This is quickly going to turn into a rehash of the prior thread, which went for 200 posts and convinced very few people (I read through it last night). The same sides and opinions are forming...unless anyone has a new argument or new evidence of their argument, what say we let this one go?
That may be true, but I object to using the word "opinion.". I gives credence to the side that is factually wrong.
It is the same as arguing with someone who says "The world is flat", or "The speed of light is variable in a vacuum.", and a 3rd person steps in and says "well, both your opinions matter." Jan 6th american democracy almost fell because of "Opinions on both sides matter." D&D is not the real world, but the same logic applies.
Vince,
I many cases D&D 5e is written in a way that only allows for a single interpretation, but there are also a lot of instances where it not written in a way that only allows for a single interpretation. Its written in plain english, it doesn't have a glossary, and terms are used differently all over the place, including whether they are used in plural or singular. D&D gets around this (mostly) by setting an arbiter (the DM) when rules are unclear or there is a difference of opinion.
Even if it had all those things, there would still be room for different interpretations of the text. I'm an architect IRL, and I interpret the building code as part of my job. The building code has a glossary, is not (necessarily) written in plain english, and terms are used consistently (or at least more so than D&D), and there are still differences in interpretation. Heck, its honestly pretty similar to D&D in a lot of ways. There's RAW (plain text), RAI (commentary, except its written into the text and not in a SAC), Specific exceptions that override general rules, and a DM-type role (the code official).
Certain fields do run (at least mostly) on unalterable facts. In Chemistry, if I throw Na into water, it will always heat up substantially and possibly explode. If I throw NaCl into water, it will always make it salty to a degree relational to the amount of NaCl, up to a saturation point. But D&D, like Architecture, Building Codes, and even the Law, is a subjective creation open to multiple interpretations, multiple of which can be valid, especially if the information is incomplete or unclear.
This is quickly going to turn into a rehash of the prior thread, which went for 200 posts and convinced very few people (I read through it last night). The same sides and opinions are forming...unless anyone has a new argument or new evidence of their argument, what say we let this one go?
That may be true, but I object to using the word "opinion.". I gives credence to the side that is factually wrong.
It is the same as arguing with someone who says "The world is flat", or "The speed of light is variable in a vacuum.", and a 3rd person steps in and says "well, both your opinions matter." Jan 6th american democracy almost fell because of "Opinions on both sides matter." D&D is not the real world, but the same logic applies.
Certain fields do run (at least mostly) on unalterable facts. In Chemistry, if I throw Na into water, it will always heat up substantially and possibly explode. If I throw NaCl into water, it will always make it salty to a degree relational to the amount of NaCl, up to a saturation point. But D&D, like Architecture, Building Codes, and even the Law, is a subjective creation open to multiple interpretations, multiple of which can be valid, especially if the information is incomplete or unclear.
Almost like one thing is built on experiment and repetition that prove the words said on the page (Na in water will heat up and explode due to chemical reactions) and the other is an English class where the students are trying to figure out why the author made the curtains blue. Although some people in that class will still ignore the author when they explain themselves.
This is not a clear cut issue and frankly several written rules can be made in case to apply. Rulings not rules is the beauty and ugliness of 5e
I hate to admit it but in this case Snetterton is actually right. Spirit Guardians is not a continuous effect of speed reduction and a non-continuous effect of damage. It is just the one continuous effect of the Aura, and the damage and speed reductions are part of that. If two simultaneous castings of Spirit Guardians were meant to do double ding the enemies then their auras would proc on the casters’ turns, not on the targets’ turns.
This is quickly going to turn into a rehash of the prior thread, which went for 200 posts and convinced very few people (I read through it last night). The same sides and opinions are forming...unless anyone has a new argument or new evidence of their argument, what say we let this one go?
That may be true, but I object to using the word "opinion.". I gives credence to the side that is factually wrong.
It is the same as arguing with someone who says "The world is flat", or "The speed of light is variable in a vacuum.", and a 3rd person steps in and says "well, both your opinions matter." Jan 6th american democracy almost fell because of "Opinions on both sides matter." D&D is not the real world, but the same logic applies.
Vince,
I many cases D&D 5e is written in a way that only allows for a single interpretation, but there are also a lot of instances where it not written in a way that only allows for a single interpretation. Its written in plain english, it doesn't have a glossary, and terms are used differently all over the place, including whether they are used in plural or singular. D&D gets around this (mostly) by setting an arbiter (the DM) when rules are unclear or there is a difference of opinion.
Even if it had all those things, there would still be room for different interpretations of the text. I'm an architect IRL, and I interpret the building code as part of my job. The building code has a glossary, is not (necessarily) written in plain english, and terms are used consistently (or at least more so than D&D), and there are still differences in interpretation. Heck, its honestly pretty similar to D&D in a lot of ways. There's RAW (plain text), RAI (commentary, except its written into the text and not in a SAC), Specific exceptions that override general rules, and a DM-type role (the code official).
Certain fields do run (at least mostly) on unalterable facts. In Chemistry, if I throw Na into water, it will always heat up substantially and possibly explode. If I throw NaCl into water, it will always make it salty to a degree relational to the amount of NaCl, up to a saturation point. But D&D, like Architecture, Building Codes, and even the Law, is a subjective creation open to multiple interpretations, multiple of which can be valid, especially if the information is incomplete or unclear.
On the point that big chunks of 5e rules were poorly written, and hence "open for discussion", on that we can agree. But Errata and JC's SAC comments over the years have been specifically created to establish clear answers to questions. No one "interprets" the Building Code. One tries to understand a set of existing rules that are sometimes are arcane and even conflicting, and dig down to the ultimate, correct answer. There is only one. But that is what lawyers are for, or essentially the legal system. Ultimately, someone rules on a debate, and that is the final decision.
JC ruled on this particular one years ago, and that is the final decision. If one digs enough, the vast majority of "grey zones" in 5e HAVE been ruled on and clarified into a single, clear answer.
I hate to admit it but in this case Snetterton is actually right. Spirit Guardians is not a continuous effect of speed reduction and a non-continuous effect of damage. It is just the one continuous effect of the Aura, and the damage and speed reductions are part of that. If two simultaneous castings of Spirit Guardians were meant to do double ding the enemies then their auras would proc on the casters’ turns, not on the targets’ turns.
Sposta,
An honest question made in good faith, but assuming that I agreed with you (I don't, but I disagreed with you on the original thread too and I feel like we were civil), why would the bolded make a difference?
Vince,
You seem convinced that the JC tweet is the be all end all of this argument, but 1) its a tweet, and unless it's made it into the SAC it's not considered an "official" ruling, and 2) it is in response to a question about a specific spell command which has a lot of similarities with the example spell in the PH version of the rule bless. Both are non AoE spells with clearly defined targets, a clear duration and no damage applied. To me, he is reinforcing the intent of that section which is effects that are continuous (the compulsion of Command, the benefits of Bless) cannot stack while their durations overlap. Spirit Guardians has game effects (within its overall spell effect) that happen instantaneously (at least mechanically), so I rule the DMG version of the rule would, based on its example, exclude them, supported by Xanathar's supplemental rule that instantaneous effects happen sequentially and not simultaneously.
Also, you absolutely interpret code, just like you interpret rules and interpret law. Unless JC lives in your house and you can ask him directly, or you are JC or one of the other writers, you are interpreting what they wrote (also, don't tell me I'm wrong about the terms I use in my job, I have training and experience in it, you most likely don't.)
Last one: if you remember, there are two rules: Spell effects in the PH, and game effects in the DMG. The spell effects example does not use a spell with multiple parts, or parts that occur instantaneously, or that deal damage.
Indeed, but RAW, as demonstrated, spells have only one spell effect which is their description, and Spirit Guardians is a spell.
...
So honestly, at this stage, for me the case is clearly closed, the rules are consistent all over the place, and there is no room to wiggle for spells with overlapping durations.
I think claiming that spells "have only one effect" or that anything at all is clear and final about how the overlapping spells rule functions in every case is extreme overreach. Very many spells have long durations, but separate effects that can and do take place over that duration. If there is no wiggle room then there should be clear and easy answers to:
- Can a single creature be damaged on the same turn by two Wall of Fire spells if they move through one, out the other side and into another? If there is no space between them? If they overlap partially? What if the second wall they touch is more potent than the first?
- Can a single creature be damaged in the same round by two Spiritual Weapons which have overlapping durations?
- What about two Flaming Spheres, would you be able to take damage from each if the casters rammed them into you on their turns? What about the damage you would take if you ended your turn next to two of them?
- How should a creature be affected by two Bigby's Hands? Does being grappled by one leave you immune to the punch of another?
- If a creature starts its turn in one Hunger of Hadar void and ends its turn in another?
- If two of the same illusion spell appear next to eachother, are both visible?
- If a creature is snared in a Mental Prison or a Mind Spike and someone else hits them with the same spell, do they take the initial damage or does the previous version of the spell protect them?
- Someone struck by a Spirit Shrouded caster takes extra damage and can't regain hitpoints until the next round. Entirely separate to that, they may be slowed 10ft by that same spell. A second Shrouded caster strikes the same target. Is extra damage applied to that attack?
- Two casters have a Storm of Vengeance running. One is up to the Acid rain stage and one has reached Hail. Who gets hit by what exactly?
These rule books try to walk a fine line between natural language and rigidly defined key-word logical interactions - and they regularly fail spectacularly. What is or isn't a "spell effect" and what overlapping actually means are not well defined in these rules. I don't think these situations are at all clearly covered by the short and clumsy rule section about combining magical effects.
I believe the intention of the "overlapping spell effects" rule is that you should never have the same buff or debuff applied by the same spell at the same time - no double blessing; but that it is not its intention to render you immune to one source of damage because another similar one hit you earlier in the turn. Using those concepts I can come up with consistent and (I feel) logical rulings for all the situations above.
I hate to admit it but in this case Snetterton is actually right. Spirit Guardians is not a continuous effect of speed reduction and a non-continuous effect of damage. It is just the one continuous effect of the Aura, and the damage and speed reductions are part of that. If two simultaneous castings of Spirit Guardians were meant to do double ding the enemies then their auras would proc on the casters’ turns, not on the targets’ turns.
It is a start. Perhaps one day you will accept that I am always right, when it comes to D&D...in fact, everything.
This seems like one of those things that a lot of DM's, even if they know the RAW, would still allow to work the way the players want it to. Sort of like how so many people know that you're only supposed to roll once for damage from Magic Missile, but let the players roll separately for each bolt because rolling dice is fun, and there's less risk of rolling a single 1 and barely doing any damage.
I hate to admit it but in this case Snetterton is actually right. Spirit Guardians is not a continuous effect of speed reduction and a non-continuous effect of damage. It is just the one continuous effect of the Aura, and the damage and speed reductions are part of that. If two simultaneous castings of Spirit Guardians were meant to do double ding the enemies then their auras would proc on the casters’ turns, not on the targets’ turns.
Sposta,
An honest question made in good faith, but assuming that I agreed with you (I don't, but I disagreed with you on the original thread too and I feel like we were civil), why would the bolded make a difference?
I disagree with a great many people, that’s no reason to not be at least civil (if not friendly) with them. I disagree with Yurei and Sundering all the time, they’re still friends of mine. (Hence the siglines.) I’m only uncivil to those I dislike, regardless of how much I may-or-may-not agree with them. (One notable person agreed with me in that other thread and I am far from civil with them on average.)
Suppose you and I and Snetterton were all within range of each other. You and I are “friendly” and Snetterton is “hostile.” You and I both cast Spirit Guardians against the hostile Snetterton. If the spell’s aura kicked of on the casters’ turns, then he would get whammied on my turn and then he would get whammied again on your turn. Instead, the way it works is that Snetterton would get hit by both auras at precisely the same instant. That is clearly a case of overlapping spell effects.
I hate to admit it but in this case Snetterton is actually right. Spirit Guardians is not a continuous effect of speed reduction and a non-continuous effect of damage. It is just the one continuous effect of the Aura, and the damage and speed reductions are part of that. If two simultaneous castings of Spirit Guardians were meant to do double ding the enemies then their auras would proc on the casters’ turns, not on the targets’ turns.
It is a start. Perhaps one day you will accept that I am always right, when it comes to D&D...in fact, everything.
To me, he is reinforcing the intent of that section which is effects that are continuous (the compulsion of Command, the benefits of Bless) cannot stack while their durations overlap. Spirit Guardians has game effects (within its overall spell effect) that happen instantaneously (at least mechanically), so I rule the DMG version of the rule would, based on its example, exclude them, supported by Xanathar's supplemental rule that instantaneous effects happen sequentially and not simultaneously.
And then, you would still be wrong because, as shown above, game effects that apply across time because of their duration (and the wording is exactly the same between the fire elemental aura and the spirit guardian damage) apply only once even if you are subjected to multiple instances of them.
Would you really support a view in which the flames only burn you when you what, start to move or attack ? Or that the spirits are just floating around and doing nothing, and just jump on you to bite you just when you start to move or attack ? There is nothing instantaneous here, otherwise, you know, even the bless effect is instantaneous as it only applies when you attack or make a save...
I fully support Xanathar's rule, but it only applies when you have two or more effects affecting you, which is not the case here. Everything from a continuous spell like Spirit Guardians or the fire elemental aura has a duration (the duration that you are subjected to that effect), so the DMG/PH applies before Xanathar can take effect.
Your Fire Elemental example is not as direct an analogy as you think it is here. If you read the DMG section and the Fire Elemental feature you will see that the "combined effect" rule is referring to specifically a creature that has been ignited by the elemental and is now suffering an ongoing debuff of on-fire damage each turn until it gets put out. That fire effect is like a condition the target is suffering. The same creature can't be on-fire twice in the same way you can't have your speed halved twice by the same spell. That is not the same situation as standing in two different AOE zones. Nowhere in the books is any indication given of how two same spell zones can overlap and how damage is then applied. The Xanathar's rule of sequentially applied instantaneous effects is more convincing to me in those situations.
I hate to admit it but in this case Snetterton is actually right. Spirit Guardians is not a continuous effect of speed reduction and a non-continuous effect of damage. It is just the one continuous effect of the Aura, and the damage and speed reductions are part of that. If two simultaneous castings of Spirit Guardians were meant to do double ding the enemies then their auras would proc on the casters’ turns, not on the targets’ turns.
Sposta,
An honest question made in good faith, but assuming that I agreed with you (I don't, but I disagreed with you on the original thread too and I feel like we were civil), why would the bolded make a difference?
I disagree with a great many people, that’s no reason to not be at least civil (if not friendly) with them. I disagree with Yurei and Sundering all the time, they’re still friends of mine. (Hence the siglines.) I’m only uncivil to those I dislike, regardless of how much I may-or-may-not agree with them. (One notable person agreed with me in that other thread and I am far from civil with them on average.)
Suppose you and I and Snetterton were all within range of each other. You and I are “friendly” and Snetterton is “hostile.” You and I both cast Spirit Guardians against the hostile Snetterton. If the spell’s aura kicked of on the casters’ turns, then he would get whammied on my turn and then he would get whammied again on your turn. Instead, the way it works is that Snetterton would get hit by both auras at precisely the same instant. That is clearly a case of overlapping spell effects.
Ah, I understand your point. I would (respectfully, of course) pose a response that the Xanathar's (admittedly optional/supplemental) rule on simultaneous effects would say that even if they hit at the same moment mechanically (the start of Snetterton's turn), they would mechanically happen in an order (though Snetterton would get to decide the order he gets whammied by them).
I think claiming that spells "have only one effect" or that anything at all is clear and final about how the overlapping spells rule functions in every case is extreme overreach. Very many spells have long durations, but separate effects that can and do take place over that duration.
THis is because you are not using the game's terminology, although it is not explicit, it's clear in the formulation.
Spells have only one (spell) effect, it's crystal clear in the PH: ": "Each spell description in Chapter 11 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.""
And already, the PH's rule on overlapping applies and prevents these effects from overlapping.
Now, that (spell) effect can sometimes create various (game) effects, but even then, when it;s the same (game) effect the DMG rule prevents these effects from overlapping.
So, in the case of spirit guardians, even if you don't believe in the first one, the second one still applies.
- Can a single creature be damaged on the same turn by two Wall of Fire spells if they move through one, out the other side and into another? If there is no space between them? If they overlap partially? What if the second wall they touch is more potent than the first?
If the areas and the durations overlap, you are affected only by one.
- Can a single creature be damaged in the same round by two Spiritual Weapons which have overlapping durations?
Yes, because spiritual weapon do not affect the target of their attacks.
- What about two Flaming Spheres, would you be able to take damage from each if the casters rammed them into you on their turns? What about the damage you would take if you ended your turn next to two of them?
Only from one of them, you are clearly in the areas of two identical spells while their durations overlap.
- How should a creature be affected by two Bigby's Hands? Does being grappled by one leave you immune to the punch of another?
Same as spiritual weapon, you are not "affected" by the spell, and they don't overlap when cast, not even when they hit you which is not at the same time.
- If a creature starts its turn in one Hunger of Hadar void and ends its turn in another?
The rule only applies where the spell could combine and overlap.
- If two of the same illusion spell appear next to eachother, are both visible?
This is a bit silly, honestly, where they don't overlap, the one on the outside is visible.
- If a creature is snared in a Mental Prison or a Mind Spike and someone else hits them with the same spell, do they take the initial damage or does the previous version of the spell protect them?
They are only affected by the most powerful one or the latest casting if they are equal, so if the new one is as powerful or more, they will take the damage again, obviously, but not if it's weaker.
- Someone struck by a Spirit Shrouded caster takes extra damage and can't regain hitpoints until the next round. Entirely separate to that, they may be slowed 10ft by that same spell. A second Shrouded caster strikes the same target. Is extra damage applied to that attack?
Only if the target is affected by the second caster's shroud, which depends on the relative strength and time of casting.
- Two casters have a Storm of Vengeance running. One is up to the Acid rain stage and one has reached Hail. Who gets hit by what exactly?
What counts it the fact that spell effects cannot overlap, so only, as usual, the most powerful or latest cast affects an area and the targets in there. This is before you are even looking at the (game) effects produced by each (spell) effect.
These rule books try to walk a fine line between natural language and rigidly defined key-word logical interactions - and they regularly fail spectacularly. What is or isn't a "spell effect" and what overlapping actually means are not well defined in these rules. I don't think these situations are at all clearly covered by the short and clumsy rule section about combining magical effects.
They all are, and without much difficulty, honestly.
I believe the intention of the "overlapping spell effects" rule is that you should never have the same buff or debuff applied by the same spell at the same time - no double blessing; but that it is not its intention to render you immune to one source of damage because another similar one hit you earlier in the turn. Using those concepts I can come up with consistent and (I feel) logical rulings for all the situations above.
You can always homebrew your own rule and separate damage effects from spell effects, but the RAW tells you that a (spell) effect can include multiple (game) effects, including, amongst those damage, but because the (spell) effects cannot overlap because of the PH rule, you should not separate the damage, It's actually quite straightforward.
To me, he is reinforcing the intent of that section which is effects that are continuous (the compulsion of Command, the benefits of Bless) cannot stack while their durations overlap. Spirit Guardians has game effects (within its overall spell effect) that happen instantaneously (at least mechanically), so I rule the DMG version of the rule would, based on its example, exclude them, supported by Xanathar's supplemental rule that instantaneous effects happen sequentially and not simultaneously.
And then, you would still be wrong because, as shown above, game effects that apply across time because of their duration (and the wording is exactly the same between the fire elemental aura and the spirit guardian damage) apply only once even if you are subjected to multiple instances of them.
Would you really support a view in which the flames only burn you when you what, start to move or attack ? Or that the spirits are just floating around and doing nothing, and just jump on you to bite you just when you start to move or attack ? There is nothing instantaneous here, otherwise, you know, even the bless effect is instantaneous as it only applies when you attack or make a save...
I fully support Xanathar's rule, but it only applies when you have two or more effects affecting you, which is not the case here. Everything from a continuous spell like Spirit Guardians or the fire elemental aura has a duration (the duration that you are subjected to that effect), so the DMG/PH applies before Xanathar can take effect.
Your Fire Elemental example is not as direct an analogy as you think it is here. If you read the DMG section and the Fire Elemental feature you will see that the "combined effect" rule is referring to specifically a creature that has been ignited by the elemental and is now suffering an ongoing debuff of on-fire damage each turn until it gets put out. That fire effect is like a condition the target is suffering.
The example is apt, because it is not a condition, it is "like" a condition, just as being gnawed on by spirit guardians.
The same creature can't be on-fire twice in the same way you can't have your speed halved twice by the same spell.
And you can't be gnawed on twice by the spirits for the exact same reason, it's like a debuff. If the spirits were flames, it would actually be exactly the same thing.
That is not the same situation as standing in two different AOE zones. Nowhere in the books is any indication given of how two same spell zones can overlap and how damage is then applied. The Xanathar's rule of sequentially applied instantaneous effects is more convincing to me in those situations.
It's very bizarre how some people insist that damage is different from everything else in terms of effects, but damage is just a technical effect from something happening in the game world and the rule from the PH hand book about spell effects is crystal clear combined with the fact (again that sentence is perfectly clear) that each spell has one and only one (spell) effect.
Lyxen, we see cognitive dissonance everywhere in the world. D&D should be no different. But keep on fighting the good fight. It is important that disinformation not spread back to other tables as newer players read bad information and take it back to their tables.
If people want to play against RAW at their tables, they’re allowed to. Those are called “house rules,” and they are totally acceptable.
Yes, very true. But to pass off their own rules as RAW, nope. Or to continue to argue about what is RAW, after several people have proven their view of it is wrong, that is very bad for the game. I actually stated this is a post, either yesterday or 2 days ago.
If people want to play against RAW at their tables, they’re allowed to. Those are called “house rules,” and they are totally acceptable.
Yes, very true. But to pass off their own rules as RAW, nope. Or to continue to argue about what is RAW, after several people have proven their view of it is wrong, that is very bad for the game. I actually stated this is a post, either yesterday or 2 days ago.
And "others" just assume that their interpretation is the only one, that they are never wrong, and that their way is the only way that matters and the only way people should play, and that others who differ are not true D&D....I could go on.
Legitimately though...I'm surprised at your insistence on the importance of RAW here when in the healing thread not 3 hours ago you indicated that you as DM should not be constrained by RAW, at all, and for any reason you want...
I know for a fact that when my players are going to face certain NPC's and spell, said spells are NOT going to operate the same way for the NPC as the players (eg. Hunger of Hadar will have a larger radius, so players can't Dash out in one turn, Darkness will be larger, same reason). Players may recognize the spell, but the DM is not constrained to play by any rules the players are held to.
There was a loooong thread debating this in the past...here's my take:
Combining Magical Effects only really applies to continuous effects, mainly because any effects that aren't continuous happen (if you use Xanathar's additional rules) in succession, even if they occur at the same time, and so how would you be "combining" them?:
spirit guardians has both continuous effects (slowed speed) and non-continuous effects (damage when you enter the range/start your turn there). I would rule that the continuous effect would fall under combining spell effects and not stack (the most recent or highest level of the two spell would supercede). But because the other effects aren't continuous, they happen sequentially, and so shouldn't be combined. So you would take the damage twice if you started your turn in both ranges, or if you started your turn outside and moved into one and then into the other, or if you started your turn in one and then move into the other.
But your speed would only ever be affected by one casting of the spell.
Once again. no. The spells are identical. The only factors are the DC and the spell slot used. Say we have a 9th level cleric with a DC of 17 casting it using a 3rd level spell slot and a 7th level Cleric with a DC of 15 using a 4th level spell slot. The higher damage, after savings throws, is the only one that impacts the targets. The damage from one spell, and one spell only, affects a target, and the speed is affected only once.
This was probably addressed at some point either in this thread or the other one but Spirit Guardians can cause radiant damage or necrotic damage so two different castings are not necessarily identical.
I know how I would rule but I wouldn’t claim it was right lol. I hope I never have two Cleric PCs in the same party and I’m going to avoid making an encounter where this happens to the PCs.
If people want to play against RAW at their tables, they’re allowed to. Those are called “house rules,” and they are totally acceptable.
Yes, very true. But to pass off their own rules as RAW, nope. Or to continue to argue about what is RAW, after several people have proven their view of it is wrong, that is very bad for the game. I actually stated this is a post, either yesterday or 2 days ago.
And "others" just assume that their interpretation is the only one, that they are never wrong, and that their way is the only way that matters and the only way people should play, and that others who differ are not true D&D....I could go on.
Legitimately though...I'm surprised at your insistence on the importance of RAW here when in the healing thread not 3 hours ago you indicated that you as DM should not be constrained by RAW, at all, and for any reason you want...
I know for a fact that when my players are going to face certain NPC's and spell, said spells are NOT going to operate the same way for the NPC as the players (eg. Hunger of Hadar will have a larger radius, so players can't Dash out in one turn, Darkness will be larger, same reason). Players may recognize the spell, but the DM is not constrained to play by any rules the players are held to.
Uh yeah, comparing me modifying spells for NPC's as opposed to what RAW is not apples and oranges. It is apples and chainsaws. One has absolutely no bearing on the other. And what you call "interpretation" of RAW is not what I do. I have numerous sources to back me, all that I am not laying out again. You, well, you have "feelings about what it should do".
They are only affected by the most powerful one or the latest casting if they are equal, so if the new one is as powerful or more, they will take the damage again, obviously, but not if it's weaker.
- Someone struck by a Spirit Shrouded caster takes extra damage and can't regain hitpoints until the next round. Entirely separate to that, they may be slowed 10ft by that same spell. A second Shrouded caster strikes the same target. Is extra damage applied to that attack?
Only if the target is affected by the second caster's shroud, which depends on the relative strength and time of casting.
- Two casters have a Storm of Vengeance running. One is up to the Acid rain stage and one has reached Hail. Who gets hit by what exactly?
What counts it the fact that spell effects cannot overlap, so only, as usual, the most powerful or latest cast affects an area and the targets in there. This is before you are even looking at the (game) effects produced by each (spell) effect.
These rule books try to walk a fine line between natural language and rigidly defined key-word logical interactions - and they regularly fail spectacularly. What is or isn't a "spell effect" and what overlapping actually means are not well defined in these rules. I don't think these situations are at all clearly covered by the short and clumsy rule section about combining magical effects.
They all are, and without much difficulty, honestly.
...
I find your answers to these scenarios remarkable, and really insufficient. I find the idea that the order of casting a Mind Spike affects the total damage done to be ridiculous, and completely opposite to how sequential actions generally work in this game.
You have come close to the my position in your admitting here that what matters is not the duration of the spell, but the duration of the spell effect (though the rule books only speak of the duration of the spells). I'm assuming you would agree that someone could not be under the effect of two Indigo rays from two Prismatic Sprays at the same time (even though that spell is of Instantaneous duration). I don't know if you would rule the lingering effect of that ray, or the lingering poisoned condition of an instantaneous Ray of Sickness, grants the same damage immunity as you have ruled exists for a lingering Mind Spike effect - but you would be completely unsupported by the rule book if you did since these spells do not overlap on duration, only the durations of a part of the spell effects overlap.
I think I have boiled down your understanding of overlapping spell effects, correct me if I'm wrong:
- If a creature is currently being affected by any lingering effect of a spell (e.g. has lost their reaction from Tasha's Mind Whip) then they are immune to any and all effects of the same spell unless the second casting is more powerful.
- If the lingering Area of Effect of two same name spells overlap in the physical world, then one of those spell area effects is competely suppressed where/when the zones overlap, with priority given to the stronger.
Now, personally, I think that is a huge amount to infer from a single paragraph that is trying to say that you don't get two bonus dice from two Bless spells (let alone to then claim such inference is "obvious"). It is also based on your insistence that "Spell effects" are indivisible things, which I don't believe is borne out by any evidence beyond your own claim. Take for example that Dispel Magic can target a spell effect on a single creature and dispel only that effect not the whole spell.
To summarize my understanding of the overlapping spell rules (and probably those others here who agree with me) we rule it like this:
- While under the effect of two same name spells which are having the same type of lingering effect with overlapping durations (e.g. a bonus dice from Bless, speed reduction, or lingering damage from an Acid Arrow), one of those lingering effects is suppressed in favor of the more powerful version (or most recent casting if roughly equal). Any instantaneous effects (e.g. damage, being knocked prone) are not affected because these effects cannot have an overlapping duration - they occur instantaneously. Lingering AOEs can overlap physically, and will apply their effects in the same way as multiple casings of the spell - instantaneous effects all happen, lingering effects like speed reduction only once.
Both of our interpretations align with the examples given in the books (Bless, Fire Elemental on-fire effect) and in the tweets so far presented (Command). But we disagree on how much damage a person would take when standing next to two people with Spirit Guardians running. I do not accept that you have come close to quoting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that your interpretation is in any way better than ours, but I can see that yours is equally internally consistent (even if I think it produces some very insane results here and there). I think we are both of the opinion that our interpretation is more correct and objectively better.
I would be interested to find out if this dichotomy is actually resolved anywhere, because it sure isn't in these rule books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Vince,
I many cases D&D 5e is written in a way that only allows for a single interpretation, but there are also a lot of instances where it not written in a way that only allows for a single interpretation. Its written in plain english, it doesn't have a glossary, and terms are used differently all over the place, including whether they are used in plural or singular. D&D gets around this (mostly) by setting an arbiter (the DM) when rules are unclear or there is a difference of opinion.
Even if it had all those things, there would still be room for different interpretations of the text. I'm an architect IRL, and I interpret the building code as part of my job. The building code has a glossary, is not (necessarily) written in plain english, and terms are used consistently (or at least more so than D&D), and there are still differences in interpretation. Heck, its honestly pretty similar to D&D in a lot of ways. There's RAW (plain text), RAI (commentary, except its written into the text and not in a SAC), Specific exceptions that override general rules, and a DM-type role (the code official).
Certain fields do run (at least mostly) on unalterable facts. In Chemistry, if I throw Na into water, it will always heat up substantially and possibly explode. If I throw NaCl into water, it will always make it salty to a degree relational to the amount of NaCl, up to a saturation point. But D&D, like Architecture, Building Codes, and even the Law, is a subjective creation open to multiple interpretations, multiple of which can be valid, especially if the information is incomplete or unclear.
Almost like one thing is built on experiment and repetition that prove the words said on the page (Na in water will heat up and explode due to chemical reactions) and the other is an English class where the students are trying to figure out why the author made the curtains blue. Although some people in that class will still ignore the author when they explain themselves.
This is not a clear cut issue and frankly several written rules can be made in case to apply. Rulings not rules is the beauty and ugliness of 5e
I hate to admit it but in this case Snetterton is actually right. Spirit Guardians is not a continuous effect of speed reduction and a non-continuous effect of damage. It is just the one continuous effect of the Aura, and the damage and speed reductions are part of that. If two simultaneous castings of Spirit Guardians were meant to do double ding the enemies then their auras would proc on the casters’ turns, not on the targets’ turns.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
On the point that big chunks of 5e rules were poorly written, and hence "open for discussion", on that we can agree. But Errata and JC's SAC comments over the years have been specifically created to establish clear answers to questions. No one "interprets" the Building Code. One tries to understand a set of existing rules that are sometimes are arcane and even conflicting, and dig down to the ultimate, correct answer. There is only one. But that is what lawyers are for, or essentially the legal system. Ultimately, someone rules on a debate, and that is the final decision.
JC ruled on this particular one years ago, and that is the final decision. If one digs enough, the vast majority of "grey zones" in 5e HAVE been ruled on and clarified into a single, clear answer.
Sposta,
An honest question made in good faith, but assuming that I agreed with you (I don't, but I disagreed with you on the original thread too and I feel like we were civil), why would the bolded make a difference?
Vince,
You seem convinced that the JC tweet is the be all end all of this argument, but 1) its a tweet, and unless it's made it into the SAC it's not considered an "official" ruling, and 2) it is in response to a question about a specific spell command which has a lot of similarities with the example spell in the PH version of the rule bless. Both are non AoE spells with clearly defined targets, a clear duration and no damage applied. To me, he is reinforcing the intent of that section which is effects that are continuous (the compulsion of Command, the benefits of Bless) cannot stack while their durations overlap. Spirit Guardians has game effects (within its overall spell effect) that happen instantaneously (at least mechanically), so I rule the DMG version of the rule would, based on its example, exclude them, supported by Xanathar's supplemental rule that instantaneous effects happen sequentially and not simultaneously.
Also, you absolutely interpret code, just like you interpret rules and interpret law. Unless JC lives in your house and you can ask him directly, or you are JC or one of the other writers, you are interpreting what they wrote (also, don't tell me I'm wrong about the terms I use in my job, I have training and experience in it, you most likely don't.)
I think claiming that spells "have only one effect" or that anything at all is clear and final about how the overlapping spells rule functions in every case is extreme overreach. Very many spells have long durations, but separate effects that can and do take place over that duration. If there is no wiggle room then there should be clear and easy answers to:
- Can a single creature be damaged on the same turn by two Wall of Fire spells if they move through one, out the other side and into another? If there is no space between them? If they overlap partially? What if the second wall they touch is more potent than the first?
- Can a single creature be damaged in the same round by two Spiritual Weapons which have overlapping durations?
- What about two Flaming Spheres, would you be able to take damage from each if the casters rammed them into you on their turns? What about the damage you would take if you ended your turn next to two of them?
- How should a creature be affected by two Bigby's Hands? Does being grappled by one leave you immune to the punch of another?
- If a creature starts its turn in one Hunger of Hadar void and ends its turn in another?
- If two of the same illusion spell appear next to eachother, are both visible?
- If a creature is snared in a Mental Prison or a Mind Spike and someone else hits them with the same spell, do they take the initial damage or does the previous version of the spell protect them?
- Someone struck by a Spirit Shrouded caster takes extra damage and can't regain hitpoints until the next round. Entirely separate to that, they may be slowed 10ft by that same spell. A second Shrouded caster strikes the same target. Is extra damage applied to that attack?
- Two casters have a Storm of Vengeance running. One is up to the Acid rain stage and one has reached Hail. Who gets hit by what exactly?
These rule books try to walk a fine line between natural language and rigidly defined key-word logical interactions - and they regularly fail spectacularly. What is or isn't a "spell effect" and what overlapping actually means are not well defined in these rules. I don't think these situations are at all clearly covered by the short and clumsy rule section about combining magical effects.
I believe the intention of the "overlapping spell effects" rule is that you should never have the same buff or debuff applied by the same spell at the same time - no double blessing; but that it is not its intention to render you immune to one source of damage because another similar one hit you earlier in the turn. Using those concepts I can come up with consistent and (I feel) logical rulings for all the situations above.
It is a start. Perhaps one day you will accept that I am always right, when it comes to D&D...in fact, everything.
This seems like one of those things that a lot of DM's, even if they know the RAW, would still allow to work the way the players want it to. Sort of like how so many people know that you're only supposed to roll once for damage from Magic Missile, but let the players roll separately for each bolt because rolling dice is fun, and there's less risk of rolling a single 1 and barely doing any damage.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I disagree with a great many people, that’s no reason to not be at least civil (if not friendly) with them. I disagree with Yurei and Sundering all the time, they’re still friends of mine. (Hence the siglines.) I’m only uncivil to those I dislike, regardless of how much I may-or-may-not agree with them. (One notable person agreed with me in that other thread and I am far from civil with them on average.)
Suppose you and I and Snetterton were all within range of each other. You and I are “friendly” and Snetterton is “hostile.” You and I both cast Spirit Guardians against the hostile Snetterton. If the spell’s aura kicked of on the casters’ turns, then he would get whammied on my turn and then he would get whammied again on your turn. Instead, the way it works is that Snetterton would get hit by both auras at precisely the same instant. That is clearly a case of overlapping spell effects.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That’ll be the day.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Your Fire Elemental example is not as direct an analogy as you think it is here. If you read the DMG section and the Fire Elemental feature you will see that the "combined effect" rule is referring to specifically a creature that has been ignited by the elemental and is now suffering an ongoing debuff of on-fire damage each turn until it gets put out. That fire effect is like a condition the target is suffering. The same creature can't be on-fire twice in the same way you can't have your speed halved twice by the same spell. That is not the same situation as standing in two different AOE zones. Nowhere in the books is any indication given of how two same spell zones can overlap and how damage is then applied. The Xanathar's rule of sequentially applied instantaneous effects is more convincing to me in those situations.
Ah, I understand your point. I would (respectfully, of course) pose a response that the Xanathar's (admittedly optional/supplemental) rule on simultaneous effects would say that even if they hit at the same moment mechanically (the start of Snetterton's turn), they would mechanically happen in an order (though Snetterton would get to decide the order he gets whammied by them).
Mayhaps, but the examples still include Paladins’ aura effects as “magical effects” that cannot be combined, and Spirit Guardians is an aura.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Lyxen, we see cognitive dissonance everywhere in the world. D&D should be no different. But keep on fighting the good fight. It is important that disinformation not spread back to other tables as newer players read bad information and take it back to their tables.
Snetterton,
If people want to play against RAW at their tables, they’re allowed to. Those are called “house rules,” and they are totally acceptable.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, very true. But to pass off their own rules as RAW, nope. Or to continue to argue about what is RAW, after several people have proven their view of it is wrong, that is very bad for the game. I actually stated this is a post, either yesterday or 2 days ago.
And "others" just assume that their interpretation is the only one, that they are never wrong, and that their way is the only way that matters and the only way people should play, and that others who differ are not true D&D....I could go on.
Legitimately though...I'm surprised at your insistence on the importance of RAW here when in the healing thread not 3 hours ago you indicated that you as DM should not be constrained by RAW, at all, and for any reason you want...
This was probably addressed at some point either in this thread or the other one but Spirit Guardians can cause radiant damage or necrotic damage so two different castings are not necessarily identical.
I know how I would rule but I wouldn’t claim it was right lol. I hope I never have two Cleric PCs in the same party and I’m going to avoid making an encounter where this happens to the PCs.
Uh yeah, comparing me modifying spells for NPC's as opposed to what RAW is not apples and oranges. It is apples and chainsaws. One has absolutely no bearing on the other. And what you call "interpretation" of RAW is not what I do. I have numerous sources to back me, all that I am not laying out again. You, well, you have "feelings about what it should do".
I find your answers to these scenarios remarkable, and really insufficient. I find the idea that the order of casting a Mind Spike affects the total damage done to be ridiculous, and completely opposite to how sequential actions generally work in this game.
You have come close to the my position in your admitting here that what matters is not the duration of the spell, but the duration of the spell effect (though the rule books only speak of the duration of the spells). I'm assuming you would agree that someone could not be under the effect of two Indigo rays from two Prismatic Sprays at the same time (even though that spell is of Instantaneous duration). I don't know if you would rule the lingering effect of that ray, or the lingering poisoned condition of an instantaneous Ray of Sickness, grants the same damage immunity as you have ruled exists for a lingering Mind Spike effect - but you would be completely unsupported by the rule book if you did since these spells do not overlap on duration, only the durations of a part of the spell effects overlap.
I think I have boiled down your understanding of overlapping spell effects, correct me if I'm wrong:
- If a creature is currently being affected by any lingering effect of a spell (e.g. has lost their reaction from Tasha's Mind Whip) then they are immune to any and all effects of the same spell unless the second casting is more powerful.
- If the lingering Area of Effect of two same name spells overlap in the physical world, then one of those spell area effects is competely suppressed where/when the zones overlap, with priority given to the stronger.
Now, personally, I think that is a huge amount to infer from a single paragraph that is trying to say that you don't get two bonus dice from two Bless spells (let alone to then claim such inference is "obvious"). It is also based on your insistence that "Spell effects" are indivisible things, which I don't believe is borne out by any evidence beyond your own claim. Take for example that Dispel Magic can target a spell effect on a single creature and dispel only that effect not the whole spell.
To summarize my understanding of the overlapping spell rules (and probably those others here who agree with me) we rule it like this:
- While under the effect of two same name spells which are having the same type of lingering effect with overlapping durations (e.g. a bonus dice from Bless, speed reduction, or lingering damage from an Acid Arrow), one of those lingering effects is suppressed in favor of the more powerful version (or most recent casting if roughly equal). Any instantaneous effects (e.g. damage, being knocked prone) are not affected because these effects cannot have an overlapping duration - they occur instantaneously. Lingering AOEs can overlap physically, and will apply their effects in the same way as multiple casings of the spell - instantaneous effects all happen, lingering effects like speed reduction only once.
Both of our interpretations align with the examples given in the books (Bless, Fire Elemental on-fire effect) and in the tweets so far presented (Command). But we disagree on how much damage a person would take when standing next to two people with Spirit Guardians running. I do not accept that you have come close to quoting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that your interpretation is in any way better than ours, but I can see that yours is equally internally consistent (even if I think it produces some very insane results here and there). I think we are both of the opinion that our interpretation is more correct and objectively better.
I would be interested to find out if this dichotomy is actually resolved anywhere, because it sure isn't in these rule books.