The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, the weapon gleams with astral radiance as you strike.
Yes, the the instance is singular. One that is hit with a melee attack causes the weapon to glow with astral radiance
The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
An affect is placed on the caster and the target of the attack
Branding Smite
2nd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action Range: Self Components: V Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
As long as concentration is kept the effects of the spell will persist after the first attack hits, up to 1 min
There for both
The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target,
And
which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible
are triggered by
The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends
Becouse
the weapon gleams with astral radiance as you strike.
That is why both effects, the extra damage and the target shedding dim light persist for up to 1 min. The spell allows for this to happen becouse the is no limit to the number of instances just to the duration of the effects and how many targets are affected in the instance
That also means If you cast darkness at 3rd lvl branding smite spell should do nothing inside of it
The difference between the Grease example and the Smite examples is that for Grease, you are saying an effect does not apply because the spell does not say it applies. For Smite, you are saying an effect does apply because the spell does not explicitly say it does not apply. You are actually undermining your own argument.
And I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing now, because it's clear that everyone but you thinks Smites apply once, and you are clearly never going to change your mind no matter what reasoning or evidence is applied.
You know, that is actualy a good point. I was rather attached to the notion of assumed understanding vs the spell doesn't say
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
The spell is not called "oil" it is called grease. and you are right, it doesnt say anything about the conjured grease being flammable (it isn't necessarily oil though), but not sure how that applies at all to the smite spells the way you think it does, because they are already as accurately worded as they need to be, so long as you understand what the definition of "next" is. The issue here is your understanding of the word and how it is used in common english, not the spell.
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
The difference is that the vast majority of oils are flammable by nature, but not all greases are (oils are a type of grease, but not all greases are oils). So there is a difference in the terms that is important to understanding your example, and your lack of nuance in language is creating a situation here (and in Smite spells) that is unnecessary and is creating a problem that doesn't really exist. In your grease example, if they had actually said "oil" then there may be some understandable confusion as to why the oil wouldn't be flammable, but they didn't use that word, and the word they used instead is ambiguous enough regarding flammability that most people take the face value of the spell that omits any flammable nature from the conjured grease.
There is nothing wrong with the Smite spells as written, the only problem is you refusing to understand what "next" actually means in context.
The difference is that the vast majority of oils are flammable by nature, but not all greases are (oils are a type of grease, but not all greases are oils).
"Most lubricating greases contain petroleum-derived mineral oil or hydrocarbon-based synthetic fluid as the lubricating fluid. Those materials are generally considered to be combustible (flash point at or above 38 °C (100 °F)"
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
Ok, lemme untangle this since you brought up grease and nobody's sure why.
The text of the spell does not specify that the grease is flammable, therefore the spell is not flammable because by the social contact of language, we understand that that's what those words mean.
Likewise:
The text of the Smite spells states that the buff applies to the next hit. Therefore it means that it applies to specificity the immediate next hit (see definition above), and specifically not the one after, or the one after, because by the social contact of language, that is not what that word means.
I'm seeing quite a few mental leaps in your interpretation.
The Socail contact of language is based upon a shared perspective within a group, but becouse it is perspective, it bears the issues that come along with being a perspective and difference of interpretations. There is a lack of exactness in the spell that allows the effects to be triggered multiple times becouse of the second half of the spell not distinguishing the difference in duration between it's affects
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
Ok, lemme untangle this since you brought up grease and nobody's sure why.
The text of the spell does not specify that the grease is flammable, therefore the spell is not flammable because by the social contact of language, we understand that that's what those words mean.
Likewise:
The text of the Smite spells states that the buff applies to the next hit. Therefore it means that it applies to specificity the immediate next hit (see definition above), and specifically not the one after, or the one after, because by the social contact of language, that is not what that word means.
I'm seeing quite a few mental leaps in your interpretation.
The Socail contact of language is based upon a shared perspective within a group, but becouse it is perspective, it bears the issues that come along with being a perspective and difference of interpretations. There is a lack of exactness in the spell that allows the effects to be triggered multiple times becouse of the second half of the spell not distinguishing the difference in duration between it's affects
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
It is both singular and sequential becouse of the rest if the sentence. The singular event that follows
Limit of sequence = before the spell ends
Effects are refreshed for each instance because of the nature of how spells are applied
The spell is still active after the singular event that follows (concentration up to 1 min)
Spells do as they say
Spell says next
The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
both of these are active for up to 1 min under concentration
If it instead said
The first attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
That would be entirely different as it limits affects of damage to a singular instance while allows the dim light to persist for the spells duration.
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
Ok, lemme untangle this since you brought up grease and nobody's sure why.
The text of the spell does not specify that the grease is flammable, therefore the spell is not flammable because by the social contact of language, we understand that that's what those words mean.
Likewise:
The text of the Smite spells states that the buff applies to the next hit. Therefore it means that it applies to specificity the immediate next hit (see definition above), and specifically not the one after, or the one after, because by the social contact of language, that is not what that word means.
I'm seeing quite a few mental leaps in your interpretation.
The Socail contact of language is based upon a shared perspective within a group, but becouse it is perspective, it bears the issues that come along with being a perspective and difference of interpretations. There is a lack of exactness in the spell that allows the effects to be triggered multiple times becouse of the second half of the spell not distinguishing the difference in duration between it's affects
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
What should be always isn't. Agreed it is unbalanced but not by much, a paladin extra damage is limited by spells slots where a rogues is limited by advantage. There are only so many spell slots available
However I think it would be much better if wizards changed the spells to
The first attack after casting the spell IS the next attack after casting the spell. In this case, first and next are completely synonymous. This is the definition of next when used as an adverb: "on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards."
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
It is both singular and sequential becouse of the rest if the sentence. The singular event that follows
Limit of sequence = before the spell ends
Effects are refreshed for each instance because of the nature of how spells are applied
The spell is still active after the singular event that follows (concentration up to 1 min)
Spells do as they say
Spell says next
The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
both of these are active for up to 1 min under concentration
If it instead said
The first attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
That would be entirely different as it limits affects of damage to a singular instance while allows the dim light to persist for the spells duration.
So, in your world of "next means ad nauseam", it would actually limit the spell if the wording was "The next two times you hit, your attacks deal additional damage". Or would you still argue that the count refreshes?
The only reason the "while the spell is active" is there is so that you cannot cast it, drop concentration, and assume that your next hit will still trigger the effects. It means you have one (1) minute, while maintaining concentration, to land a hit and proc the spell. This is already better than most spells because you have up to 10 chances to succeed on an attack roll for the cost of one spell slot and concentration.
You are trying to fudge the normal language of the RAW to take it wildly away from the RAI. Just because you choose to not understand "next" doesn't mean you are right. Let's take a look at Chromatic Orb. It says "make a ranged spell attack". Do you agree that I am following RAW if I make a ranged spell attack, but then make a second and a third? Nothing in the spell states that it is limited to one attack, so by RAW I am right (this is obviously not how I really think, but this is what your argument sounds like).
Chromatic orb does not have a duration, the ranged attack is tied to the action spent to cast the spell. Also a only has singular where's next is both singular and sequential
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
It is both singular and sequential becouse of the rest if the sentence. The singular event that follows
Limit of sequence = before the spell ends
Effects are refreshed for each instance because of the nature of how spells are applied
The spell is still active after the singular event that follows (concentration up to 1 min)
Spells do as they say
Spell says next
The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
both of these are active for up to 1 min under concentration
If it instead said
The first attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
That would be entirely different as it limits affects of damage to a singular instance while allows the dim light to persist for the spells duration.
You're making the mistake that concentration applies to the Attack buff; nowhere does the spell specify this. The concentration applies to the enemy debuff. You get the Attack buff automatically simply on the next hit.
You're interpretation is an Evil Keneval-sized leap.
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
Ok, lemme untangle this since you brought up grease and nobody's sure why.
The text of the spell does not specify that the grease is flammable, therefore the spell is not flammable because by the social contact of language, we understand that that's what those words mean.
Likewise:
The text of the Smite spells states that the buff applies to the next hit. Therefore it means that it applies to specificity the immediate next hit (see definition above), and specifically not the one after, or the one after, because by the social contact of language, that is not what that word means.
I'm seeing quite a few mental leaps in your interpretation.
The Socail contact of language is based upon a shared perspective within a group, but becouse it is perspective, it bears the issues that come along with being a perspective and difference of interpretations. There is a lack of exactness in the spell that allows the effects to be triggered multiple times becouse of the second half of the spell not distinguishing the difference in duration between it's affects
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
What should be always isn't. Agreed it is unbalanced but not by much, a paladin extra damage is limited by spells slots where a rogues is limited by advantage. There are only so many spell slots available
However I think it would be much better if wizards changed the spells to
The first attack deals an extra
I think I can see why you're arriving at this conclusion. To be sure, there aren't any concentration spells that work quite like the Smite spells, where the concentration only applies to part of the spells effect and not the entire spell. That is not to say, however, that there's no precedent for a mechanic in a spell description not applying to the totality of a spell.
You see it a lot with Range. For example, if I were to look at Watery Sphere, I would see under Range "90ft, 5ft". By the logic you've applied to your Smite homebrew, that should mean that you summon two spheres, one at 90 feet, and one at 5 feet, because it says both for Range, regardless of the fact that what it means is you can summon 1 5ft radius sphere up to 90 feet away, and states that the area is 5ft radius so you could easily read that in the description and see that that's what the 5ft under range means, but no, it lists two ranges you *must* get two spheres. I mean Fireball has a range and an area but only the Range shows up under range, so from that we can extrapolate that all numbers under range are range, and therfore if it lists two numbers then the spell clearly gives you two copies of the spell.
That, however, is not how the spell works. The range and area respectively listed up in the heading of the spell apply to different parts of the spell, just like with the Smite spells, the Concentration mechanic listed in the spells heading only applies to the relevant part of the spell, not everything there. You don't get two Watery Sphere's per casting, you don't get 2+ attack buffs for Smites.
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
This is the truly hilarious part for me. His argument is basically 'Smite is kind of broken because next means forever and ever amen', and everyone keeps telling him, "That's not what next means", but rather than go, "Oh, that makes sense, guess I was wrong", his response is to deny that anyone but him -- other commenters, WoTC writers, even the dictionary -- knows what the true meaning of the word next is.
It's a conspiratorial view of language. It's like he's come up with his own personal Thieves Cant, and we're all just reading Common.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
This is the truly hilarious part for me. His argument is basically 'Smite is kind of broken because next means forever and ever amen', and everyone keeps telling him, "That's not what next means", but rather than go, "Oh, that makes sense, guess I was wrong", his response is to deny that anyone but him -- other commenters, WoTC writers, even the dictionary -- knows what the true meaning of the word next is.
It's a conspiratorial view of language. It's like he's come up with his own personal Thieves Cant, and we're all just reading Common.
It truly is bizarre, especially given that (and I'm reading between the lines a bit here) it seems he actually agrees with the RAI. The problem is, it looks like he's just going to respond ad infinitum until we give up, rather than admit that he is wrong about what the RAW says. It might be best to just let this one die.
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
This is the truly hilarious part for me. His argument is basically 'Smite is kind of broken because next means forever and ever amen', and everyone keeps telling him, "That's not what next means", but rather than go, "Oh, that makes sense, guess I was wrong", his response is to deny that anyone but him -- other commenters, WoTC writers, even the dictionary -- knows what the true meaning of the word next is.
It's a conspiratorial view of language. It's like he's come up with his own personal Thieves Cant, and we're all just reading Common.
Let's say your making a computer game, If you were to take the spell description and apply it as triggers under the order of operations that dnd uses, it would act as I have described. You would need to specify that only the first attack would benifit from the extra damage using additional triggers other then next
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
This is the truly hilarious part for me. His argument is basically 'Smite is kind of broken because next means forever and ever amen', and everyone keeps telling him, "That's not what next means", but rather than go, "Oh, that makes sense, guess I was wrong", his response is to deny that anyone but him -- other commenters, WoTC writers, even the dictionary -- knows what the true meaning of the word next is.
It's a conspiratorial view of language. It's like he's come up with his own personal Thieves Cant, and we're all just reading Common.
It truly is bizarre, especially given that (and I'm reading between the lines a bit here) it seems he actually agrees with the RAI. The problem is, it looks like he's just going to respond ad infinitum until we give up, rather than admit that he is wrong about what the RAW says. It might be best to just let this one die.
I agree with the intention of rules as intended, however RAI should only be a temporary measure untill the issues is fixed. But becouse it has persisted for so long without change then it must be rules as written
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
This is the truly hilarious part for me. His argument is basically 'Smite is kind of broken because next means forever and ever amen', and everyone keeps telling him, "That's not what next means", but rather than go, "Oh, that makes sense, guess I was wrong", his response is to deny that anyone but him -- other commenters, WoTC writers, even the dictionary -- knows what the true meaning of the word next is.
It's a conspiratorial view of language. It's like he's come up with his own personal Thieves Cant, and we're all just reading Common.
Let's say your making a computer game, If you were to take the spell description and apply it as triggers under the order of operations that dnd uses, it would act as I have described. You would need to specify that only the first attack would benifit from the extra damage using additional triggers other then next
Are you aware that people aren't computers? I don't "speak" to a computer (in the form of coding) in the same way I speak to a person. The D&D rules are not written as computer code, they are written for people to read.
But if you want an analogy to what you are doing in absolute terms: You are saying that 2 + 3 equals 5 (let's assume that the "3" in this instance is the word "first"), but that 2 + ( 9/3 ) does not equal 5 (where "(9/3)" is the word "next"). We are all telling you that (9/3) is the same as 3, so the equation (and result) should be the same, but you refuse to acknowledge that. In the context of the spell, "first" and "next" mean the same thing. That is how English works. There is no other meaning for "next" that would be anything other than equal in meaning to "first" in the given sentence. Your problem is that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact (or you can, and refuse to admit it out of some desire to not admit you are wrong) that, just as (9/3) equals 3 in the context of those equations, that "next" = "first" in this context of the smite spells, not only as RAI, but as the plain meaning of RAW.
Let's say your making a computer game, If you were to take the spell description and apply it as triggers under the order of operations that dnd uses, it would act as I have described...
No. It wouldn't.
All spell descriptions trigger exactly once. Any specific effect that triggers more than once, or which lasts for a duration will tell you (in the description) exactly how long it lasts, what will re-trigger it, and how the spell might end prematurely preventing those triggers.
In the case of a smite spell, the description triggers once - it sets up a single smite instance which will trigger on your NEXT hit. Your concentration is required to hold the spell from that point, the time of casting, until that successful hit. Once the hit is achieved, many smites will also have a lingering effect on that target whose duration is also tied to concentration.
Never does the "on your next hit" text trigger a second time, because nothing tells it to trigger except the casting of the spell. Spells with duration more than instant do not replicate their effects again every turn (unless the spell description actually mentions that effect happening multiple times).
So either you are misunderstanding how spells with longer durations work, or you are stubbornly failing to agree with the single possible meaning of the word "next" used in this context. Either way, exactly no one here has agreed with you at even slighly for over 4 pages. It might be time to rest your case.
I wonder how many times I've almost posted in here, thinking maybe I'd be the heroic and clever wordsmith who could end this debate once and for all. It's gotta be close to a dozen times now. It's not going to happen. Fergottan is operating on some kind of moon logic that we earthlings can't comprehend, let alone contest.
I guess it's against the spirit of the forums to suggest that people let a conversation die, right? But like... This thread was dead for over two years before our mutual friend decided to make an account just to revive it. This isn't a topic for which the community is in need of clarification. It's solved. The only person who disagrees is even on record as saying they recognize the RAI. So they're not having an in-game problem or anything, they're just debating for sport.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok let's try explaining it a different way
Yes, the the instance is singular. One that is hit with a melee attack causes the weapon to glow with astral radiance
An affect is placed on the caster and the target of the attack
As long as concentration is kept the effects of the spell will persist after the first attack hits, up to 1 min
There for both
The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target,
And
which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible
are triggered by
The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends
Becouse
the weapon gleams with astral radiance as you strike.
That is why both effects, the extra damage and the target shedding dim light persist for up to 1 min. The spell allows for this to happen becouse the is no limit to the number of instances just to the duration of the effects and how many targets are affected in the instance
That also means If you cast darkness at 3rd lvl branding smite spell should do nothing inside of it
One thing at a time, soon I shall corrupt all of dndbeyond's forms into the far realm
But no, I am serious in my argument and have yet to be convinced other wise from my current understanding
I recognise next as singular however the wording of the spell allows to have that instance to be repeated
You know, that is actualy a good point. I was rather attached to the notion of assumed understanding vs the spell doesn't say
The difference is that the vast majority of oils are flammable by nature, but not all greases are (oils are a type of grease, but not all greases are oils).
"Most lubricating greases contain petroleum-derived mineral oil or hydrocarbon-based synthetic fluid as the lubricating fluid. Those materials are generally considered to be combustible (flash point at or above 38 °C (100 °F)"
https://www.nlgi.org/faqs/does-lubricating-grease-burn-is-it-a-risk-for-fire/#:~:text=Most greases will burn, but,considered to be fire hazards.&text=In very few cases, the,(100%20%C3%82%C2%B0F).
Correction, grease should not burn but explode instead
The Socail contact of language is based upon a shared perspective within a group, but becouse it is perspective, it bears the issues that come along with being a perspective and difference of interpretations. There is a lack of exactness in the spell that allows the effects to be triggered multiple times becouse of the second half of the spell not distinguishing the difference in duration between it's affects
At this point I don't know how to tell you that words mean things in a way you'll acknowledge, so sure. You can rule that way if you absolutely have to,but for balance's sake with that interpretation, all Smite spells should be considered 4th or 5th level to compensate for how exponentially you've increased their power.
then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
It is both singular and sequential becouse of the rest if the sentence. The singular event that follows
Limit of sequence = before the spell ends
Effects are refreshed for each instance because of the nature of how spells are applied
The spell is still active after the singular event that follows (concentration up to 1 min)
Spells do as they say
Spell says next
The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
both of these are active for up to 1 min under concentration
If it instead said
The first attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends
That would be entirely different as it limits affects of damage to a singular instance while allows the dim light to persist for the spells duration.
What should be always isn't. Agreed it is unbalanced but not by much, a paladin extra damage is limited by spells slots where a rogues is limited by advantage. There are only so many spell slots available
However I think it would be much better if wizards changed the spells to
The first attack deals an extra
The first attack after casting the spell IS the next attack after casting the spell. In this case, first and next are completely synonymous.
This is the definition of next when used as an adverb: "on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards."
...Sigh. Why am I feeding the troll.
Chromatic orb does not have a duration, the ranged attack is tied to the action spent to cast the spell. Also a only has singular where's next is both singular and sequential
Oof, the quality on that last bait wasn't great.
You're making the mistake that concentration applies to the Attack buff; nowhere does the spell specify this. The concentration applies to the enemy debuff. You get the Attack buff automatically simply on the next hit.
You're interpretation is an Evil Keneval-sized leap.
I think I can see why you're arriving at this conclusion. To be sure, there aren't any concentration spells that work quite like the Smite spells, where the concentration only applies to part of the spells effect and not the entire spell. That is not to say, however, that there's no precedent for a mechanic in a spell description not applying to the totality of a spell.
You see it a lot with Range. For example, if I were to look at Watery Sphere, I would see under Range "90ft, 5ft". By the logic you've applied to your Smite homebrew, that should mean that you summon two spheres, one at 90 feet, and one at 5 feet, because it says both for Range, regardless of the fact that what it means is you can summon 1 5ft radius sphere up to 90 feet away, and states that the area is 5ft radius so you could easily read that in the description and see that that's what the 5ft under range means, but no, it lists two ranges you *must* get two spheres. I mean Fireball has a range and an area but only the Range shows up under range, so from that we can extrapolate that all numbers under range are range, and therfore if it lists two numbers then the spell clearly gives you two copies of the spell.
That, however, is not how the spell works. The range and area respectively listed up in the heading of the spell apply to different parts of the spell, just like with the Smite spells, the Concentration mechanic listed in the spells heading only applies to the relevant part of the spell, not everything there. You don't get two Watery Sphere's per casting, you don't get 2+ attack buffs for Smites.
This is the truly hilarious part for me. His argument is basically 'Smite is kind of broken because next means forever and ever amen', and everyone keeps telling him, "That's not what next means", but rather than go, "Oh, that makes sense, guess I was wrong", his response is to deny that anyone but him -- other commenters, WoTC writers, even the dictionary -- knows what the true meaning of the word next is.
It's a conspiratorial view of language. It's like he's come up with his own personal Thieves Cant, and we're all just reading Common.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It truly is bizarre, especially given that (and I'm reading between the lines a bit here) it seems he actually agrees with the RAI. The problem is, it looks like he's just going to respond ad infinitum until we give up, rather than admit that he is wrong about what the RAW says. It might be best to just let this one die.
Let's say your making a computer game, If you were to take the spell description and apply it as triggers under the order of operations that dnd uses, it would act as I have described. You would need to specify that only the first attack would benifit from the extra damage using additional triggers other then next
I agree with the intention of rules as intended, however RAI should only be a temporary measure untill the issues is fixed. But becouse it has persisted for so long without change then it must be rules as written
Are you aware that people aren't computers? I don't "speak" to a computer (in the form of coding) in the same way I speak to a person. The D&D rules are not written as computer code, they are written for people to read.
But if you want an analogy to what you are doing in absolute terms: You are saying that 2 + 3 equals 5 (let's assume that the "3" in this instance is the word "first"), but that 2 + ( 9/3 ) does not equal 5 (where "(9/3)" is the word "next"). We are all telling you that (9/3) is the same as 3, so the equation (and result) should be the same, but you refuse to acknowledge that. In the context of the spell, "first" and "next" mean the same thing. That is how English works. There is no other meaning for "next" that would be anything other than equal in meaning to "first" in the given sentence. Your problem is that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact (or you can, and refuse to admit it out of some desire to not admit you are wrong) that, just as (9/3) equals 3 in the context of those equations, that "next" = "first" in this context of the smite spells, not only as RAI, but as the plain meaning of RAW.
No. It wouldn't.
All spell descriptions trigger exactly once. Any specific effect that triggers more than once, or which lasts for a duration will tell you (in the description) exactly how long it lasts, what will re-trigger it, and how the spell might end prematurely preventing those triggers.
In the case of a smite spell, the description triggers once - it sets up a single smite instance which will trigger on your NEXT hit. Your concentration is required to hold the spell from that point, the time of casting, until that successful hit. Once the hit is achieved, many smites will also have a lingering effect on that target whose duration is also tied to concentration.
Never does the "on your next hit" text trigger a second time, because nothing tells it to trigger except the casting of the spell. Spells with duration more than instant do not replicate their effects again every turn (unless the spell description actually mentions that effect happening multiple times).
So either you are misunderstanding how spells with longer durations work, or you are stubbornly failing to agree with the single possible meaning of the word "next" used in this context. Either way, exactly no one here has agreed with you at even slighly for over 4 pages. It might be time to rest your case.
I wonder how many times I've almost posted in here, thinking maybe I'd be the heroic and clever wordsmith who could end this debate once and for all. It's gotta be close to a dozen times now. It's not going to happen. Fergottan is operating on some kind of moon logic that we earthlings can't comprehend, let alone contest.
I guess it's against the spirit of the forums to suggest that people let a conversation die, right? But like... This thread was dead for over two years before our mutual friend decided to make an account just to revive it. This isn't a topic for which the community is in need of clarification. It's solved. The only person who disagrees is even on record as saying they recognize the RAI. So they're not having an in-game problem or anything, they're just debating for sport.