I'm just gonna point out where the "roll damage every time" comes in.
"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."
The damage is triggered by the save. Whenever you make a save, you're rolling damage. On a successful save, that damage is halved, but you still roll the 3d8.
Like... how would you even say "yes, you only roll once, and that damage is applied every turn," that makes no sense because literally no other spell functions like that. Whenever damage is triggered, be it an attack, or a spell, or a save, you roll for damage at that point in time.
Regardless, on the original question, I'm of the opinion that the damage would "stack" because it is too different instances calling for a save at the same time, but the reduction doesn't change since BOTH of those effects are the same.
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!"
Just going to throw in my 2 cents because that's never a bad idea, right?
Spirit Guardians has two elements; a persistent speed halving, and damage on a failed save.
The speed halving being a persistent effect would not stack from two spirit guardians (ie you wouldn't get 1/4 speed). This is because you never apply multiple spell effects simultaneously as pointed out.
However, the damage effects aren't simultaneous; you make a wisdom save for one, maybe taking damage, and then a wisdom save for the second, maybe taking damage. These are discrete spell effects that are not stacking; the wisdom saves are independent, the damage is independent, and they are resolved sequentially. It's the same as if a wizard and a bard took the ready action to cast fireball against the first creature to come round a corner; you'd resolve each damage effect sequentially, you wouldn't say they're stacking.
I'm not doing anything of the sort, the "most potent" is RAW. You cannot get any more than RAW on this, the sentence "the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus" is straight from the section dealing with spell overlap...
Again, please stop with the intellectual dishonesty. I've never once claimed that "most potent" is not RAW. Please read what I wrote instead of making things up.
Like I said, immunities and resistances affect the potential highest damage.
No, they affect the potential highest damage TO A SPECIFIC TARGET, not the most potent inherently. This is the part that you need to understand.
Again with the unnecessary capslock-shouting. And just because I point out the flaws in your argument, doesn't mean I don't understand you so you can drop the implied insults, they're just puerile. Ypu're also moving the goalposts by altering your deifnition of what you want "potent" to mean. But once again you are choosing to interpret the rules in a way that fits your narrative without any support of the rules themselves. If you want to play that way in your game, please do. But realize that you are then making things up. And that's OK.
Also, using the highest damage when the spells are cast at the same level doesn't solve the problem.
Once more, the rules are fairly clear, how would you suggest applying "most potent effect - such as the highest bonus" to a spell like this ?
What makes you think that all spells must have a "most potent effect" even to begin with? Even in the example given in the rules there is no "more potent" effect, it just states that you don't get the same bonus twice. Yet again you chose to force your interpretation that there always must be a a more potent effect. That is simply not true. As have been mentioned numerous times in this thread, the "effect" is the lowering of movement speed - it's a fixed effect and can't be more or less potent. The damage is just that, damage. And just like you can take damage from multiple swings of a weapon, you can take damage from multiple Spirit Guardians.
So now you have a new issue to deal with. Add in different spell saves and that's three extra factors that you have to deal with in your system, for each instance of the active spell.
Look, if you don't want to apply the ONLY rule in the RAW that specifically says that only "the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus" applies, that is fine, but unfortunately, I don't think that 5E defines the potency of the spell, it only gives an example.
Again, please stop with the outright fallacies. I've never once said what you are implying and you are getting a bit tiresome with your intellectual dishonesty.You can't both claim RAW and claiming that the rules are unclear at the same time. The example actually argues against you since it makes no mentioned on the casting level of the Bless spell which means that you have no support for your argument that the casting level is what defines "more potent".
Since you rolled damage at the start of the spell in any case (my take on the subject), you know which one would cause the most damage. So you just apply that one because it is inherently the most potent (and then take into account saving throws, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc.). End of story.
Again, besides the fact that you've pretty much just made up the part where the damage is the relevant factor
Fine, you have overlapping spells, you need to apply the ONLY RAW that there is in the book, ""the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus" affects you, how do you decide which is the most potent between two spells that have already been cast if these spels are Spirit Guardians ? As mentioned, it could be the level (it usually is the case, but spells are usually cast at their basic level), it could be the DC or it could be the damage, but in any case, it will be your judgement call as the DM because the RAW is not more precise than this, so what do you suggest apart from damage ?
Look, if you don't even read what other people write, what's the point of you even engaging in discussion? Like have been previously mentioned, the damage from Spirit Guardians is not a case where the "more potent" rule even applies. Is damage a bonus? No, therefor you can't use that as en example. Even if we did, you still need to roll to see which damage is "most potent" But I'm glad to see that you finally seem to realize that you are just making things up. What "could" be, is irrelevant. What is is what's important.
you dLoon't actually know which one does the most damage until you roll.
I would apply the level first, actually, in any case, because that is the way things are usually done in the rules, and this is so very simple...
After that, you are right, maybe the DC would be a factor in the "potency". But, once more, it's absolutely your call, I'm just pointing out that the RAW is clear on one thing, when the same spell overlaps, you are only affected by one.
Again, lots of "ifs" and "maybes" without any actual support from the rules.
And with your way you still have to roll for each same level spell to figure out which one is the most potent.
Even if they are the same level, I have already rolled at the start of each spell so the result is obvious, always has been, and does not require any thought whatsoever, which is the reason for which it is so simple.
Except that it does as per the previous examples regarding resistances, immunities or different DCs.
A has cast the spell at level 3 and got 15, B has cast the spell at level 3 and got 13, C is standing in both and for some reason is affected by both (probably because everyone hates him), C is therefore affected by a Spirit Guardian spell that does 15 damage because it is clearly inherently the most potent of the two, he rolls his save, applies his resistances and vulnerabilites and here you go. How can it be more simple ?
Once more with the moving of the goalposts. Previously you wrote that "If they are cast at the same level, both spells will do 3d8 damage, why do you want to roll twice ?", now you all of the sudden do need to roll twice, once for each spell. So which one is it going to be? Your argument falls apart when you keep fli-flopping like this. And you are still ignoring the fact that A and B might have different spell DCs.
And again, if you did not roll at start, do not overcomplicate it.
Rolling at the start or later doesn't matter in the way you present it. Since the frist spell rolled might not necessarily be the most potent spell actively.
Even if you want to roll dices all the time, then by all means roll both, and take the higher damage one, it is the most potent in the absence of any other way to determine the most potent (I am still waiting for you to explain what quality of the spell you would use to decide "the more potent"), the target rolls his save, applies his resistances and vulnerabilites and here you go. How can it be more simple ?
This has already been explained. Please actually read what people write before replying to posts. It's a waste of time if you don't actually read the thread you're replying to.
You are only affected by the more potent effect, so by default it's the level, and if not, YOU ARE ONLY AFFECTED BY ONE EFFECT (you are not being affected by two and picking damage, you get ONE effect, and it's not "the one that affects you most", it's the one that is inherently most potent), so if they are equally potent, just roll the damage once at that level. And then, as usual, apply saving throws, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc.
The effect is the lowered movement speed. The damage is something seperate.
No it's not. From the chapter of spellcasting: "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."
So damage is part of the effect (bceause it's described in the effect section of the spell). Since you are only subjected to one effect, you are subjected to only one damage. Q.E.D.
Again, that's just you rinterpretation.
Just like that you can take damage from multiple Vicious Mockeries but you only get the disdvantage from one of them.
It's very different, Vicious Mockery is instantaneous, and the section that I keep quoting (the only one that speaks of spell overal in the RAW) mentions overlapping durations (see, no capslock :p). This is why you take damage everytime. The reason for having disadvantage only once is because they affect the same attack and disadvantages are not cumulative.
No, the effects of Vicious mockery last longer than "instantenous".
Also, no need to start capslocking. If you take things this seriously, maybe you should step away from it? You sound really upset. It's just a game.
I'm not capslocking, I am insisting on some elements to make sure that I get the point across, but if oyu prefer, I can use bold or underline... :p
Yes you were. Just because you weren't doing it all the time doesn't change that.
Don't worry, I'm not upset at all, and I'm not shouting.
If you say so.
Anywho, as per previously mentioned, you still don't know which of the same level spells that is the most potent until you have rolled for each spell. And then you still have to factor in the save DC.
And once more, its up to you as a DM to determine what "most potent" means, and even if it is Level / DC / Damage, it's still not that complicated.
Again, no-one has claimed that it is complicated. Stop strawmanning. I'm just pointing out the fact that you choose to interpret the rules in a way that fit your narrative. And that's perfectly fine if you want to do that. But you do realize that you first saying "RAW is this and only this" is completely contradictory to you now saying "it's up to the DM to determine", don't you? If it's up to the DM then there's no need to have this discussion at all, is there?
Please stop making this theoreitical and asking disconnected questions, just take practical cases and stop the silliness about "getting points back".
Now you are avoiding the questions. This would be the consequences of doing it the way you described and it's intellectually dishonest of you to ignore it. If you don't have an answer, fine, but at least aknowledge the facts.
I would probably have an answer if I could answer the question, but I still do not understand what "getting points back" means...
You don't understand the colloquialism of getting hit points back? Then why didn't you just say so?
Look, if you're this upset then don't worry about it. You are free to play the game any way you like it. It's meant to be fun.
As mentioned above I'm certainly neither angry nor shouting, don't worry, I'm just as passionate as you are. :D
Are you sure? Your passive-agressiveness suggest otherwise. Either way, like I've already said, if you want to play the game in your own way, that's totally fine. Now if you don't have anything else to contribute to this discussion I'm going to take my leave, especially since you don't even seem to bother to read the replies you recieve.
That's a whole lot of text and I'm not going to get into all of it, but rolling for damage when the spell is cast and then using that same damage for each instance it's triggered is just plain wrong, and I really can't see how your players go along with that. It would be a total buzzkill.
"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"
It does not say "when you cast this spell, roll 3d8 and record the number. When a 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, they take the damage equal to the number you rolled when you cast the spell."
Do you also make them do one single save, record that save, and then make them use it each consecutive turn?
To each their own, of course, but I've been sitting here pondering what that would be like, and it just seems so not fun. Almost as bad as not letting a player's damage count because someone else is doing the same thing...
Maybe I'll try and give it a shot someday, but you clearly have some... I don't even know what word I'm looking for, laid back maybe? Players. Everyone I've played with are pretty chill people, but if I told them that their ongoing damage-dealing spells only got one damage roll at the time of casting, they'd riot. As a player, I certainly wouldn't be down for it.
The rules say the effects of two spells do not combine. Damage is not what they mean by effect. For Spirit Guardians, the effect is the decrease to movement speed. It's quite obvious how that could get out of hand if allowed to stack; if 3 people have the spell going, any creature with the standard 30 feet of movement is now totally immobile while stuck in the middle of 3 magical chipper-shredders. Very unfair.
What do you mean it's already the case if two players have cast stinking cloud or cloudkill? Stinking Cloud doesn't do damage, and its effect literally can't stack - creatures only have one action to spend retching - so that's a moot point. Actually, I guess it's not moot, because if there are two instances of it affecting a target, then they have to save against each which doubles their chances of failing, so even with a spell like that there is some merit in having two castings going at a time. If there are two instances of Cloudkill going, then targets save against both and take damage from both, same as with Spirit Guardians.
Two people casting the same spell is a niche situation, but one that does come up, and taking a player's damage-dealing away from them is just mean.
What if you have a cleric in your party, and Spirit Guardians is their main damaging spell? Say they are trying to protect a temple against invaders, and a cleric NPC happens to cast it. Now your cleric player can't use their best damage-dealing ability? How very fun.
To save a bunch of back and forth (that will probably go on anyway), ask your DM which of these scenarios is what happens if you manage to be in this scenario. If you are the DM, figure out which of these explanations makes the most sense to you in the context of your game world (even if your have world was primarily created by someone else).
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.
Sorry, couldn't boldface on my phone readily and wanted the emphasis.
As I said before, have the DM look at the arguments and select one to their liking or put it to a vote for the group. If you want to roll the damage at the start of the spell, notate that damage, and apply it whenever another target fails their save (along with whatever resistances or vulnerabilities) knock yourself out. If you want to have the damage rolled everytime after the save is done, congratulations.
In either case, you can always default to whomever cast the spell more recently if you don't think the damage should stack, because that's actually in the rules. If you don't like that interpretation, figure out one that your group likes and is happy with.
Hopefully, the overlap doesn't happen frequently since that would be a waste of either a spell slot, or of the potential for that slot. Hopefully it's limited to cases where the duration of the spell combined with a change in spacing are the factors causing the overlap and not disregard for the other player. Of course, there are ways to mitigate that overlap even in constrained areas as well.
Of course, if the damage can stack, most of those concerns are nullified.
The important part is to do what's fun for the group. As such, this might be a good thing to bring up in a session zero if there are two clerics or Divine Soul Sorcerers. Set those expectations early and avoid much of this turmoil in game.
Of course, this is the easiest way, if the base damage is different, but since I believe that you roll it once at start, comparison can then be made on the damage dealt if it's at the same level.
That is incorrect, the damage for Spirit Guardians is rolled every turn.
I'm sorry, but can you please point out, RAW, where this is written ?
If Spirit Guardians triggered on the Caster’s turn, then they would roll 1ce/turn and the same damage would get applied to everyone. Since the damage from Spirit Guardians is triggered on each target’s turn, it gets rolled individually for each target every turn.
The rule I believe you are thinking of only affects spells that damage multiple targets simultaneously. That’s why it applies to Fireball and Magic Missile, but not Eldritch Blast.
Eldritch Blast and Scorching Rays are different, you are making attack rolls, so in that case the RAW is specific, you are rolling the damage per attack that succeeds, and that is, for me, the only reason.
The reason for which Magic Missile is different is not because it's an AoE or not, it's a very specific spell, it does damage per target but there is no attack roll.
.
The only reason Magic Missile uses the roll once for every dart rule has nothing to do with a lack of an attack roll. It has everything to do with the fact that the text for the spell specifies that all darts do their damage “simultaneously.”
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the spell creates one more dart for each slot level above 1st.
Can be found in the PHB, p196, Part 2- Chapter 9: Combat
If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one targetat the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell's damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
The rest of it is irrelevant.
That is the only instance in all of 5e that dictates when to roll damage for a spell once and apply it throughout.
Since Spirit Guardians is triggered on the targets’ turns, it can never damage multiple creatures “at the same time,” so all instances of damage are rolled individually.
It isn’t a matter of the damage rolled. A 3rd-level Spirit Guardians does 3d8 damage, a 4th-level Spirit Guardians does 4d8. It is a matter of the base damage as calculated by the spell level.
That still doesn't solve the problem if they are being cast at the same spell level.
A duration of "instantaneous" is still a duration.
I agree, but they just cannot overlap, so you will always take both... :p
Also, you don't actually know which Spiritual guardians that is the most potent since you roll for damage at seperate occassions.
No you don't, as with all spells, I believe that you roll it once and apply it throughout the duration.
And what happens if you first take damage from one spiritual guardian but then the next turn the other one rolls a higher damage roll? Do you then get hit points back? What if the second roll is higher, but you succeed on your saving throw and the halved damage is lower than the first one? Do you alternate between spiritual guardians each turn, depending on which one rolls the highest? Do you still make multiple saves? Nah, there's nothing in the rules that makes this a viable option.
In any case, you are only affected by the most potent one, not by the other, and you do your save against this one, not the other, so it's actually the easiest way to play it.
Since the spells aren't cast simultaneously you roll for damage at seperate occassions. Which means that you don't actually know which the most potent one is until after you rolled, even if you do go by the casting level.
And you didn't actually adress any of the points I made. How do you know which one you are affected by?
“Most potent” refers to the level at which the spell was cast. If two versions were both cast at 3rd-level, then neither is “more potent” and it defaults to the version cast most recently.
And it has nothing to do with “cast at the same time” whatsoever. It has everything to do with doing damage “at the same time.”
Just a joke, but you should try being laid back while playing and discussing a game, it's probably the best way to enjoy what is after all purely non-competitive leisure. :D
Just because you take something seriously doesn't mean you don't enjoy it. It's actually a big part of why I enjoy it.
I do concede that you're reading the rules correctly; RAW certainly seems to state that the damage wouldn't stack. There is no way that is the actual intent; just another case of the rules in 5e being written a bit too generically, but you are interpreting what is written - the RAW - correctly.
I would never play it that way, and I know for a fact that both Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford allow damage from the same spells to stack; in both Acquisitions Inc. and in Chris Perkins' old show Dice Camera Action, there were several instances of Spirit Guardians being cast by two people (typically Strix and Omen) and they allowed the damage to stack without question. Clearly this shows it was not Crawford's intent for the damage to not stack.
As for the damage being rolled at the time of casting and then using that same number throughout the duration of the spell, that is clearly against RAW.
Of course, we're all free to play however we choose :)
All we're trying to do here is determine what actually is RAW, and your arguments are sound; I now agree you are correct in your interpretation that damage is included in the "effect" under the Combining Magical Effects header. I'll never play this way, and you're the first person I've spoken to who does, but there's nothing wrong with that; you're following the RAW, if - perhaps - not the RAI (and in my personal opinion, not the RAF.) If it works for you and your players, that's awesome.
Wow took me forever to scroll down one page on my phone.
So moral of the story is talk to your DM. Guess it comes down to a few options
Cleric 1 and Cleric 2 both cast Spirit Guardians. Some unlucky target is caught in both. Assuming no movement and stays in effects for duration. Options are:
1. Target starts it’s turn there and rolls saving throw twice, once for each casting and takes relevant damage from both (12 and 15 rolled damage, then adjust for saves etc). Each turn Target is there, rolls saves and takes 12 and 15, adjusted for saves etc until spells end.
2. Target rolls two saves each turn, Casters roll damage each turn and adjust for saves etc. Target takes various damage each turn until spells end.
3. Target rolls one save each turn, each Caster rolls damage only once (12 and 15 rolled damage) Only the highest damage counts (15) Target takes that one damage roll each turn, adjusted for save, until spells end
am I missing an option?
I believe option 2 is the correct one or at least my interpretation of how it should work
Missing option: The target rolls one save and only takes damage from the version cast most recently if both were cast at the same level, or if they were not cast at the same level the target only takes damage from the one cast at the highest level.
It isn’t a matter of the damage rolled. A 3rd-level Spirit Guardians does 3d8 damage, a 4th-level Spirit Guardians does 4d8. It is a matter of the base damage as calculated by the spell level.
That still doesn't solve the problem if they are being cast at the same spell level.
A duration of "instantaneous" is still a duration.
I agree, but they just cannot overlap, so you will always take both... :p
Also, you don't actually know which Spiritual guardians that is the most potent since you roll for damage at seperate occassions.
No you don't, as with all spells, I believe that you roll it once and apply it throughout the duration.
And what happens if you first take damage from one spiritual guardian but then the next turn the other one rolls a higher damage roll? Do you then get hit points back? What if the second roll is higher, but you succeed on your saving throw and the halved damage is lower than the first one? Do you alternate between spiritual guardians each turn, depending on which one rolls the highest? Do you still make multiple saves? Nah, there's nothing in the rules that makes this a viable option.
In any case, you are only affected by the most potent one, not by the other, and you do your save against this one, not the other, so it's actually the easiest way to play it.
Since the spells aren't cast simultaneously you roll for damage at seperate occassions. Which means that you don't actually know which the most potent one is until after you rolled, even if you do go by the casting level.
And you didn't actually adress any of the points I made. How do you know which one you are affected by?
“Most potent” refers to the level at which the spell was cast. If two versions were both cast at 3rd-level, then neither is “more potent” and it defaults to the version cast most recently.
And it has nothing to do with “cast at the same time” whatsoever. It has everything to do with doing damage “at the same time.”
This rings truest to me. Just remember that anything a player can do is repeatable by NPCs. The fact that anything a player can do is repeatable by the NPCs should be part of the session zero, even if specific instances aren't applicable. Therefore, Lyxen's reference to being in a meat grinder is a natural consequence of multiple PCs being able to get damage on one turn.
However, if your table doesn't like that interpretation, your table can choose an interpretation more to your liking. Having been in many of these discussions myself, I have come to the conclusion that the term RAW gets thrown around a lot (even by me) when it should not be or as a way to discount another person's reading when it shouldn't. Let's agree on the parts that we can agree on, agree to disagree on the others, and realize that we don't have to follow the RAW even if we agree on it. After all, different tables have different desires about how to play and different rulings will fulfill those desires better than others and there is nothing wrong with that.
Now someone copy that and throw it in my face when I get in one of my stubborn moods;)
Edit: I nearly forgot. If you had to roll to find out which was more potent, that could mean that 4d8 was less potent than even 1d8, since the 4d8 could roll only 4 but the 1d8 could roll 8. That's why it makes sense to me to stick to the described amount, ie. 3d8, which is determined by the spell slot used to cast the spell and use the most recent casting as the tie breaker should that be required.
That's a whole lot of text and I'm not going to get into all of it, but rolling for damage when the spell is cast and then using that same damage for each instance it's triggered is just plain wrong, and I really can't see how your players go along with that. It would be a total buzzkill.
"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"
It does not say "when you cast this spell, roll 3d8 and record the number. When a 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, they take the damage equal to the number you rolled when you cast the spell."
Do you also make them do one single save, record that save, and then make them use it each consecutive turn?
To each their own, of course, but I've been sitting here pondering what that would be like, and it just seems so not fun. Almost as bad as not letting a player's damage count because someone else is doing the same thing...
I don't think I would want to roll damage once and necessarily carry that through the spells duration. I might however, ask for average damage if the DM allows it. In my mind, this would guarantee decent damage, and save a lot of time as pointed out by Lyxen.
As far as the original question goes, I would let the damage stack. It might not be RAW but, it really won't make any difference if both the players and the NPCs can do it.
Yo, Lyxen, I'm going to point out that you're engaging in a logical fallacy with your line of argument--you keep moving the goal post. All of the pertinent questions have been clearly answered.
Damage is not an ongoing effect. Damage does not conflict with an overlapping area of the same spell; a creature is susceptible to the damage of multiple spells individually. The only spell effect which does not stack is the speed reduction. Your line of argument does not have any factual basis by RAW, RAI, or even RAF.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The spirits are the ongoing effect. The damage is what that effect causes. If a target can only be affected by one ongoing effect at a time, then that means RAW that they can only be affected by the spirits of one casting of Spirit Guardians at a time.
5e is already enough of a cakewalk for PCs compared to earlier editions, it doesn’t need to be made easier for them by stacking effects.
And remember, if the PCs can do it, so can the bad guys. So if multiple castings of Spirit Guardians stack their damage, then how does that work out for the players if 5 enemy NPCs all cast it at the same time? A CR 2 Priest can cast Spirit Guardians after all. 5 of them....
That's a whole lot of text and I'm not going to get into all of it, but rolling for damage when the spell is cast and then using that same damage for each instance it's triggered is just plain wrong, and I really can't see how your players go along with that. It would be a total buzzkill.
"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"
It does not say "when you cast this spell, roll 3d8 and record the number. When a 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, they take the damage equal to the number you rolled when you cast the spell."
Do you also make them do one single save, record that save, and then make them use it each consecutive turn?
To each their own, of course, but I've been sitting here pondering what that would be like, and it just seems so not fun. Almost as bad as not letting a player's damage count because someone else is doing the same thing...
I don't think I would want to roll damage once and necessarily carry that through the spells duration. I might however, ask for average damage if the DM allows it. In my mind, this would guarantee decent damage, and save a lot of time as pointed out by Lyxen.
As far as the original question goes, I would let the damage stack. It might not be RAW but, it really won't make any difference if both the players and the NPCs can do it.
This is an excellent way to resolve combat more readily, particularly if rolling dice isn't as fun for the table.
Hypothetical Scenario: Creature starts in Spirit Guardians AoE #1, then during their turn crosses into Spirit Guardians AoE #2 while still remaining inside of AoE #1. would they then make the save and take the damage from each that turn? If so, then how is that different from starting your turn in both in a 'realistic' perspective? If not, why? That's a logical gap I keep running into while trying to reconcile the "Combining Spell Effects" rule in this case; as the rule (to me) seemingly allows for two damage opportunities in one case but not in another.
The spirits are the ongoing effect. The damage is what that effect causes. If a target can only be affected by one ongoing effect at a time, then that means RAW that they can only be affected by the spirits of one casting of Spirit Guardians at a time.
5e is already enough of a cakewalk for PCs compared to earlier editions, it doesn’t need to be made easier for them by stacking effects.
And remember, if the PCs can do it, so can the bad guys. So if multiple castings of Spirit Guardians stack their damage, then how does that work out for the players if 5 enemy NPCs all cast it at the same time? A CR 2 Priest can cast Spirit Guardians after all. 5 of them....
No, that's emphatically not true. Damage is not the "effect" of a spell as it relates to the technical definition of "effect" for the rule at hand.
There would be zero purpose to differentiating "Damage" and "Effect" if they were entirely the same. Damage is damage, and the effect is the effect. The effect of Spirit Guardians is speed reduction. That's the only thing that doesn't stack.
Two Wizards use the Ready to each prepare a casting of Fireball the instant a creature enters a 5ft square. The targeted square is the same for both Wizards. A creature triggers both of their readied actions at the exact same time. Do they only have to make a Dex save for one of the spells? No, of course they have to save against each one. If they fail their saving throws against both, do they only take damage from one? No, of course not; they get hit with the full force of both. If one of the fireballs was cast at a higher level, does that mean the other fireball ceases to exist? No, they have to deal with both. The only thing that does not stack is the effect of igniting terrain/objects; the overlapped areas can't be more on fire than they already are.
How would you actually determine, in a clear methodology, which source of damage is "more potent"? You can't. Is it always the highest spell level? What about resistance & immunity? If a creature is resistant/immune to damage from the highest level spell, wouldn't the lowest level spell then be the most potent? Is potency determined by the sheer number & size of dice being rolled, or by the net total of each actually rolling? It's absurd.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The spirits are the ongoing effect. The damage is what that effect causes. If a target can only be affected by one ongoing effect at a time, then that means RAW that they can only be affected by the spirits of one casting of Spirit Guardians at a time.
5e is already enough of a cakewalk for PCs compared to earlier editions, it doesn’t need to be made easier for them by stacking effects.
And remember, if the PCs can do it, so can the bad guys. So if multiple castings of Spirit Guardians stack their damage, then how does that work out for the players if 5 enemy NPCs all cast it at the same time? A CR 2 Priest can cast Spirit Guardians after all. 5 of them....
No, that's emphatically not true. Damage is not the "effect" of a spell as it relates to the technical definition of "effect" for the rule at hand.
There would be zero purpose to differentiating "Damage" and "Effect" if they were entirely the same. Damage is damage, and the effect is the effect. The effect of Spirit Guardians is speed reduction. That's the only thing that doesn't stack.
Two Wizards use the Ready to each prepare a casting of Fireball the instant a creature enters a 5ft square. The targeted square is the same for both Wizards. A creature triggers both of their readied actions at the exact same time. Do they only have to make a Dex save for one of the spells? No, of course they have to save against each one. If they fail their saving throws against both, do they only take damage from one? No, of course not; they get hit with the full force of both. If one of the fireballs was cast at a higher level, does that mean the other fireball ceases to exist? No, they have to deal with both. The only thing that does not stack is the effect of igniting terrain/objects; the overlapped areas can't be more on fire than they already are.
How would you actually determine, in a clear methodology, which source of damage is "more potent"? You can't. Is it always the highest spell level? What about resistance & immunity? If a creature is resistant/immune to damage from the highest level spell, wouldn't the lowest level spell then be the most potent? Is potency determined by the sheer number & size of dice being rolled, or by the net total of each actually rolling? It's absurd.
You misunderstood me again.
The effect of Spirit Guardians is that it creates Spirits to guard you. The damage is not the effect. The damage is caused by the effect. The speed reduction is also not the effect, but caused by the effect.
The effect of fireball is an explosion. The damage and lighting things on fire are both caused by the effect, but neither is the actual effect. Since Fireball is instantaneous and not ongoing it is completely, 100% irrelevant to this discussion. They don’t both get resolved simultaneously, they get resolved one at a time. In other words, fireball ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it.
And the clear methodology for determining which is more potent is always the one cast at a higher level. It really is just that simple. Both cast at 3rd-level? Neither is more potent and it falls to which one was cast more recently. One cast at 3rd and the other cast at a higher level? The higher level one is the more potent. It really is just that simple.
No... speed reduction is the effect. It happens when you're in the affected area, regardless of what else is happening. You do not get to make a saving throw against speed reduction. This is what does not stack. This is the only thing that does not stack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm just gonna point out where the "roll damage every time" comes in.
"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."
The damage is triggered by the save. Whenever you make a save, you're rolling damage. On a successful save, that damage is halved, but you still roll the 3d8.
Like... how would you even say "yes, you only roll once, and that damage is applied every turn," that makes no sense because literally no other spell functions like that. Whenever damage is triggered, be it an attack, or a spell, or a save, you roll for damage at that point in time.
Regardless, on the original question, I'm of the opinion that the damage would "stack" because it is too different instances calling for a save at the same time, but the reduction doesn't change since BOTH of those effects are the same.
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!"
Just going to throw in my 2 cents because that's never a bad idea, right?
Spirit Guardians has two elements; a persistent speed halving, and damage on a failed save.
The speed halving being a persistent effect would not stack from two spirit guardians (ie you wouldn't get 1/4 speed). This is because you never apply multiple spell effects simultaneously as pointed out.
However, the damage effects aren't simultaneous; you make a wisdom save for one, maybe taking damage, and then a wisdom save for the second, maybe taking damage. These are discrete spell effects that are not stacking; the wisdom saves are independent, the damage is independent, and they are resolved sequentially. It's the same as if a wizard and a bard took the ready action to cast fireball against the first creature to come round a corner; you'd resolve each damage effect sequentially, you wouldn't say they're stacking.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Again, please stop with the intellectual dishonesty. I've never once claimed that "most potent" is not RAW. Please read what I wrote instead of making things up.
Again with the unnecessary capslock-shouting. And just because I point out the flaws in your argument, doesn't mean I don't understand you so you can drop the implied insults, they're just puerile. Ypu're also moving the goalposts by altering your deifnition of what you want "potent" to mean. But once again you are choosing to interpret the rules in a way that fits your narrative without any support of the rules themselves. If you want to play that way in your game, please do. But realize that you are then making things up. And that's OK.
What makes you think that all spells must have a "most potent effect" even to begin with? Even in the example given in the rules there is no "more potent" effect, it just states that you don't get the same bonus twice. Yet again you chose to force your interpretation that there always must be a a more potent effect. That is simply not true. As have been mentioned numerous times in this thread, the "effect" is the lowering of movement speed - it's a fixed effect and can't be more or less potent. The damage is just that, damage. And just like you can take damage from multiple swings of a weapon, you can take damage from multiple Spirit Guardians.
Again, please stop with the outright fallacies. I've never once said what you are implying and you are getting a bit tiresome with your intellectual dishonesty.You can't both claim RAW and claiming that the rules are unclear at the same time. The example actually argues against you since it makes no mentioned on the casting level of the Bless spell which means that you have no support for your argument that the casting level is what defines "more potent".
Look, if you don't even read what other people write, what's the point of you even engaging in discussion? Like have been previously mentioned, the damage from Spirit Guardians is not a case where the "more potent" rule even applies. Is damage a bonus? No, therefor you can't use that as en example. Even if we did, you still need to roll to see which damage is "most potent"
But I'm glad to see that you finally seem to realize that you are just making things up. What "could" be, is irrelevant. What is is what's important.
Again, lots of "ifs" and "maybes" without any actual support from the rules.
Except that it does as per the previous examples regarding resistances, immunities or different DCs.
Once more with the moving of the goalposts. Previously you wrote that "If they are cast at the same level, both spells will do 3d8 damage, why do you want to roll twice ?", now you all of the sudden do need to roll twice, once for each spell. So which one is it going to be? Your argument falls apart when you keep fli-flopping like this. And you are still ignoring the fact that A and B might have different spell DCs.
This has already been explained. Please actually read what people write before replying to posts. It's a waste of time if you don't actually read the thread you're replying to.
Again, that's just you rinterpretation.
No, the effects of Vicious mockery last longer than "instantenous".
Yes you were. Just because you weren't doing it all the time doesn't change that.
If you say so.
Again, no-one has claimed that it is complicated. Stop strawmanning. I'm just pointing out the fact that you choose to interpret the rules in a way that fit your narrative. And that's perfectly fine if you want to do that. But you do realize that you first saying "RAW is this and only this" is completely contradictory to you now saying "it's up to the DM to determine", don't you? If it's up to the DM then there's no need to have this discussion at all, is there?
You don't understand the colloquialism of getting hit points back? Then why didn't you just say so?
Are you sure? Your passive-agressiveness suggest otherwise. Either way, like I've already said, if you want to play the game in your own way, that's totally fine. Now if you don't have anything else to contribute to this discussion I'm going to take my leave, especially since you don't even seem to bother to read the replies you recieve.
Have a nice day.
That's a whole lot of text and I'm not going to get into all of it, but rolling for damage when the spell is cast and then using that same damage for each instance it's triggered is just plain wrong, and I really can't see how your players go along with that. It would be a total buzzkill.
"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"
It does not say "when you cast this spell, roll 3d8 and record the number. When a 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, they take the damage equal to the number you rolled when you cast the spell."
Do you also make them do one single save, record that save, and then make them use it each consecutive turn?
To each their own, of course, but I've been sitting here pondering what that would be like, and it just seems so not fun. Almost as bad as not letting a player's damage count because someone else is doing the same thing...
Maybe I'll try and give it a shot someday, but you clearly have some... I don't even know what word I'm looking for, laid back maybe? Players. Everyone I've played with are pretty chill people, but if I told them that their ongoing damage-dealing spells only got one damage roll at the time of casting, they'd riot. As a player, I certainly wouldn't be down for it.
The rules say the effects of two spells do not combine. Damage is not what they mean by effect. For Spirit Guardians, the effect is the decrease to movement speed. It's quite obvious how that could get out of hand if allowed to stack; if 3 people have the spell going, any creature with the standard 30 feet of movement is now totally immobile while stuck in the middle of 3 magical chipper-shredders. Very unfair.
What do you mean it's already the case if two players have cast stinking cloud or cloudkill? Stinking Cloud doesn't do damage, and its effect literally can't stack - creatures only have one action to spend retching - so that's a moot point. Actually, I guess it's not moot, because if there are two instances of it affecting a target, then they have to save against each which doubles their chances of failing, so even with a spell like that there is some merit in having two castings going at a time.
If there are two instances of Cloudkill going, then targets save against both and take damage from both, same as with Spirit Guardians.
Two people casting the same spell is a niche situation, but one that does come up, and taking a player's damage-dealing away from them is just mean.
What if you have a cleric in your party, and Spirit Guardians is their main damaging spell? Say they are trying to protect a temple against invaders, and a cleric NPC happens to cast it. Now your cleric player can't use their best damage-dealing ability? How very fun.
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.
Sorry, couldn't boldface on my phone readily and wanted the emphasis.
As I said before, have the DM look at the arguments and select one to their liking or put it to a vote for the group. If you want to roll the damage at the start of the spell, notate that damage, and apply it whenever another target fails their save (along with whatever resistances or vulnerabilities) knock yourself out. If you want to have the damage rolled everytime after the save is done, congratulations.
In either case, you can always default to whomever cast the spell more recently if you don't think the damage should stack, because that's actually in the rules. If you don't like that interpretation, figure out one that your group likes and is happy with.
Hopefully, the overlap doesn't happen frequently since that would be a waste of either a spell slot, or of the potential for that slot. Hopefully it's limited to cases where the duration of the spell combined with a change in spacing are the factors causing the overlap and not disregard for the other player. Of course, there are ways to mitigate that overlap even in constrained areas as well.
Of course, if the damage can stack, most of those concerns are nullified.
The important part is to do what's fun for the group. As such, this might be a good thing to bring up in a session zero if there are two clerics or Divine Soul Sorcerers. Set those expectations early and avoid much of this turmoil in game.
The only reason Magic Missile uses the roll once for every dart rule has nothing to do with a lack of an attack roll. It has everything to do with the fact that the text for the spell specifies that all darts do their damage “simultaneously.”
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#DamageRolls
Can be found in the PHB, p196, Part 2- Chapter 9: Combat
The rest of it is irrelevant.
That is the only instance in all of 5e that dictates when to roll damage for a spell once and apply it throughout.
Since Spirit Guardians is triggered on the targets’ turns, it can never damage multiple creatures “at the same time,” so all instances of damage are rolled individually.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
“Most potent” refers to the level at which the spell was cast. If two versions were both cast at 3rd-level, then neither is “more potent” and it defaults to the version cast most recently.
And it has nothing to do with “cast at the same time” whatsoever. It has everything to do with doing damage “at the same time.”
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Just because you take something seriously doesn't mean you don't enjoy it. It's actually a big part of why I enjoy it.
I do concede that you're reading the rules correctly; RAW certainly seems to state that the damage wouldn't stack. There is no way that is the actual intent; just another case of the rules in 5e being written a bit too generically, but you are interpreting what is written - the RAW - correctly.
I would never play it that way, and I know for a fact that both Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford allow damage from the same spells to stack; in both Acquisitions Inc. and in Chris Perkins' old show Dice Camera Action, there were several instances of Spirit Guardians being cast by two people (typically Strix and Omen) and they allowed the damage to stack without question. Clearly this shows it was not Crawford's intent for the damage to not stack.
As for the damage being rolled at the time of casting and then using that same number throughout the duration of the spell, that is clearly against RAW.
Of course, we're all free to play however we choose :)
All we're trying to do here is determine what actually is RAW, and your arguments are sound; I now agree you are correct in your interpretation that damage is included in the "effect" under the Combining Magical Effects header. I'll never play this way, and you're the first person I've spoken to who does, but there's nothing wrong with that; you're following the RAW, if - perhaps - not the RAI (and in my personal opinion, not the RAF.) If it works for you and your players, that's awesome.
Wow took me forever to scroll down one page on my phone.
So moral of the story is talk to your DM. Guess it comes down to a few options
Cleric 1 and Cleric 2 both cast Spirit Guardians. Some unlucky target is caught in both. Assuming no movement and stays in effects for duration. Options are:
1. Target starts it’s turn there and rolls saving throw twice, once for each casting and takes relevant damage from both (12 and 15 rolled damage, then adjust for saves etc). Each turn Target is there, rolls saves and takes 12 and 15, adjusted for saves etc until spells end.
2. Target rolls two saves each turn, Casters roll damage each turn and adjust for saves etc. Target takes various damage each turn until spells end.
3. Target rolls one save each turn, each Caster rolls damage only once (12 and 15 rolled damage) Only the highest damage counts (15) Target takes that one damage roll each turn, adjusted for save, until spells end
am I missing an option?
I believe option 2 is the correct one or at least my interpretation of how it should work
Missing option: The target rolls one save and only takes damage from the version cast most recently if both were cast at the same level, or if they were not cast at the same level the target only takes damage from the one cast at the highest level.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
This rings truest to me. Just remember that anything a player can do is repeatable by NPCs. The fact that anything a player can do is repeatable by the NPCs should be part of the session zero, even if specific instances aren't applicable. Therefore, Lyxen's reference to being in a meat grinder is a natural consequence of multiple PCs being able to get damage on one turn.
However, if your table doesn't like that interpretation, your table can choose an interpretation more to your liking. Having been in many of these discussions myself, I have come to the conclusion that the term RAW gets thrown around a lot (even by me) when it should not be or as a way to discount another person's reading when it shouldn't. Let's agree on the parts that we can agree on, agree to disagree on the others, and realize that we don't have to follow the RAW even if we agree on it. After all, different tables have different desires about how to play and different rulings will fulfill those desires better than others and there is nothing wrong with that.
Now someone copy that and throw it in my face when I get in one of my stubborn moods;)
Edit: I nearly forgot. If you had to roll to find out which was more potent, that could mean that 4d8 was less potent than even 1d8, since the 4d8 could roll only 4 but the 1d8 could roll 8. That's why it makes sense to me to stick to the described amount, ie. 3d8, which is determined by the spell slot used to cast the spell and use the most recent casting as the tie breaker should that be required.
I don't think I would want to roll damage once and necessarily carry that through the spells duration. I might however, ask for average damage if the DM allows it. In my mind, this would guarantee decent damage, and save a lot of time as pointed out by Lyxen.
As far as the original question goes, I would let the damage stack. It might not be RAW but, it really won't make any difference if both the players and the NPCs can do it.
Yo, Lyxen, I'm going to point out that you're engaging in a logical fallacy with your line of argument--you keep moving the goal post. All of the pertinent questions have been clearly answered.
Damage is not an ongoing effect. Damage does not conflict with an overlapping area of the same spell; a creature is susceptible to the damage of multiple spells individually. The only spell effect which does not stack is the speed reduction. Your line of argument does not have any factual basis by RAW, RAI, or even RAF.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The spirits are the ongoing effect. The damage is what that effect causes. If a target can only be affected by one ongoing effect at a time, then that means RAW that they can only be affected by the spirits of one casting of Spirit Guardians at a time.
5e is already enough of a cakewalk for PCs compared to earlier editions, it doesn’t need to be made easier for them by stacking effects.
And remember, if the PCs can do it, so can the bad guys. So if multiple castings of Spirit Guardians stack their damage, then how does that work out for the players if 5 enemy NPCs all cast it at the same time? A CR 2 Priest can cast Spirit Guardians after all. 5 of them....
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
This is an excellent way to resolve combat more readily, particularly if rolling dice isn't as fun for the table.
Hypothetical Scenario: Creature starts in Spirit Guardians AoE #1, then during their turn crosses into Spirit Guardians AoE #2 while still remaining inside of AoE #1. would they then make the save and take the damage from each that turn? If so, then how is that different from starting your turn in both in a 'realistic' perspective? If not, why? That's a logical gap I keep running into while trying to reconcile the "Combining Spell Effects" rule in this case; as the rule (to me) seemingly allows for two damage opportunities in one case but not in another.
No, that's emphatically not true. Damage is not the "effect" of a spell as it relates to the technical definition of "effect" for the rule at hand.
There would be zero purpose to differentiating "Damage" and "Effect" if they were entirely the same. Damage is damage, and the effect is the effect. The effect of Spirit Guardians is speed reduction. That's the only thing that doesn't stack.
Two Wizards use the Ready to each prepare a casting of Fireball the instant a creature enters a 5ft square. The targeted square is the same for both Wizards. A creature triggers both of their readied actions at the exact same time. Do they only have to make a Dex save for one of the spells? No, of course they have to save against each one. If they fail their saving throws against both, do they only take damage from one? No, of course not; they get hit with the full force of both. If one of the fireballs was cast at a higher level, does that mean the other fireball ceases to exist? No, they have to deal with both. The only thing that does not stack is the effect of igniting terrain/objects; the overlapped areas can't be more on fire than they already are.
How would you actually determine, in a clear methodology, which source of damage is "more potent"? You can't. Is it always the highest spell level? What about resistance & immunity? If a creature is resistant/immune to damage from the highest level spell, wouldn't the lowest level spell then be the most potent? Is potency determined by the sheer number & size of dice being rolled, or by the net total of each actually rolling? It's absurd.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
You misunderstood me again.
The effect of Spirit Guardians is that it creates Spirits to guard you. The damage is not the effect. The damage is caused by the effect. The speed reduction is also not the effect, but caused by the effect.
The effect of fireball is an explosion. The damage and lighting things on fire are both caused by the effect, but neither is the actual effect. Since Fireball is instantaneous and not ongoing it is completely, 100% irrelevant to this discussion. They don’t both get resolved simultaneously, they get resolved one at a time. In other words, fireball ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it.
And the clear methodology for determining which is more potent is always the one cast at a higher level. It really is just that simple. Both cast at 3rd-level? Neither is more potent and it falls to which one was cast more recently. One cast at 3rd and the other cast at a higher level? The higher level one is the more potent. It really is just that simple.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
No... speed reduction is the effect. It happens when you're in the affected area, regardless of what else is happening. You do not get to make a saving throw against speed reduction. This is what does not stack. This is the only thing that does not stack.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.