty RAW as well because an object, being inanimate is incapacitated in all sense of the terminology. \$\endgroup\$ – KilrathiSly Oct 27 at 18:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.