I completely agree. Ongoing effects do not stack. What it does show is that it is the duration of the effect that matters. Spirit guardians damage is not dealt from an ongoing effect. It is instantaneous.
It's like you didn't think about the post because you already know what answer you want.
No, I thought about it.
I just don’t think that it shows “that it is the duration of the effect that matters. Spirit guardians damage is not dealt from an ongoing effect. It is instantaneous.”
I'm not sure what to disagree with here. As far as the text of the rule, that's literally what it says("while the durations of the effects overlap"), so...
What I think it shows is that if the same Fire Elemental uses the same ability on the same target 2 or more times in a combat that it cannot make that target “more on fire” than it did the first time.
Again. the fire form trait has several parts, including two sources of damage. you are beholden to the initial damage each time it is applied to you because it is instantaneous. Only the ongoing damage fails to stack.
And the damage dealt by Spirit Guardians is instantaneous. That doesn’t matter, because it is being caused by an ongoing effect, the ongoing effect is the presence of those spirits that are in that AoE. The ongoing effect that gets canceled by the second casting is those spirits existing in that area at that time. If there is only one set of spirits in that area (because the ongoing effect of two castings of the same spell don’t stack), then they aren’t there to do the damage.
And this is where you are reading into the rule something that is not written. The rule doesn't say that the newer one overwrites the older one. Just that the effects do not stack while the durations of the effects overlap.
The effect in question is not the damage itself, but the existence of the spirits that could potentially deal the damage. The duration of their existence is not instantaneous, but Concentration. As long as the caster maintains concentration on the spell, the effect of those spirits existing in that space is what is at question. Since two separate batches of spirits cannot stack, therefore one group of spirits is not there to deal any damage. No second batch of spirits, no second batch of damage.
Not “including two sources of damage” as you state. Nowhere does that rule mention the presence of two separate elementals. It is a ruling about two instances of damage from the same source, not specifically two separate sources. That’s where you’re reading into the rules.
Please see my post above...i think the issue here is actually not based on duration, but on whom the effect is actually targeting...the caster, not the creature in the AoE.
I think where the issue here is is that there are two "effects" of spirit guardians; the aura of spirits, and the slowing effect on others. The aura causes damage to others, but the effect is focused on the caster (as the target of the spell is "Self"). The secondary slowing effect is focused on others due to the spells wording. the combining magical effects rule says that a target subjected to identical spell effects at the same time is not subjected to amplified (or stacked) effects, but the example rulings in both the PHB and the DMG indicate that the ruling applies only to effects 1) focused on the target and 2) that are ongoing so as to overlap. in the Fire Form example, the Fire Form aura is focused on the elemental (but causes damage to others) but the wording of the ability makes the secondary effect "the target is on fire" and its subsequent damage, focused on the other creature. similarly, the Spirit guardians aura is ongoing and causes damage to others, but is focused on the caster not those others. The slowing effect is specifically focused on the others per the spells wording (creatures in the aura have their speed reduced by half).
So, the appropriate ruling is that a caster could not cast spirit guardians on himself twice and expect two saving throws or rolls from creatures in the aura, but two creatures casting the effect once on themselves and whose AoEs overlap could expect that for a creature in both areas, as the effect is targeting themselves once each. The slowing effect, as it is focused on the other creature, would not stack in either case.
Okay, that is the first valid argument I have seen to make me rethink my position. I shall cogitate and get back to you.
I still say that the “effect” is the presence of the spirits, not the damage itself.
I think where the issue here is is that there are two "effects" of spirit guardians; the aura of spirits, and the slowing effect on others. The aura causes damage to others, but the effect is focused on the caster (as the target of the spell is "Self"). The secondary slowing effect is focused on others due to the spells wording. the combining magical effects rule says that a target subjected to identical spell effects at the same time is not subjected to amplified (or stacked) effects, but the example rulings in both the PHB and the DMG indicate that the ruling applies only to effects 1) focused on the target and 2) that are ongoing so as to overlap. in the Fire Form example, the Fire Form aura is focused on the elemental (but causes damage to others) but the wording of the ability makes the secondary effect "the target is on fire" and its subsequent damage, focused on the other creature. similarly, the Spirit guardians aura is ongoing and causes damage to others, but is focused on the caster not those others. The slowing effect is specifically focused on the others per the spells wording (creatures in the aura have their speed reduced by half).
So, the appropriate ruling is that a caster could not cast spirit guardians on himself twice and expect two saving throws or rolls from creatures in the aura, but two creatures casting the effect once on themselves and whose AoEs overlap could expect that for a creature in both areas, as the effect is targeting themselves once each. The slowing effect, as it is focused on the other creature, would not stack in either case.
Alright, I cogitated. But I think I see a flaw in your argument based on the exact wording of Spirit Guardians. It specifies that the “affected creature” is subject to both effects:
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 1 effect on a creature is for the full duration. Two things happen because of that 1 effect, but it is still all the same effect. But that creature cannot be affected by two castings of the same spell....
I think where the issue here is is that there are two "effects" of spirit guardians; the aura of spirits, and the slowing effect on others. The aura causes damage to others, but the effect is focused on the caster (as the target of the spell is "Self"). The secondary slowing effect is focused on others due to the spells wording. the combining magical effects rule says that a target subjected to identical spell effects at the same time is not subjected to amplified (or stacked) effects, but the example rulings in both the PHB and the DMG indicate that the ruling applies only to effects 1) focused on the target and 2) that are ongoing so as to overlap. in the Fire Form example, the Fire Form aura is focused on the elemental (but causes damage to others) but the wording of the ability makes the secondary effect "the target is on fire" and its subsequent damage, focused on the other creature. similarly, the Spirit guardians aura is ongoing and causes damage to others, but is focused on the caster not those others. The slowing effect is specifically focused on the others per the spells wording (creatures in the aura have their speed reduced by half).
So, the appropriate ruling is that a caster could not cast spirit guardians on himself twice and expect two saving throws or rolls from creatures in the aura, but two creatures casting the effect once on themselves and whose AoEs overlap could expect that for a creature in both areas, as the effect is targeting themselves once each. The slowing effect, as it is focused on the other creature, would not stack in either case.
Okay, that is the first valid argument I have seen to make me rethink my position. I shall cogitate and get back to you.
I still say that the “effect” is the presence of the spirits, not the damage itself.
I actually agree with you that the effect is the aura, and is focused on the caster. It is pretty clear from other examples though that saving throw spells are not necessarily targeting (or focused on) the creatures they affect or damage (like lightning bolt or cone of cold, which are targeted/focused on the caster (range of self) but damage others in the AoE).
Nitpicking about whether obviously separate things are one thing because of a sentence generally describing all spells because it doesn't fit your perspective also seems pointless to me. I made my case as to the reasoning why I think RAW is in my favor for rulings at my table. If you don't agree, you can certainly rule differently at yours.
And again, taking a single general statement and trying to apply it in a situation where it obviously isn't specifically applicable is exactly arguing to desired conclusion, rather than using the text.
The text that makes spirit guardians a special case is the text in spirit guardians that says that more than one thing happens when the spell is cast.
The only way that you could imply that spirit guardians has one effect is to say that the effect of the spell is to cause these secondary effects. The secondary effects then have their own durations, which the DMG states is the important part when determining if the effects stack.
Sure does take the stuffing out of "With our powers combined" and "Crossing the Streams" and "Fire together!" and every other movie trope in which the characters combine effects to do more damage. Bummer for the ghost busters, if each particle accelerator did 1d6, combining all of them would be...1d6. WOW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Well, in that case, since the "the effect" of the spell has been nitpicked to fit your definition, then the effect only applies to the target and if each target is a unique cleric then it hasn't overlapped at all if a creature has stood in two auras. That creature is in two auras but the effects still haven't overlapped, so he is subject to both. It would only be if one cleric had spiritual guardians cast on himself twice that two effects would overlap.
You are trying to have it both ways, you are trying to argue that the spell has "only one effect" (which is patently false in a spell that says that more than one thing occurs when it is cast), yet try to imply that the one effect of that spell could be applied twice in any other way than being cast twice on one cleric. You have to pick one: either the spell has more than one effect or the only way to stack it would be to have it applied to the same target twice.
You just doubled down on your problematic interpretation in the last post. You didn't fix any of the issues. "These things are one thing" isn't RAW because RAW allows for exceptions and it doesn't make any sense. It is that simple.
Yeah? you mean like how the two weapon fighting style says that it is an exception? You're asking for the missing link.
The proof that something is an exception is that it is written in a way that doesn't fit the general rule.
I guess you've won though. Either I could find a spell like druid grove that says that it has multiple effects, and you could accept that but then say "spirit guardians doesn't say it has multiple effects so it doesn't" or I could not point such a spell out and you can continue to say "see, every spell only has one effect."
I am interested in how you think things like chill touch work. If you can only be under the effect of the most recent version of it and all of the things that it does are its single "effect", does a creature gain the hitpoints back that it lost from a first casting if it is targeted by a second casting in the same round?
It was my intent to point out that you are arguing unreasonably to get your way. The wilder your claims get the easier that becomes, so thanks for handing me the win. I don't even think I have to say anything about druid grove to disprove "that is the effect of the spell, the rest of the effects are effects blah blah blah." That is not how a reasonable person would describe it, and is obviously wrong. I have even shown you that it is not true that all of the exceptions in the game call themselves that.
And beyond that, it doesn't matter what the spell's effect is in my argument, because those little things (that the game certainly calls effects) are certainly game effects which are parts of spells. That means not only does the DMG rule apply, but it is the more specific rule, since game effects are apparently a subset of spell effects. In that case, it is the game effect's duration that matters when trying to figure out if two coming from sources with the same name overlap. The rule in the DMG also shows that a game feature such as a spell can have multiple game effects: "..****y the effects of one of them..."
I hate seeing "my ruling is RAW" arguments. No, the text on the page is RAW. If the rule can reasonably be interpreted differently from your ruling, then your ruling isn't RAW. It is that simple. I have stated my position, used actual text to support my position, and the most unreasonable thing that I've said is that two things really are two things. Instantaneous game effects cannot overlap, so damage caused by them should stack. That is all.
Again, this is still just your interpretation of the word "effect" and you don't have anything to support your interpretation.
RAW: The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
'nuff said, I think. :p
No, that is still just your interpretation. For example, Hellish Rebuke has the text "You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." Are you actually arguing that the fingerpointing is an effect of said spell?
Fact is and remains that there is no clear definition of "effect" in the rules.
Again, this is still just your interpretation of the word "effect" and you don't have anything to support your interpretation.
RAW: The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
'nuff said, I think. :p
No, that is still just your interpretation. For example, Hellish Rebuke has the text "You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." Are you actually arguing that the fingerpointing is an effect of said spell?
Fact is and remains that there is no clear definition of "effect" in the rules.
uh... except it's literally in the Player's Handbook under "Casting a Spell."
"Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."
Literally, as written, with no interpretation needing, "The spell entry describes the spell's effect." ...he's... actually right, outright per RAW. So uh... yes, as a matter of fact, strictly reading the entry... Fingerpointing is an effect of said spell. (which is a very strict and literal reading of the wording as presented by the Player's Handbook)
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Again, this is still just your interpretation of the word "effect" and you don't have anything to support your interpretation.
RAW: The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
'nuff said, I think. :p
No, that is still just your interpretation. For example, Hellish Rebuke has the text "You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." Are you actually arguing that the fingerpointing is an effect of said spell?
Fact is and remains that there is no clear definition of "effect" in the rules.
uh... except it's literally in the Player's Handbook under "Casting a Spell."
"Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."
Literally, as written, with no interpretation needing, "The spell entry describes the spell's effect." ...he's... actually right, outright per RAW. So uh... yes, as a matter of fact, strictly reading the entry... Fingerpointing is an effect of said spell. (which is a very strict and literal reading of the wording as presented by the Player's Handbook)
With tha interpretation it would mean that other people wouldn't be able to point their fingers at the person. We can all agree that this is just bad wording, right?
Again, this is still just your interpretation of the word "effect" and you don't have anything to support your interpretation.
RAW: The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
'nuff said, I think. :p
No, that is still just your interpretation. For example, Hellish Rebuke has the text "You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." Are you actually arguing that the fingerpointing is an effect of said spell?
Fact is and remains that there is no clear definition of "effect" in the rules.
uh... except it's literally in the Player's Handbook under "Casting a Spell."
"Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."
Literally, as written, with no interpretation needing, "The spell entry describes the spell's effect." ...he's... actually right, outright per RAW. So uh... yes, as a matter of fact, strictly reading the entry... Fingerpointing is an effect of said spell. (which is a very strict and literal reading of the wording as presented by the Player's Handbook)
With tha interpretation it would mean that other people wouldn't be able to point their fingers at the person. We can all agree that this is just bad wording, right?
I can agree that yes, the wording is just poor on Hellish Rebuke in that particular instance. But that doesn't change the fact that RAW, from the Player's Handbook, "The rest of the spell's entry describes it's effect." Singular. Druid Grove being a case of specific overrides general.
...so I guess in the end, Lyxen is actually correct, and someone would only make one save in an overlapping Spiritual Guardian area, taking the damage that would do the most to them in the event that it's a radiant and a necrotic overlapping. Strictly, RAW, Spirit Guardians has one effect. The Aura, which imparts damage and a slow in its area. One effect. And effects from multiple instances of the same name do not stack (as previous stated in the thread).
Well done, Lyxen, you convinced me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Again, this is still just your interpretation of the word "effect" and you don't have anything to support your interpretation.
RAW: The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
'nuff said, I think. :p
No, that is still just your interpretation. For example, Hellish Rebuke has the text "You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." Are you actually arguing that the fingerpointing is an effect of said spell?
Fact is and remains that there is no clear definition of "effect" in the rules.
uh... except it's literally in the Player's Handbook under "Casting a Spell."
"Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."
Literally, as written, with no interpretation needing, "The spell entry describes the spell's effect." ...he's... actually right, outright per RAW. So uh... yes, as a matter of fact, strictly reading the entry... Fingerpointing is an effect of said spell. (which is a very strict and literal reading of the wording as presented by the Player's Handbook)
With tha interpretation it would mean that other people wouldn't be able to point their fingers at the person. We can all agree that this is just bad wording, right?
I can agree that yes, the wording is just poor on Hellish Rebuke in that particular instance. But that doesn't change the fact that RAW, from the Player's Handbook, "The rest of the spell's entry describes it's effect." Singular. Druid Grove being a case of specific overrides general.
...so I guess in the end, Lyxen is actually correct, and someone would only make one save in an overlapping Spiritual Guardian area, taking the damage that would do the most to them in the event that it's a radiant and a necrotic overlapping. Strictly, RAW, Spirit Guardians has one effect. The Aura, which imparts damage and a slow in its area. One effect. And effects from multiple instances of the same name do not stack (as previous stated in the thread).
Well done, Lyxen, you convinced me.
Would you consider eating a Goodberry the effect of the spell?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Please see my post above...i think the issue here is actually not based on duration, but on whom the effect is actually targeting...the caster, not the creature in the AoE.
Okay, that is the first valid argument I have seen to make me rethink my position. I shall cogitate and get back to you.
I still say that the “effect” is the presence of the spirits, not the damage itself.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I mean the spell says what happens to affected creatures; I would imagine that most people would think of those things as the effects.
Alright, I cogitated. But I think I see a flaw in your argument based on the exact wording of Spirit Guardians. It specifies that the “affected creature” is subject to both effects:
That 1 effect on a creature is for the full duration. Two things happen because of that 1 effect, but it is still all the same effect. But that creature cannot be affected by two castings of the same spell....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I actually agree with you that the effect is the aura, and is focused on the caster. It is pretty clear from other examples though that saving throw spells are not necessarily targeting (or focused on) the creatures they affect or damage (like lightning bolt or cone of cold, which are targeted/focused on the caster (range of self) but damage others in the AoE).
Nitpicking about whether obviously separate things are one thing because of a sentence generally describing all spells because it doesn't fit your perspective also seems pointless to me. I made my case as to the reasoning why I think RAW is in my favor for rulings at my table. If you don't agree, you can certainly rule differently at yours.
If spirit guardians has one effect, then the damage is not the effect, and therefore cannot be overwritten by another application of spirit guardians.
Again, nitpicking because you want it to be your way is pointless.
And again, taking a single general statement and trying to apply it in a situation where it obviously isn't specifically applicable is exactly arguing to desired conclusion, rather than using the text.
The text that makes spirit guardians a special case is the text in spirit guardians that says that more than one thing happens when the spell is cast.
The only way that you could imply that spirit guardians has one effect is to say that the effect of the spell is to cause these secondary effects. The secondary effects then have their own durations, which the DMG states is the important part when determining if the effects stack.
Sure does take the stuffing out of "With our powers combined" and "Crossing the Streams" and "Fire together!" and every other movie trope in which the characters combine effects to do more damage. Bummer for the ghost busters, if each particle accelerator did 1d6, combining all of them would be...1d6. WOW.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Well, in that case, since the "the effect" of the spell has been nitpicked to fit your definition, then the effect only applies to the target and if each target is a unique cleric then it hasn't overlapped at all if a creature has stood in two auras. That creature is in two auras but the effects still haven't overlapped, so he is subject to both. It would only be if one cleric had spiritual guardians cast on himself twice that two effects would overlap.
You are trying to have it both ways, you are trying to argue that the spell has "only one effect" (which is patently false in a spell that says that more than one thing occurs when it is cast), yet try to imply that the one effect of that spell could be applied twice in any other way than being cast twice on one cleric. You have to pick one: either the spell has more than one effect or the only way to stack it would be to have it applied to the same target twice.
You just doubled down on your problematic interpretation in the last post. You didn't fix any of the issues. "These things are one thing" isn't RAW because RAW allows for exceptions and it doesn't make any sense. It is that simple.
Yeah? you mean like how the two weapon fighting style says that it is an exception? You're asking for the missing link.
The proof that something is an exception is that it is written in a way that doesn't fit the general rule.
I guess you've won though. Either I could find a spell like druid grove that says that it has multiple effects, and you could accept that but then say "spirit guardians doesn't say it has multiple effects so it doesn't" or I could not point such a spell out and you can continue to say "see, every spell only has one effect."
I am interested in how you think things like chill touch work. If you can only be under the effect of the most recent version of it and all of the things that it does are its single "effect", does a creature gain the hitpoints back that it lost from a first casting if it is targeted by a second casting in the same round?
It was my intent to point out that you are arguing unreasonably to get your way. The wilder your claims get the easier that becomes, so thanks for handing me the win. I don't even think I have to say anything about druid grove to disprove "that is the effect of the spell, the rest of the effects are effects blah blah blah." That is not how a reasonable person would describe it, and is obviously wrong. I have even shown you that it is not true that all of the exceptions in the game call themselves that.
And beyond that, it doesn't matter what the spell's effect is in my argument, because those little things (that the game certainly calls effects) are certainly game effects which are parts of spells. That means not only does the DMG rule apply, but it is the more specific rule, since game effects are apparently a subset of spell effects. In that case, it is the game effect's duration that matters when trying to figure out if two coming from sources with the same name overlap. The rule in the DMG also shows that a game feature such as a spell can have multiple game effects: "..****y the effects of one of them..."
I hate seeing "my ruling is RAW" arguments. No, the text on the page is RAW. If the rule can reasonably be interpreted differently from your ruling, then your ruling isn't RAW. It is that simple. I have stated my position, used actual text to support my position, and the most unreasonable thing that I've said is that two things really are two things. Instantaneous game effects cannot overlap, so damage caused by them should stack. That is all.
Again, this is still just your interpretation of the word "effect" and you don't have anything to support your interpretation.
No, that is still just your interpretation. For example, Hellish Rebuke has the text "You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." Are you actually arguing that the fingerpointing is an effect of said spell?
Fact is and remains that there is no clear definition of "effect" in the rules.
uh... except it's literally in the Player's Handbook under "Casting a Spell."
"Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."
Literally, as written, with no interpretation needing, "The spell entry describes the spell's effect." ...he's... actually right, outright per RAW. So uh... yes, as a matter of fact, strictly reading the entry... Fingerpointing is an effect of said spell. (which is a very strict and literal reading of the wording as presented by the Player's Handbook)
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
With tha interpretation it would mean that other people wouldn't be able to point their fingers at the person. We can all agree that this is just bad wording, right?
I can agree that yes, the wording is just poor on Hellish Rebuke in that particular instance. But that doesn't change the fact that RAW, from the Player's Handbook, "The rest of the spell's entry describes it's effect." Singular. Druid Grove being a case of specific overrides general.
...so I guess in the end, Lyxen is actually correct, and someone would only make one save in an overlapping Spiritual Guardian area, taking the damage that would do the most to them in the event that it's a radiant and a necrotic overlapping. Strictly, RAW, Spirit Guardians has one effect. The Aura, which imparts damage and a slow in its area. One effect. And effects from multiple instances of the same name do not stack (as previous stated in the thread).
Well done, Lyxen, you convinced me.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Would you consider eating a Goodberry the effect of the spell?