Okay, but you never answered my Wall of Fire example. How would those effects balance? They would both have the same effect in the area between them? Does one get cancelled?
Going by the logic of the rest of RAW Sposta has quoted the most potent effect would be the one they would take damage from. So I would rule (based on raw only) yes both would take damage as one is more potent versus them then the other. If there was no evocation then they would just take the damage once either way.
Sposta I agree with you on magic missile it's how we play it too. Thematically I picture it as you pouring magic into the spell which divides evenly among the bolts that form at the same time. People can play it however they want I'm not arguing that though. It looks like it's RAW based on what you've said for overlapping aoe effects as well although that'd be anti fun for my table so we wouldn't do that at least in the case of spirit guardians. Buff/Debuffs is generally what we won't allow to stack but I definitely see how it would be raw that other effects (damage) wouldn't either. It does make sense raw though as it's a similar vein to not allowing full sentinel parties.
I'm curious how you'd rule (under raw) say the AOE's were overlapping at the edge and the monster started at that point then moved further into the lesser or older effect where they don't overlap. Would you consider it already in the effect when it started it's turn or moving into it for the first time on it's turn. This is just hypothetical curiosity not really arguing any point because I'm really not sure. Does it still exist in that space and just not apply or does the stronger/newer one stop it from existing? Apologies if you answered this in the other thread I haven't read it.
Edit: Further looking at it again if they are the same level is the more recent one the more recent cast or more recent to occupy that space. I'm picturing a battle of stealing the spirits from each other MAH SPIRITS, NO MYYY SPIRITS lol.
Isn’t damage one of the ultimate “debuffs” in D&D?
In that scenario I would rule that where the auras overlap the more potent/recent are the effects that actually apply, even though the two aura’s do technically occupy the same space. So that monster is already in there aura, it just doesn’t effect the creature at all. Both auras are there (hence their overlapping), they just don’t both apply.
Me personally I rule that the “more potent” is the one cast at the higher level, and that the “more recent” is the one cast more recently. That means there’s no bookkeeping as to which aura is supplanting which at any given time. But “potency” (and I suppose in that case “recent-ness” would be determined on a DM/DM basis since we have no RAW for that.
True and it makes a lot more sense the more I think about it and how the rest of the game plays out with damage (sentinal etc.). I might bring this up if there's ever an issue at my table with overlapping AoE's. Thanks for your thoughts.
Okay, but you never answered my Wall of Fire example. How would those effects balance? They would both have the same effect in the area between them? Does one get cancelled?
Logic it out. Take my arguments and apply them for yourself. I’ll not change my interpretations of RAW from spell to spell. I may very well (and have) acknowledge that I disagree with RAW and intentionally rule against them, but I always still acknowledge whenever I houserule contrary to RAW.
I have absolutely nothing against houseruling contrary to RAW, as long as RAW is acknowledged. I don’t even disagree with how you rule on Spirit Guardians, I just disagree that your interpretation is RAW. RAI? Maybe. RAF*? If people think your ruling is more fun then your ruling would certainly qualify as RAF (since fun is subjective, I can have no argument against that). RAW? I say “nay nay.”
*(Personally, I think it is more fun knowing that any spell with an ongoing effect is essentially a counter to itself. But that’s just one man’s opinion.)
But Sposta said earlier that a rival Cleric could negate your Spirit Guardians by casting his own. That is what I took issue with. I would rule that your SG would affect enemies (or anyone that you did not designate as unaffected) and vice versa for the enemy's SG. Sposta is arguing that the flitting spirits is the spell effect and that you cannot have both active in the same area.
That is why I brought up the WoF, and it looks like Jay is agreeing with me, as the "most potent" is the one that actually slows/damages the target. Thus both could remain active.
True and Sposta just mentioned that potency and recentness are DM fiat due to not being explicitly written in RAW what is considered more potent. It might just how they would rule it to balance out a spell that might be overturned for their world.
Edit: See post above for Sposta's logic/reasoning (I'll stop trying to put words in your mouth sorry Sposta)
Okay, but you never answered my Wall of Fire example. How would those effects balance? They would both have the same effect in the area between them? Does one get cancelled?
Going by the logic of the rest of RAW Sposta has quoted the most potent effect would be the one they would take damage from. So I would rule yes both would take damage as one is more potent versus them then the other. If there was no evocation then they would just take the damage once either way.
Sposta I agree with you on magic missile it's how we play it too. Thematically I picture it as you pouring magic into the spell which divides evenly among the bolts that form at the same time. People can play it however they want I'm not arguing that though. It looks like it's RAW based on what you've said for overlapping aoe effects as well although that'd be anti fun for my table so we wouldn't do that at least in the case of spirit guardians. Buff/Debuffs is generally what we won't allow to stack but I definitely see how it would be raw that other effects (damage) wouldn't either. It does make sense raw though as it's a similar vein to not allowing full sentinel parties.
I'm curious how you'd rule (under raw) say the AOE's were overlapping at the edge and the monster started at that point then moved further into the lesser or older effect where they don't overlap. Would you consider it already in the effect when it started it's turn or moving into it for the first time on it's turn. This is just hypothetical curiosity not really arguing any point because I'm really not sure. Does it still exist in that space and just not apply or does the stronger/newer one stop it from existing? Apologies if you answered this in the other thread I haven't read it.
Edit: Further looking at it again if they are the same level is the more recent one the more recent cast or more recent to occupy that space. I'm picturing a battle of stealing the spirits from each other MAH SPIRITS, NO MYYY SPIRITS lol.
Isn’t damage one of the ultimate “debuffs” in D&D?
In that scenario I would rule that where the auras overlap the more potent/recent are the effects that actually apply, even though the two aura’s do technically occupy the same space. So that monster is already in there aura, it just doesn’t effect the creature at all. Both auras are there (hence their overlapping), they just don’t both apply.
Me personally I rule that the “more potent” is the one cast at the higher level, and that the “more recent” is the one cast more recently. That means there’s no bookkeeping as to which aura is supplanting which at any given time. But “potency” (and I suppose in that case “recent-ness” would be determined on a DM/DM basis since we have no RAW for that.
True and it makes a lot more sense the more I think about it and how the rest of the game plays out with damage (sentinal etc.). I might bring this up if there's ever an issue at my table with overlapping AoE's.
Isn’t that the whole point of these debates? To get everyone thinking about these things critically. Even if ultimately we disagree, through the process we strengthen our own arguments. (It’s just that in this case, WotC hasn’t published anything new that would effect this RAW since the last time I debated it.)
But the rule you reference is specifying targets. By the fact that you are omitting certain characters from your spells affects, they are not targerts.
The rule you reference also says that they "do not combine", not that one cancels the other one out. So you couldn't be -hit- with two instances of overlapping SG, but that doesn't mean that Cleric B granting you immunity from their SG means you are now immune from Cleric A's SG. Having an Evoker grant you immunity from their Fireball does not mean that you are immune from all Fireballs even in the same turn.
This would be the same argument as: because I cast Bless on three of my allies that anyone else who had been Blessed that is in range now loses the benefits.
The rule you reference says "The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap ". No one here is arguing that they combine, just that they do not negate the other one. As I stated before, the "most potent effect" is the one that is actually affecting the target(s).
But “the Target” is not the creatures affected, it is the area within 15 feet of the caster. That’s on WotC for their notoriously loose and sloppy applications of the same/similar terms in different ways.
Fireball is an irrelevant example because, as I explained in that other thread, again, the rules specify when their “durations” overlap, and since, even with held actions it is impossible for any two instantaneous fireballs to overlap durations.
Your example of bless is perfect because it illustrates my point beautifully. Exactly as you say, bless would not cancel bless, it’s simply that the more recent casting would be the one technically taking effect, not the first. Right? Agreed?
Its the same way with spirit guardians. The second one doesn’t really counter the first, it just overlays the first and takes precedence over the first. The spirits from the second (or “more potent”) one do all the work, and the earlier (or “less potent”) version take a ticket and wait in line twiddling their thumbs. It would be the exact same if two friendlies tried to both use the same spell at the same time in the same area, or if it’s a friendly or a hostile, it functions the exact same either way. So the second one doesn’t “cancel” the first, it just “effectively counters” the first by virtue of its coexistence. Using the above example with “PC1 and PC2” and the frowned faces, if “PC2” was instead “NPC1,” it would be the same ruling. Remember, if it works that way for the enemy, then it works that way for the PCs too. So a PC could just as effectively use spirit guardians to plug up the NPCs too. Fair is fair and all.
But it is not "doing all the work" on the previously affected targets, it is doing NOTHING to them. The section on how overlapping effects combine (or don't) expressly speaks to the affect on creatures. You're taking this way beyond "they don't stack" into "the non-effect of the second one overrides the effect of the first". The fact that a creature is not being attacked by friendly Spirit Guardians doesn't mean that unfriendly Spirit Guardians are incapable of attacking them.
The flitting spirits can occupy the same space and will attack whomever they have not been told not to attack. If you are the poor schmuck in the middle of two Spirit Guardians with protection from neither one, then the rule on COMBINING effects comes into play and you are hit by the most potent/recent, not all of them. But I cannot protect you from enemy spirits simply by telling my spirits not to attack you.
so your contention is that it should be treated on a creature by creature bases at the start of each of their turns as to which aura is most recently applied to them. Do I have that correct? My contention has always been that the existence of the “dominant” aura in that space precluded the “lesser” from taking any effects on creatures in the area. However, to the best of my recollection, the debate has always surrounded instances of two casters on the same side both using Spirit Gardens. This is the first time I have extended the logic to apply from one caster on one side to another caster on the other side. I can see your point that the “good spirits” would attack the “bad guys” in the “bad spirits” would it take to “good guys.” However, any creatures that were not excluded from either Laura, third-party creatures hostile to both, would still only be affected by 1/3 of spirits not the other and only the “most potent“ or “most recent“ spirits it would be the ones to affect those creatures. I still like the idea of using spirit guardians to counter spirit guardians.
But it is not "doing all the work" on the previously affected targets, it is doing NOTHING to them. The section on how overlapping effects combine (or don't) expressly speaks to the affect on creatures. You're taking this way beyond "they don't stack" into "the non-effect of the second one overrides the effect of the first". The fact that a creature is not being attacked by friendly Spirit Guardians doesn't mean that unfriendly Spirit Guardians are incapable of attacking them.
The flitting spirits can occupy the same space and will attack whomever they have not been told not to attack. If you are the poor schmuck in the middle of two Spirit Guardians with protection from neither one, then the rule on COMBINING effects comes into play and you are hit by the most potent/recent, not all of them. But I cannot protect you from enemy spirits simply by telling my spirits not to attack you.
But what if there were two non-overlapping spirit guardians and a large or larger creature started it's turn within both auras. The areas definitely do not overlap so no cancelation there. I would find it very hard to rule that the damage of one could possibly be negated by the other.
so your contention is that it should be treated on a creature by creature bases at the start of each of their charts as to which aura is most recently applied to them. Do I have that correct? My contention has always been that the existence of the “dominant” aura in that space precluded the “lesser” from taking any effects on creatures in the area. However, to the best of my recollection, the debate has always surrounded instances of two casters on the same side both using Spirit Gardens. This is the first time I have extended the logic to apply from one caster on one side to another caster on the other side. I can see your point that the “good spirits” would attack the “bad guys” in the “bad spirits” would it take to “good guys.” However, any creatures that were not excluded from either Laura, third-party creatures hostile to both, would still only be affected by 1/3 of spirits not the other and only the “most potent“ or “most recent“ spirits it would be the ones to affect those creatures. I still like the idea of using spirit guardians to counter spirit guardians.
The only situation where the difference between 'the auras don't overlap' and 'the effects on targets within the aura don't stack' matters is in the case where two casters have different excluded lists.
You call forth spirits to protect you. They flit around you to a distance of 15 feet for the duration. If you are good or neutral, their spectral form appears angelic or fey (your choice). If you are evil, they appear fiendish.
When you cast this spell, you can designate any number of creatures you can see to be unaffected by it. An affected creature's speed is halved in the area, and when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 3d8 radiant damage (if you are good or neutral) or 3d8 necrotic damage (if you are evil). On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 3rd.
That is the ongoing effect of the spell, right there. Everything else is caused by that effect, but that is the actual effect right there, those spirits in that area.
That is a description of the effect, yes.
Since the effects of multiple castings of the same spells cannot stack, those spirits from multiple castings of the spell cannot effect the same area.
This spell has no effect on the area. None. It affects only creatures.
Therefore, wherever the areas of two or more castings of the spell overlap, the rules for multiple ongoing effects kicks in, and wherever they don’t overlap they function normally.
The spell cannot have overlapping effects on... the only thing it affects: creatures.
Edit: Even if you only want to argue that the first bit is the only part that describes the spell effect and not the entirety of the spell description, the effect of the spell is actually: You call forth spirits to protect you. Calling spirits. The area is not referenced here. The fact the spirits must stay within 15ft of you is a restriction on them, not the area. spirit guardians at no point, ever, affects the area.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But it is not "doing all the work" on the previously affected targets, it is doing NOTHING to them. The section on how overlapping effects combine (or don't) expressly speaks to the affect on creatures. You're taking this way beyond "they don't stack" into "the non-effect of the second one overrides the effect of the first". The fact that a creature is not being attacked by friendly Spirit Guardians doesn't mean that unfriendly Spirit Guardians are incapable of attacking them.
The flitting spirits can occupy the same space and will attack whomever they have not been told not to attack. If you are the poor schmuck in the middle of two Spirit Guardians with protection from neither one, then the rule on COMBINING effects comes into play and you are hit by the most potent/recent, not all of them. But I cannot protect you from enemy spirits simply by telling my spirits not to attack you.
Called it.
Called what?
This argument. Yours was quoted because it was the most recent entry when I was reading through it.
Spiritual weapon + Guardian of faith, then step into combat. You are getting your regular melee weapon attack, plus a bonus action attack, and every single enemy within 15 foot of you gets their move halved and takes a minimum of 3d8 (half on a save) radiant damage on their turn. It’s one of several reasons why any cleric with martial weapons, shields and heavy weapons = terminators. If you manage to somehow get a blade cantrip like green flame blade then even better.
Spiritual weapon + Guardian of faith, then step into combat. You are getting your regular melee weapon attack, plus a bonus action attack, and every single enemy within 15 foot of you gets their move halved and takes a minimum of 3d8 (half on a save) radiant damage on their turn. It’s one of several reasons why any cleric with martial weapons, shields and heavy weapons = terminators. If you manage to somehow get a blade cantrip like green flame blade then even better.
For real, but then take it a step further and mix in Combat Casting and Booming Blade, or take it even a step (or 5) further and add a Whip for having them provoke Guiding Bolts (if at 10ft) when they try to escape your Spirit Guardians.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The spell cannot have overlapping effects on... the only thing it affects: creatures.
Edit: Even if you only want to argue that the first bit is the only part that describes the spell effect and not the entirety of the spell description, the effect of the spell is actually: You call forth spirits to protect you. Calling spirits. The area is not referenced here. The fact the spirits must stay within 15ft of you is a restriction on them, not the area. spirit guardians at no point, ever, affects the area.
I agree that this spell doesn't affect the area. A spell that would affect a area would be something like Plant Growth, which can target a area. A area of effect in my opinion doesn't affect the area itself, but rather things in that area (which may or may not include the area itself).
However none of it matters for this argument, as such I won't bother going into detail about Areas of Effect. The Combining Magical Effect rules only requires it to be the same spell effect and to have a overlapping durations. For reference, (link)
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
Note AoE is not mentioned once, all that matters is duration & spell effect.
If a creature starts their turn in two spiritual guardian auras, they are affected by the same spell and we can deduce both those spiritual guardians spells have a overlapping duration. As such, they only take damage from the most potent, or in cases of a tie of potency, the most recent.
This also applies to the example of a large creature in two non-overlapping spiritual guardian auras. The creature is affected by the same spell and as before both those spiritual guardians have a overlapping duration. So the creature is a target of the combining magical effect rules regardless of what range the AoE was.
Two fireballs would not proc this, as their durations do not overlap.
If Symbol overlaps depends on both if the trigger conditions overlap, and if "same spell effects" refers to the entire spell or each individual bullet point (if Symbol Fear & Symbol Discord are considered the same, cause different bullet points but the same spell). That's probably up to personal opinion and not relevant to this argument.
Mentioned this briefly at the beginning but these rules apply to everything affected by a spell, objects, creatures, areas, etc. So a druid can't spend 3 plant growth spells to get a yearly harvest of 8x the normal harvest. That isn't relevant to this particular spell Spiritual Guardians, but yeah.
Actually plant growth is probably a bad example of a spell that targets a area, cause you could easily argue that it just targets objects (plants). Oops. I need better example spells.
Its easy to tell who didnt "prove" anything by the fact he over and over says he already "proved". Saying you proved something doesnt make it true and its not proven until others agree. No one agrees...
Going by the logic of the rest of RAW Sposta has quoted the most potent effect would be the one they would take damage from. So I would rule (based on raw only) yes both would take damage as one is more potent versus them then the other. If there was no evocation then they would just take the damage once either way.
True and it makes a lot more sense the more I think about it and how the rest of the game plays out with damage (sentinal etc.). I might bring this up if there's ever an issue at my table with overlapping AoE's. Thanks for your thoughts.
Logic it out. Take my arguments and apply them for yourself. I’ll not change my interpretations of RAW from spell to spell. I may very well (and have) acknowledge that I disagree with RAW and intentionally rule against them, but I always still acknowledge whenever I houserule contrary to RAW.
I have absolutely nothing against houseruling contrary to RAW, as long as RAW is acknowledged. I don’t even disagree with how you rule on Spirit Guardians, I just disagree that your interpretation is RAW. RAI? Maybe. RAF*? If people think your ruling is more fun then your ruling would certainly qualify as RAF (since fun is subjective, I can have no argument against that). RAW? I say “nay nay.”
*(Personally, I think it is more fun knowing that any spell with an ongoing effect is essentially a counter to itself. But that’s just one man’s opinion.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
True and Sposta just mentioned that potency and recentness are DM fiat due to not being explicitly written in RAW what is considered more potent. It might just how they would rule it to balance out a spell that might be overturned for their world.
Edit: See post above for Sposta's logic/reasoning (I'll stop trying to put words in your mouth sorry Sposta)
Isn’t that the whole point of these debates? To get everyone thinking about these things critically. Even if ultimately we disagree, through the process we strengthen our own arguments. (It’s just that in this case, WotC hasn’t published anything new that would effect this RAW since the last time I debated it.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But “the Target” is not the creatures affected, it is the area within 15 feet of the caster. That’s on WotC for their notoriously loose and sloppy applications of the same/similar terms in different ways.
Fireball is an irrelevant example because, as I explained in that other thread, again, the rules specify when their “durations” overlap, and since, even with held actions it is impossible for any two instantaneous fireballs to overlap durations.
Your example of bless is perfect because it illustrates my point beautifully. Exactly as you say, bless would not cancel bless, it’s simply that the more recent casting would be the one technically taking effect, not the first. Right? Agreed?
Its the same way with spirit guardians. The second one doesn’t really counter the first, it just overlays the first and takes precedence over the first. The spirits from the second (or “more potent”) one do all the work, and the earlier (or “less potent”) version take a ticket and wait in line twiddling their thumbs. It would be the exact same if two friendlies tried to both use the same spell at the same time in the same area, or if it’s a friendly or a hostile, it functions the exact same either way. So the second one doesn’t “cancel” the first, it just “effectively counters” the first by virtue of its coexistence. Using the above example with “PC1 and PC2” and the frowned faces, if “PC2” was instead “NPC1,” it would be the same ruling. Remember, if it works that way for the enemy, then it works that way for the PCs too. So a PC could just as effectively use spirit guardians to plug up the NPCs too. Fair is fair and all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
so your contention is that it should be treated on a creature by creature bases at the start of each of their turns as to which aura is most recently applied to them. Do I have that correct? My contention has always been that the existence of the “dominant” aura in that space precluded the “lesser” from taking any effects on creatures in the area. However, to the best of my recollection, the debate has always surrounded instances of two casters on the same side both using Spirit Gardens. This is the first time I have extended the logic to apply from one caster on one side to another caster on the other side. I can see your point that the “good spirits” would attack the “bad guys” in the “bad spirits” would it take to “good guys.” However, any creatures that were not excluded from either Laura, third-party creatures hostile to both, would still only be affected by 1/3 of spirits not the other and only the “most potent“ or “most recent“ spirits it would be the ones to affect those creatures. I still like the idea of using spirit guardians to counter spirit guardians.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Called it.
But what if there were two non-overlapping spirit guardians and a large or larger creature started it's turn within both auras. The areas definitely do not overlap so no cancelation there. I would find it very hard to rule that the damage of one could possibly be negated by the other.
The only situation where the difference between 'the auras don't overlap' and 'the effects on targets within the aura don't stack' matters is in the case where two casters have different excluded lists.
That is a description of the effect, yes.
This spell has no effect on the area. None. It affects only creatures.
The spell cannot have overlapping effects on... the only thing it affects: creatures.
Edit: Even if you only want to argue that the first bit is the only part that describes the spell effect and not the entirety of the spell description, the effect of the spell is actually: You call forth spirits to protect you. Calling spirits. The area is not referenced here. The fact the spirits must stay within 15ft of you is a restriction on them, not the area. spirit guardians at no point, ever, affects the area.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This argument. Yours was quoted because it was the most recent entry when I was reading through it.
Spiritual weapon + Guardian of faith, then step into combat. You are getting your regular melee weapon attack, plus a bonus action attack, and every single enemy within 15 foot of you gets their move halved and takes a minimum of 3d8 (half on a save) radiant damage on their turn. It’s one of several reasons why any cleric with martial weapons, shields and heavy weapons = terminators. If you manage to somehow get a blade cantrip like green flame blade then even better.
For real, but then take it a step further and mix in Combat Casting and Booming Blade, or take it even a step (or 5) further and add a Whip for having them provoke Guiding Bolts (if at 10ft) when they try to escape your Spirit Guardians.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree that this spell doesn't affect the area. A spell that would affect a area would be something like Plant Growth, which can target a area. A area of effect in my opinion doesn't affect the area itself, but rather things in that area (which may or may not include the area itself).
However none of it matters for this argument, as such I won't bother going into detail about Areas of Effect. The Combining Magical Effect rules only requires it to be the same spell effect and to have a overlapping durations. For reference, (link)
Note AoE is not mentioned once, all that matters is duration & spell effect.
If a creature starts their turn in two spiritual guardian auras, they are affected by the same spell and we can deduce both those spiritual guardians spells have a overlapping duration. As such, they only take damage from the most potent, or in cases of a tie of potency, the most recent.
This also applies to the example of a large creature in two non-overlapping spiritual guardian auras. The creature is affected by the same spell and as before both those spiritual guardians have a overlapping duration. So the creature is a target of the combining magical effect rules regardless of what range the AoE was.
Two fireballs would not proc this, as their durations do not overlap.
If Symbol overlaps depends on both if the trigger conditions overlap, and if "same spell effects" refers to the entire spell or each individual bullet point (if Symbol Fear & Symbol Discord are considered the same, cause different bullet points but the same spell). That's probably up to personal opinion and not relevant to this argument.
Mentioned this briefly at the beginning but these rules apply to everything affected by a spell, objects, creatures, areas, etc. So a druid can't spend 3 plant growth spells to get a yearly harvest of 8x the normal harvest. That isn't relevant to this particular spell Spiritual Guardians, but yeah.
Actually plant growth is probably a bad example of a spell that targets a area, cause you could easily argue that it just targets objects (plants). Oops. I need better example spells.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Its easy to tell who didnt "prove" anything by the fact he over and over says he already "proved". Saying you proved something doesnt make it true and its not proven until others agree. No one agrees...
Different spell, this one only affects those "hostile to the caster". You're thinking of Guardians of Faith not Spirit Guardian.