While the event of the effects are singular, the spell does not restrict to a single event. The spell in no way implies that the effects cannot be triggered continuously
Yes, it does. By using the very word you seem to be having trouble with..."Next" There is only one "next time you hit" from the point of time at which you cast the spell. any other time can never be the "next" point from the casting time, and the effects take place from casting. There are a lot of spells that have continuous effects that affect attacks...I promise you none of them use "next" to describe their effects.
As an example for how the writers indicate continuous effects, see elemental weapon
"A nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon. Choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. For the duration, the weapon has a +1 bonus to attack rolls and deals an extra 1d4 damage of the chosen type when it hits."
See how they reference the duration, and how they don't use a singular indicator like "next"? this is a spell effect that affects multiple hits with the weapon. Smite spells don't use this kind of language.
there is no common english usage of "next" that infers multiple things that are "next" Next Friday is 7/16, a specific date inferred from the time of start (this post), not every friday until oblivion. Likewise, "the next time you hit" is inferred from the time you start the spell by casting it, not every hit from then to oblivion (or to the end of the spell). The duration is the amount of time you have to make that next hit, and the amount of time any post-hit effects last
You are instructed the next time a pipe breaks today while at work to mend it. If the pipe breaks multiple times today while you are working do you mend it only the first time?
By plain english, they are asking you to mend the pipe the next time, so yes, that would be once. But that is not the language most people would use to convey that info. They would say "If the pipe breaks while you are at work, mend it" That sets the duration as the limiting factor to how many times the effect triggers, and allows for multiple instances, not just the singular one inferred by "next"
Other spells that deal extra damage during their durations do not use "next" when describing the effect. Smites do, and the RAI, as communicated from the writers themselves, are clear that they meant the most common meaning of "next" implying a singluar event from the spell.
The duration is the length of the effect, one of the effects is that you deal increases damage. Next may be singular but the spell does not limit the number the amount of instances the effect triggers. Is simply says
The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends, the weapon gleams with astral radiance as you strike.
The spell has not ended after the strike and thus it's effects are still active. Otherwise it would be worded differently. In this phrasing it cannot be used retroactively.
It does limit it, to once, by using the word "next." If you don't understand the meaning of next, look it up. it is always singular and always based on a set point in time (usually "now", but can be other set points)
Think of the spell as an active buff. You receive the benefits of the buff as long as the buff is active in relation to its triggers
Literally the spell has not ended so you next attack will gleam with astral radssince wether or not if you have hit another creature with a weapon attack in the spells duration.
If the spell was ment to affect only 1 creature you hit with a weapon attack then instead of next it would have said first
Just like thunderous smite
The first time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your weapon rings with thunder that is audible within 300 feet of you, and the attack deals an extra 2d6 thunder damage to the target.
The duration is the amount of time you have to make that next hit, and the amount of time any post-hit effects last.
What you are arguing would make sence if it said instead it said
.Thefirst 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.
But that is not the case. First is not included anywhere in its phrasing and thus the the extra damage effect is limited to the spells duration becouse it affects you. You are making the attack, you deal the extra damage. The spell empowers you
It doesn't have to, it uses "next" which is a common and acceptable way in english to imply a singular instance of an event.
In short, you are wrong, both in RAW and RAI
Regardless of the language used to convay the intention of the meaning. The implied meaning is not what is written
While the event of the effects are singular, the spell does not restrict to a single event. The spell in no way implies that the effects cannot be triggered continuously. By the wording the effects can be triggered as long as the spell persist
Please then explain why they use different language for the spell thunderous smite vs the other smite spells?
If that is the case explain why they would use different wording in thunderous smite, why not so ply word the other smites just like it then?
Why do they need to? the words chosen have analogous meanings in context, and neither of them come anywhere close to language that would allow multiple instances. See the above post with elemental weapon in it for an example of how that kind of writing works.
While the event of the effects are singular, the spell does not restrict to a single event. The spell in no way implies that the effects cannot be triggered continuously
Yes, it does. By using the very word you seem to be having trouble with..."Next" There is only one "next time you hit" from the point of time at which you cast the spell. any other time can never be the "next" point from the casting time, and the effects take place from casting. There are a lot of spells that have continuous effects that affect attacks...I promise you none of them use "next" to describe their effects.
As an example for how the writers indicate continuous effects, see elemental weapon
"A nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon. Choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. For the duration, the weapon has a +1 bonus to attack rolls and deals an extra 1d4 damage of the chosen type when it hits."
See how they reference the duration, and how they don't use a singular indicator like "next"? this is a spell effect that affects multiple hits with the weapon. Smite spells don't use this kind of language.
You are applying an assumed understanding of intentions on how it should be
Spell effects are active as long as the spell persists
If the spell is still active after my first hit, by its own wording my next hit will still benefit from the effects of the spell.
While the event of the effects are singular, the spell does not restrict to a single event. The spell in no way implies that the effects cannot be triggered continuously
Yes, it does. By using the very word you seem to be having trouble with..."Next" There is only one "next time you hit" from the point of time at which you cast the spell. any other time can never be the "next" point from the casting time, and the effects take place from casting. There are a lot of spells that have continuous effects that affect attacks...I promise you none of them use "next" to describe their effects.
As an example for how the writers indicate continuous effects, see elemental weapon
"A nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon. Choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. For the duration, the weapon has a +1 bonus to attack rolls and deals an extra 1d4 damage of the chosen type when it hits."
See how they reference the duration, and how they don't use a singular indicator like "next"? this is a spell effect that affects multiple hits with the weapon. Smite spells don't use this kind of language.
You are applying an assumed understanding of intentions on how it should be
Spell effects are active as long as the spell persists
If the spell is still active after my first hit, by its own wording my next hit will still benefit from the effects of the spell.
You know what, fine...you're wrong, but fine, if you are the DM, you can rule that way for your players, and best of luck to you (especially since you have made one of the most powerful classes even more so...by like a lot). If you are a player though, good luck finding another DM that agrees with you and would let you do it your way.
If that is the case explain why they would use different wording in thunderous smite, why not so ply word the other smites just like it then?
Why do they need to? the words chosen have analogous meanings in context, and neither of them come anywhere close to language that would allow multiple instances. See the above post with elemental weapon in it for an example of how that kind of writing works.
Because elemtal weapon affects only you where smite spells affect you and the receipent of the attack so the wording must acomidate. The current wording of smite spells outside of thunderous smite allow for repeated triggering of the effects of the spell becouse in the context of the spell, next prevents the effects from being applied retroactively, meaning going forward for the spells duration
While the event of the effects are singular, the spell does not restrict to a single event. The spell in no way implies that the effects cannot be triggered continuously
Yes, it does. By using the very word you seem to be having trouble with..."Next" There is only one "next time you hit" from the point of time at which you cast the spell. any other time can never be the "next" point from the casting time, and the effects take place from casting. There are a lot of spells that have continuous effects that affect attacks...I promise you none of them use "next" to describe their effects.
As an example for how the writers indicate continuous effects, see elemental weapon
"A nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon. Choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. For the duration, the weapon has a +1 bonus to attack rolls and deals an extra 1d4 damage of the chosen type when it hits."
See how they reference the duration, and how they don't use a singular indicator like "next"? this is a spell effect that affects multiple hits with the weapon. Smite spells don't use this kind of language.
You are applying an assumed understanding of intentions on how it should be
Spell effects are active as long as the spell persists
If the spell is still active after my first hit, by its own wording my next hit will still benefit from the effects of the spell.
You know what, fine...you're wrong, but fine, if you are the DM, you can rule that way for your players, and best of luck to you (especially since you have made one of the most powerful classes even more so...by like a lot). If you are a player though, good luck finding another DM that agrees with you and would let you do it your way.
I agree it is very overpowered, and wizards should fix it to so that the wording matches thunderous smite.
You are assuming that as long as you concentrate on a concentration spell, you re-execute the text.
If I miss my attack with Ray of Enfeeblement, which does not specify any conditions for ending the spell in its text, can I make another attack with it next turn? If the target succeeds on its saving throw against Suggestion, can I try again next turn? The spell doesn't explicitly say it ends on a successful save.
Just because a spell is concentration doesn't mean you can automatically repeat its effects. The spell's text will say if an effect can be repeated and when and how often. If it does not say, you can't repeat it.
Spell effects are active as long as the spell persists
The effects other than the additional damage, which is applied only to the next hit after casting, yes.
Searing Smite offers the clearest example. By your reading, you can smite multiple creatures while you maintain concentration, and they would all be on fire simultaneously.
However, if just one of them makes their CON save or uses its action to put out the flames on only its person, the fires would suddenly go out on all of them because the spell has ended.
Does that sound remotely coherent to you?
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)
next prevents the effects from being applied retroactively, meaning going forward for the spells duration
So... you seriously think they put the word 'next' in there so people wouldn't try to apply the damage to hits made before the spell was cast?
This is a serious argument you are attempting to make?
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)
You are assuming that as long as you concentrate on a concentration spell, you re-execute the text.
If I miss my attack with Ray of Enfeeblement, which does not specify any conditions for ending the spell in its text, can I make another attack with it next turn? If the target succeeds on its saving throw against Suggestion, can I try again next turn? The spell doesn't explicitly say it ends on a successful save.
Just because a spell is concentration doesn't mean you can automatically repeat its effects. The spell's text will say if an effect can be repeated and when and how often. If it does not say, you can't repeat it.
Normally yes the spell is still active thus it's effects activate, however for ray of enfeeblment
A black beam of enervating energy springs from your finger toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target.
The ranged spell attack is part of the casting of the spell. If it had said the next time you hit with a ranged spell attack, that would be different you would apply the effects of the spell each time you hit a creature with a ranged spell attack for the durration of the spell
If that is the case explain why they would use different wording in thunderous smite, why not simply word the other smites just like it then?
Because this is a book with multiple authors and multiple editors, and sometimes things slip through, because people make mistakes and don't catch each and every possible phrasing issue.
FWIW, I agree with everyone else. The next time, means it works only the next time, it does not work the time after that. There can only be one next time.
Spell effects are active as long as the spell persists
The effects other than the additional damage, which is applied only to the next hit after casting, yes.
Searing Smite offers the clearest example. By your reading, you can smite multiple creatures while you maintain concentration, and they would all be on fire simultaneously.
However, if just one of them makes their CON save or uses its action to put out the flames on only its person, the fires would suddenly go out on all of them because the spell has ended.
Does that sound remotely coherent to you?
Regardless of whether it is coherent or not, yes if the creature made the save, the spell ends. That is the wording of the spell and spells do as they say. So if I manage to ignite 4 people before a save is made or the fire is put out. When the conditions for the spell is met to end, it ends
How is this even up for debate? "The next time" means the next time; not every time so long as you concentrate. This is about as little ambiguity as you can get in English, particularly in 5e.
How is this even up for debate? "The next time" means the next time; not every time so long as you concentrate. This is about as little ambiguity as you can get in English, particularly in 5e.
The problem here isn't a rules issue, its a word comprehension issue. The person in question here is basically saying a word doesn't mean what it means in order to make their argument. It's difficult to even try to argue against, because you aren't operating with the same basic assumptions (like "the rules use common english and the normal definitions of words")
That is the wording of the spell and spells do as they say.
And yet, here we are.
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)
If that is the case explain why they would use different wording in thunderous smite, why not simply word the other smites just like it then?
Yes, it does. By using the very word you seem to be having trouble with..."Next" There is only one "next time you hit" from the point of time at which you cast the spell. any other time can never be the "next" point from the casting time, and the effects take place from casting. There are a lot of spells that have continuous effects that affect attacks...I promise you none of them use "next" to describe their effects.
As an example for how the writers indicate continuous effects, see elemental weapon
"A nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon. Choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. For the duration, the weapon has a +1 bonus to attack rolls and deals an extra 1d4 damage of the chosen type when it hits."
See how they reference the duration, and how they don't use a singular indicator like "next"? this is a spell effect that affects multiple hits with the weapon. Smite spells don't use this kind of language.
Regardless of the language used to convay the intention of the meaning. The implied meaning is not what is written
While the event of the effects are singular, the spell does not restrict to a single event. The spell in no way implies that the effects cannot be triggered continuously. By the wording the effects can be triggered as long as the spell persist
Please then explain why they use different language for the spell thunderous smite vs the other smite spells?
Why do they need to? the words chosen have analogous meanings in context, and neither of them come anywhere close to language that would allow multiple instances. See the above post with elemental weapon in it for an example of how that kind of writing works.
You are applying an assumed understanding of intentions on how it should be
Spell effects are active as long as the spell persists
If the spell is still active after my first hit, by its own wording my next hit will still benefit from the effects of the spell.
You know what, fine...you're wrong, but fine, if you are the DM, you can rule that way for your players, and best of luck to you (especially since you have made one of the most powerful classes even more so...by like a lot). If you are a player though, good luck finding another DM that agrees with you and would let you do it your way.
Because elemtal weapon affects only you where smite spells affect you and the receipent of the attack so the wording must acomidate. The current wording of smite spells outside of thunderous smite allow for repeated triggering of the effects of the spell becouse in the context of the spell, next prevents the effects from being applied retroactively, meaning going forward for the spells duration
I agree it is very overpowered, and wizards should fix it to so that the wording matches thunderous smite.
You are assuming that as long as you concentrate on a concentration spell, you re-execute the text.
If I miss my attack with Ray of Enfeeblement, which does not specify any conditions for ending the spell in its text, can I make another attack with it next turn? If the target succeeds on its saving throw against Suggestion, can I try again next turn? The spell doesn't explicitly say it ends on a successful save.
Just because a spell is concentration doesn't mean you can automatically repeat its effects. The spell's text will say if an effect can be repeated and when and how often. If it does not say, you can't repeat it.
The effects other than the additional damage, which is applied only to the next hit after casting, yes.
Searing Smite offers the clearest example. By your reading, you can smite multiple creatures while you maintain concentration, and they would all be on fire simultaneously.
However, if just one of them makes their CON save or uses its action to put out the flames on only its person, the fires would suddenly go out on all of them because the spell has ended.
Does that sound remotely coherent to you?
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)
So... you seriously think they put the word 'next' in there so people wouldn't try to apply the damage to hits made before the spell was cast?
This is a serious argument you are attempting to make?
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)
Normally yes the spell is still active thus it's effects activate, however for ray of enfeeblment
The ranged spell attack is part of the casting of the spell. If it had said the next time you hit with a ranged spell attack, that would be different you would apply the effects of the spell each time you hit a creature with a ranged spell attack for the durration of the spell
Because this is a book with multiple authors and multiple editors, and sometimes things slip through, because people make mistakes and don't catch each and every possible phrasing issue.
FWIW, I agree with everyone else. The next time, means it works only the next time, it does not work the time after that. There can only be one next time.
Regardless of whether it is coherent or not, yes if the creature made the save, the spell ends. That is the wording of the spell and spells do as they say. So if I manage to ignite 4 people before a save is made or the fire is put out. When the conditions for the spell is met to end, it ends
And there you go. The "next time" in smite spells is relative to when the spell is cast. There is only one next time after the spell is cast.
How is this even up for debate? "The next time" means the next time; not every time so long as you concentrate. This is about as little ambiguity as you can get in English, particularly in 5e.
The problem here isn't a rules issue, its a word comprehension issue. The person in question here is basically saying a word doesn't mean what it means in order to make their argument. It's difficult to even try to argue against, because you aren't operating with the same basic assumptions (like "the rules use common english and the normal definitions of words")
And yet, here we are.
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)
I'd gladly take the money from them, though.
Possibly because it was a different author and the editor didn't think it was necessary to format every spell exactly the same.