Because nothing is written in the spell's description about it stacking, or whether it cannot, it should be the same answer for AL or for regular play. That being said, because it doesn't say anything about stacking, I would say that there is no reason why it couldn't stack. Moonbeam is basically a stream of light. If you take to lamps and aim them in the same spot, the areas of light that overlap will be brighter than the areas that are only lit up by only one lamp, therefore two equal lights shining on the same spot stack in real life, so I don't see why magical lights wouldn't be capable of the same thing.
There's a section on casting a spell in the PHB that answers this question.
"Combining Magical Effects The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap. Or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap. For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice."
There's a section on casting a spell in the PHB that answers this question.
"Combining Magical Effects The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap. Or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap. For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice."
Yeah that fits bless, but to say if one caster readies a fireball at a target when another caster uses fireball at the same target, would the target only take one of the fireball's damage? I would say it takes both, as is the case with moonbeam.
But Moonbeam, from two different casters, is just two sources of damage not a combined effect such as bless or aid.
Are you arguing that damage isn't an effect or that it's not the design intention for the rule to apply to damage effects. I can't find any support for either claim. The PHB rule doesn't carve out an exception for damage effects and there is no sage advice on the matter. The DMG errata has this to say,
"Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section: “Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the ‘Combining Magical Effects’ section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.”
But Moonbeam, from two different casters, is just two sources of damage not a combined effect such as bless or aid.
Are you arguing that damage isn't an effect or that it's not the design intention for the rule to apply to damage effects. I can't find any support for either claim. The PHB rule doesn't carve out an exception for damage effects and there is no sage advice on the matter. The DMG errata has this to say,
"Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section: “Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the ‘Combining Magical Effects’ section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.”
I guess I make a distinction between "effects" and "damage". Consider my earlier example, but use it with melf's acid arrow. If a target is shot with two of those spells, do they only suffer the damage once? That's where I make the distinction between "effects" like bless and the damage caused by spells. It doesn't make any sense to me that damage (specifically from spells, since that's what the thread is about) could not stack due to the ruling you provided about game "effects".
Yeah that fits bless, but to say if one caster readies a fireball at a target when another caster uses fireball at the same target, would the target only take one of the fireball's damage? I would say it takes both, as is the case with moonbeam.
Those situations aren't really analogous. Readied actions occur after the trigger. Also, even if you specified the correct trigger for your readied action, fireball is instantaneous. It's not possible to overlap two events that have no duration.
I guess I make a distinction between "effects" and "damage". Consider my earlier example, but use it with melf's acid arrow. If a target is shot with two of those spells, do they only suffer the damage once? That's where I make the distinction between "effects" like bless and the damage caused by spells. It doesn't make any sense to me that damage (specifically from spells, since that's what the thread is about) could not stack due to the ruling you provided about game "effects".
I would say that the instantaneous damage applies twice and the delayed damage once.
A lot of the rules don't make sense. It doesn't make sense for combat to occur in turns, but the rule is that way too make the game playable. Sometimes rules don't make sense but they help balance the game. I think that's the case here. Because this is in reference to AL, whether or not the rule makes sense doesn't matter as much as enforcement of RAW and fair adjudication of ambiguous rules (which I don't think this is).
Yeah that fits bless, but to say if one caster readies a fireball at a target when another caster uses fireball at the same target, would the target only take one of the fireball's damage? I would say it takes both, as is the case with moonbeam.
Those situations aren't really analogous. Readied actions occur after the trigger. Also, even if you specified the correct trigger for your readied action, fireball is instantaneous. It's not possible to overlap two events that have no duration.
Okay, then what about tied initiative where its ruled that the two casters both go on the order of 16, and lets say for this example that the DM rules on tied initiative both actions are taken at the same time. D&D is a system based upon DM decisions when rules get muddy. There is no reason to believe that "effects" and "damage" are mutually exclusive whenever they have specifically referenced damage for rules prior in the book. The fact that damage is not specifically mentioned in your ruling is what makes it not a good rule to follow for this question. That being said, there may be a rule that gets more to what the actual question is and should that rule not agree with what I'm saying, then that's all good and I will still concede to that rule, my main point was that the rule you brought up doesn't quite fit the situation of this question, because as I stated, I don't believe "effects" and "damage" are mutually exclusive.
Okay, then what about tied initiative where its ruled that the two casters both go on the order of 16, and lets say for this example that the DM rules on tied initiative both actions are taken at the same time. D&D is a system based upon DM decisions when rules get muddy. There is no reason to believe that "effects" and "damage" are mutually exclusive whenever they have specifically referenced damage for rules prior in the book. The fact that damage is not specifically mentioned in your ruling is what makes it not a good rule to follow for this question. That being said, there may be a rule that gets more to what the actual question is and should that rule not agree with what I'm saying, then that's all good and I will still concede to that rule, my main point was that the rule you brought up doesn't quite fit the situation of this question, because as I stated, I don't believe "effects" and "damage" are mutually exclusive.
There's already a well defined rule for tied initiatives (players decide who goes first among players or DM has them roll a d20). In AL, the DM does not have the power to house rule anything different.
I have never argued that effects and damage are exclusive; in fact, I've argued the opposite. I think in the Venn diagram of effects, damage sits entirely inside of effects. The DMG errata uses as its example an effect that does damage.
My logic is as follows:
If damage is an effect, it falls firmly in the rules quoted above.
I guess I make a distinction between "effects" and "damage". Consider my earlier example, but use it with melf's acid arrow. If a target is shot with two of those spells, do they only suffer the damage once? That's where I make the distinction between "effects" like bless and the damage caused by spells. It doesn't make any sense to me that damage (specifically from spells, since that's what the thread is about) could not stack due to the ruling you provided about game "effects".
I would say that the instantaneous damage applies twice and the delayed damage once.
A lot of the rules don't make sense. It doesn't make sense for combat to occur in turns, but the rule is that way too make the game playable. Sometimes rules don't make sense but they help balance the game. I think that's the case here. Because this is in reference to AL, whether or not the rule makes sense doesn't matter as much as enforcement of RAW and fair adjudication of ambiguous rules (which I don't think this is).
Yeah that fits bless, but to say if one caster readies a fireball at a target when another caster uses fireball at the same target, would the target only take one of the fireball's damage? I would say it takes both, as is the case with moonbeam.
Fireball's effects are instantaneous, and two creatures can't take a reaction at the exact same time. Even if two creatures readied an action with the same trigger, the DM is going to have to impose an order on them for the purpose of resolving their effects. For example, if the target is low on health, one of the fireballs will reduce him to 0 HP and the other one will force a death saving throw. Xanathar's Guide to Everything even has an optional rule for deciding who goes first in these situations. So this is a bad example because the spell's effects can't overlap.
I guess I make a distinction between "effects" and "damage".
Everything a spell does is part of its effects. From the Spellcasting rules:
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
What's more, the DMG has a similar rule that covers other non-spell game effects and it's clear this kind of "at a certain point in initiative order, you take X damage" effect is intended to fall under these rules.
Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section: Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.
Okay, then what about tied initiative where its ruled that the two casters both go on the order of 16, and lets say for this example that the DM rules on tied initiative both actions are taken at the same time.
The rules tell you if two creatures are tied in initiative, one goes first and the other goes second. There's little point in having a rules discussion if we're supposing the rules aren't going to be followed. If the DM chooses to do this, it's on them to handle whatever other rules break as a result.
D&D is a system based upon DM decisions when rules get muddy.
Absolutely. And the non-stacking rule for spells is definitely muddy in some situations. I'm sure there's some spell out there that would be really ambiguous to resolve. But I think the intent here is very clear; you can't gather a ton of low level spellcasters to create a hazardous area that deals massive amounts of damage on contact.
I am in a AL group and was wondering if the Moonbeam spell stack? Or I should say Can more then one moonbeam be used on a enemy?
Because nothing is written in the spell's description about it stacking, or whether it cannot, it should be the same answer for AL or for regular play. That being said, because it doesn't say anything about stacking, I would say that there is no reason why it couldn't stack. Moonbeam is basically a stream of light. If you take to lamps and aim them in the same spot, the areas of light that overlap will be brighter than the areas that are only lit up by only one lamp, therefore two equal lights shining on the same spot stack in real life, so I don't see why magical lights wouldn't be capable of the same thing.
Published Subclasses
Thank you.
Moonbeam is concentration- remember that.
There's a section on casting a spell in the PHB that answers this question.
"Combining Magical Effects
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap. Or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap. For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice."
But Moonbeam, from two different casters, is just two sources of damage not a combined effect such as bless or aid.
Yeah that fits bless, but to say if one caster readies a fireball at a target when another caster uses fireball at the same target, would the target only take one of the fireball's damage? I would say it takes both, as is the case with moonbeam.
Published Subclasses
Are you arguing that damage isn't an effect or that it's not the design intention for the rule to apply to damage effects. I can't find any support for either claim. The PHB rule doesn't carve out an exception for damage effects and there is no sage advice on the matter. The DMG errata has this to say,
"Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section: “Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the ‘Combining Magical Effects’ section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.”
I guess I make a distinction between "effects" and "damage". Consider my earlier example, but use it with melf's acid arrow. If a target is shot with two of those spells, do they only suffer the damage once? That's where I make the distinction between "effects" like bless and the damage caused by spells. It doesn't make any sense to me that damage (specifically from spells, since that's what the thread is about) could not stack due to the ruling you provided about game "effects".
Published Subclasses
Those situations aren't really analogous. Readied actions occur after the trigger. Also, even if you specified the correct trigger for your readied action, fireball is instantaneous. It's not possible to overlap two events that have no duration.
I would say that the instantaneous damage applies twice and the delayed damage once.
A lot of the rules don't make sense. It doesn't make sense for combat to occur in turns, but the rule is that way too make the game playable. Sometimes rules don't make sense but they help balance the game. I think that's the case here. Because this is in reference to AL, whether or not the rule makes sense doesn't matter as much as enforcement of RAW and fair adjudication of ambiguous rules (which I don't think this is).
Okay, then what about tied initiative where its ruled that the two casters both go on the order of 16, and lets say for this example that the DM rules on tied initiative both actions are taken at the same time. D&D is a system based upon DM decisions when rules get muddy. There is no reason to believe that "effects" and "damage" are mutually exclusive whenever they have specifically referenced damage for rules prior in the book. The fact that damage is not specifically mentioned in your ruling is what makes it not a good rule to follow for this question. That being said, there may be a rule that gets more to what the actual question is and should that rule not agree with what I'm saying, then that's all good and I will still concede to that rule, my main point was that the rule you brought up doesn't quite fit the situation of this question, because as I stated, I don't believe "effects" and "damage" are mutually exclusive.
Published Subclasses
There's already a well defined rule for tied initiatives (players decide who goes first among players or DM has them roll a d20). In AL, the DM does not have the power to house rule anything different.
I have never argued that effects and damage are exclusive; in fact, I've argued the opposite. I think in the Venn diagram of effects, damage sits entirely inside of effects. The DMG errata uses as its example an effect that does damage.
My logic is as follows:
P.S. In the interest of transparency, I was editing my last post when you quoted. I just wanted to point it out in case you want to respond.
Fireball's effects are instantaneous, and two creatures can't take a reaction at the exact same time. Even if two creatures readied an action with the same trigger, the DM is going to have to impose an order on them for the purpose of resolving their effects. For example, if the target is low on health, one of the fireballs will reduce him to 0 HP and the other one will force a death saving throw. Xanathar's Guide to Everything even has an optional rule for deciding who goes first in these situations. So this is a bad example because the spell's effects can't overlap.
Everything a spell does is part of its effects. From the Spellcasting rules:
What's more, the DMG has a similar rule that covers other non-spell game effects and it's clear this kind of "at a certain point in initiative order, you take X damage" effect is intended to fall under these rules.
From the DMG errata:
Note also that Jeremy has also ruled before that you can't stack the delayed damage for Booming Blade.
I'm with pwhimp on this one. The instantaneous damage would apply twice, the delayed damage would only kick in once.
The rules tell you if two creatures are tied in initiative, one goes first and the other goes second. There's little point in having a rules discussion if we're supposing the rules aren't going to be followed. If the DM chooses to do this, it's on them to handle whatever other rules break as a result.
Absolutely. And the non-stacking rule for spells is definitely muddy in some situations. I'm sure there's some spell out there that would be really ambiguous to resolve. But I think the intent here is very clear; you can't gather a ton of low level spellcasters to create a hazardous area that deals massive amounts of damage on contact.