You said yourself, if PCs can do, NPCs can do it. My PCs always focus fire when a threat is overwhelmingly obvious. Guess what? So do the NPC's.
I get that. But by interpreting RAW as that two castings of Spirit Guardians don’t stack, then it is not necessarily “overwhelmingly obvious.”
From my perspective what I’m reading is this-
Player 1: “If we both cast Spirit Guardians and stand next to each other, will the damage stack?”
DM: “Absolutely.”
Player 2: “Awesome, my character casts SG at 3rd-level and stands next to Player 1’s Character saying ‘I shall stand with you [sibling of indeterminate gender identity].’”
DM: “You clutch your holy symbol and mutter a quick prayer for help in this desperate situation. Your devotion and piety are recognized and you feel [diety]’s power swell within you as three special forms [wreathed in divine luminance/shrouded in unholy darkness] sent by your god(des) surround you to protect you and smite your enemies.
“It is now the enemies turns. The first batch of Goblin Cultists led by a Hobgoblin Fanatic rush to attack you, as they enter your vicinity, the combined savagery of your spirits first slows their advance, and suddenly the air around you filled with a fine pink mist and thin ribbons of tattered green flesh slowly drift to the ground around you.
Players 1 & 2: “Cool!” & “Awesome!”
DM: “Now having seen how your stalwart blockade proved to be too much for their minions, the triad of hooded Cult Leaders turn their attention to the two of you and each hit you with a Fireball, almost as one. Take a bajillian damage and you each have to make three Concentration checks.
Players 1 & 2: “Dude, we didn’t even get to keep our spells up for a turn. WTF!?!”
DM: “Well, you were such a threat how could they not immediately target you.”
Players 1 & 2: “This sucks.”
Or, it could go like this-
Player 1: “If we both cast Spirit Guardians and stand next to each other, will the damage stack?”
DM: “Multiple castings of the same spell like that don’t stack.”
Player 2: “Okay, then in that case my character will do something that won’t make the bad guys immediately nuke both of our characters and make us feel bed.”
You're being a bit ridiculous. For one thing, obviously hitting your players with multiple Fireballs at the same time is going to hurt. Why would you ever do this? It's a terrible example; as Sigred said, half of your arguments seem to be "well what if the DM was bad?" If it was just one fireball, it would be understandable. I've thrown fireballs - and other spells/attacks, AoE or not - at players to end their concentration, and they have no problem with it. Why would they? That's what concentration is for. They've done it to end NPC's concentration, too. If players want to increase their chances of not losing concentration, they can pick up War Caster and/or get proficiency in Constitution saves.
For another thing, beyond the multi-fireball nonsense, that scenario sounds like it could be good times.
I think you just aren't really getting the concept that concentration spells are supposed to paint a target on the caster. It's half the intent of their design; the other half being to prevent multiple castings of ongoing powerful spells by a single person.
I get the concept. I just don’t see the point in, as a DM, specifically permitting players to do things that technically go against my interpretation of RAW just to take it away from them. That seems like a bad move all around. As opposed to just letting them know that it won’t work if they stand next to easchother. Then they spread out and paint two targets. Or they do something else and when the first one gets dropped the other player can bring up theirs as a clutch desperate last stand. Or anything other than specificly going against RAW to encourage them to do something that I will be forced to dictate that the baddies are gonna poo all over it. That just seems like bad DMing to me, or worse, malicious DMing where the point it to encourage the players to use up all their fun toys just to be taken away immediately.
When everybody says “let ‘em do it and nuke them next turn” that sounds like bad DMing to me. Basically, everyone’s response to the situation sounds like bad DMing to me. So, I gues what I’m saying isn’t “well what if the DM is bad” and more along the lines of “what you are suggesting sounds like bad DMing to me.”
You said yourself, if PCs can do, NPCs can do it. My PCs always focus fire when a threat is overwhelmingly obvious. Guess what? So do the NPC's.
I get that. But by interpreting RAW as that two castings of Spirit Guardians don’t stack, then it is not necessarily “overwhelmingly obvious.”
From my perspective what I’m reading is this-
Player 1: “If we both cast Spirit Guardians and stand next to each other, will the damage stack?”
DM: “Absolutely.”
Player 2: “Awesome, my character casts SG at 3rd-level and stands next to Player 1’s Character saying ‘I shall stand with you [sibling of indeterminate gender identity].’”
DM: “You clutch your holy symbol and mutter a quick prayer for help in this desperate situation. Your devotion and piety are recognized and you feel [diety]’s power swell within you as three special forms [wreathed in divine luminance/shrouded in unholy darkness] sent by your god(des) surround you to protect you and smite your enemies.
“It is now the enemies turns. The first batch of Goblin Cultists led by a Hobgoblin Fanatic rush to attack you, as they enter your vicinity, the combined savagery of your spirits first slows their advance, and suddenly the air around you filled with a fine pink mist and thin ribbons of tattered green flesh slowly drift to the ground around you.
Players 1 & 2: “Cool!” & “Awesome!”
DM: “Now having seen how your stalwart blockade proved to be too much for their minions, the triad of hooded Cult Leaders turn their attention to the two of you and each hit you with a Fireball, almost as one. Take a bajillian damage and you each have to make three Concentration checks.
Players 1 & 2: “Dude, we didn’t even get to keep our spells up for a turn. WTF!?!”
DM: “Well, you were such a threat how could they not immediately target you.”
Players 1 & 2: “This sucks.”
Or, it could go like this-
Player 1: “If we both cast Spirit Guardians and stand next to each other, will the damage stack?”
DM: “Multiple castings of the same spell like that don’t stack.”
Player 2: “Okay, then in that case my character will do something that won’t make the bad guys immediately nuke both of our characters and make us feel bed.”
This is a VERY skewed scenario that you've basically stacked to your advantage to support your narrative. And you don't need to stand next to the other caster for the spells to overlap. Pretty much every player knows not to bunch up. Not to mention the fact that if they have other magic users in the party those fireballs might be counterspelled. But yes, fireballing hostile magic users is a good tactic. Whoudathunkit?
I get the concept. I just don’t see the point in, as a DM, specifically permitting players to do things that technically go against my interpretation of RAW just to take it away from them.
Yes, everyone in the thread understands this is your interpretation. As a DM, you are free to follow through on that at your table. But you're overstepping by continuing to push this argument. Other DMs will do as they see fit, pursuant to their interpretation.
And let me just say, the only reason this is in DM interpretation grey arealand to begin with is because the term "effect" is poorly defined in the rules. This came up in an argument about Dragon's Breath, too. What is the effect of that spell? The targeted creature gaining a new action? Or is each and every use of that 15 foot cone breath weapon considered an effect of the spell? It's incredibly ambiguous. Just like Spirit Guardians, it clearly matters what the correct answer is, but there's no way to determine it.
I get the concept. I just don’t see the point in, as a DM, specifically permitting players to do things that technically go against my interpretation of RAW just to take it away from them.
Yes, everyone in the thread understands this is your interpretation. As a DM, you are free to follow through on that at your table. But you're overstepping by continuing to push this argument. Other DMs will do as they see fit, pursuant to their interpretation.
And let me just say, the only reason this is in DM interpretation grey arealand to begin with is because the term "effect" is poorly defined in the rules. This came up in an argument about Dragon's Breath, too. What is the effect of that spell? The targeted creature gaining a new action? Or is each and every use of that 15 foot cone breath weapon considered an effect of the spell? It's incredibly ambiguous. Just like Spirit Guardians, it clearly matters what the correct answer is, but there's no way to determine it.
But it isn’t just my interpretation.
Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
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.
Combining Magical Effects
The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however.Instead, the most potent effect — such as the highest bonus — from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.
For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell's benefit only once; he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus dice.
I am quoting RAW from chapter 10 of the PHB. The “effects of a spell” is clearly defined, and the fact that two castings of the same spell don’t stack is clearly stated.
If others choose to do it differently then I have no problem with that. But being told I’m a bad DM for adhering to RAW is 🐃💩, and I won’t put up with it.
IamSposta is absolutely correct in his interpretation; the damage not stacking is RAW (though, again, probably not RAI. Crawford certainly doesn't run it that way.)
At this point we're just debating what would be more fun, and there's nothing wrong with that debate, though this section of the forum - Rules and Game Mechanics - isn't really the place for it, since the RAW has been determined.
IamSposta is absolutely correct in his interpretation; the damage not stacking is RAW (though, again, probably not RAI. Crawford certainly doesn't run it that way.)
At this point we're just debating what would be more fun, and there's nothing wrong with that debate, though this section of the forum - Rules and Game Mechanics - isn't really the place for it, since the RAW has been determined.
Think we gotta let this one go guys. DM is gonna rule it how they interpret it. The scenarios back and forth don’t seem to be able to resolve it.
You're saying that post 11 had it right?
Edit: I will say this, there seems to be three different arguments for this when there is usually only two.
I wouldn’t let any player overlap Spirit Guardian spells. If the areas overlap, the more powerful or more recent one would prevail. I’ll throw in that I consider this “RAW” because it supports my view and will cause 13 more pages of discussion about spell effects haha 🙂
So, not to keep this going unnecessarily, but the Simultaneous effects rule in Xanathars seems to give guidance on effects that happen simultaneously. This made me think that, while the spirit guardians effect of the spirits is ongoing, the damage is not...so would this apply and imply both sets of damage would occur? The other effects (slowed movement) are continuous and would more obviously not stack
Simultaneous Effects
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
XgtE isn't actually RAW, strictly speaking. Also, that doesn't mention identical spells being cast, so isn't really relevant. It's just referring to what happens if you're under two ongoing effects at once; say you're being attacked by Spirit Guardians while being healed by Healing Spirit.
Huh? XGtE is as RAW as official as it gets, so everything in there is RAW.
My only insight there is with regards to AL, where players must use PHB +1 other rulebook. If that other book is not Xanthars, then Xanthars things do not apply to you.
But I have yet to meet anyone who actually considers that valid, and I had not heard of AL until I joined these forums, so... *shurg*
Huh? XGtE is as RAW as official as it gets, so everything in there is RAW.
My only insight there is with regards to AL, where players must use PHB +1 other rulebook. If that other book is not Xanthars, then Xanthars things do not apply to you.
But I have yet to meet anyone who actually considers that valid, and I had not heard of AL until I joined these forums, so... *shurg*
Even that only applies to character creation and leveling. Rules wise, XGtE is as valid as anything else, though the rules in it are either optional or clarifications of the PHB.
Huh? XGtE is as RAW as official as it gets, so everything in there is RAW.
Only the 3 core books are RAW. Everything else is optional.
The intro in XgtE:
Written for both players and Dungeon Masters, this source offers options to enhance campaigns in any world, whether you’re adventuring in the Forgotten Realms, another official D&D setting, or a world of your own creation. The options here build on the official rules contained within the Player’s Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Think of this source as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign — this is not a fourth core rulebook — but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game.
I get that. But by interpreting RAW as that two castings of Spirit Guardians don’t stack, then it is not necessarily “overwhelmingly obvious.”
From my perspective what I’m reading is this-
Player 1: “If we both cast Spirit Guardians and stand next to each other, will the damage stack?”
DM: “Absolutely.”
Player 2: “Awesome, my character casts SG at 3rd-level and stands next to Player 1’s Character saying ‘I shall stand with you [sibling of indeterminate gender identity].’”
DM: “You clutch your holy symbol and mutter a quick prayer for help in this desperate situation. Your devotion and piety are recognized and you feel [diety]’s power swell within you as three special forms [wreathed in divine luminance/shrouded in unholy darkness] sent by your god(des) surround you to protect you and smite your enemies.
“It is now the enemies turns. The first batch of Goblin Cultists led by a Hobgoblin Fanatic rush to attack you, as they enter your vicinity, the combined savagery of your spirits first slows their advance, and suddenly the air around you filled with a fine pink mist and thin ribbons of tattered green flesh slowly drift to the ground around you.
Players 1 & 2: “Cool!” & “Awesome!”
DM: “Now having seen how your stalwart blockade proved to be too much for their minions, the triad of hooded Cult Leaders turn their attention to the two of you and each hit you with a Fireball, almost as one. Take a bajillian damage and you each have to make three Concentration checks.
Players 1 & 2: “Dude, we didn’t even get to keep our spells up for a turn. WTF!?!”
DM: “Well, you were such a threat how could they not immediately target you.”
Players 1 & 2: “This sucks.”
Or, it could go like this-
Player 1: “If we both cast Spirit Guardians and stand next to each other, will the damage stack?”
DM: “Multiple castings of the same spell like that don’t stack.”
Player 2: “Okay, then in that case my character will do something that won’t make the bad guys immediately nuke both of our characters and make us feel bed.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You're being a bit ridiculous. For one thing, obviously hitting your players with multiple Fireballs at the same time is going to hurt. Why would you ever do this? It's a terrible example; as Sigred said, half of your arguments seem to be "well what if the DM was bad?"
If it was just one fireball, it would be understandable. I've thrown fireballs - and other spells/attacks, AoE or not - at players to end their concentration, and they have no problem with it. Why would they? That's what concentration is for. They've done it to end NPC's concentration, too. If players want to increase their chances of not losing concentration, they can pick up War Caster and/or get proficiency in Constitution saves.
For another thing, beyond the multi-fireball nonsense, that scenario sounds like it could be good times.
I think you just aren't really getting the concept that concentration spells are supposed to paint a target on the caster. It's half the intent of their design; the other half being to prevent multiple castings of ongoing powerful spells by a single person.
I get the concept. I just don’t see the point in, as a DM, specifically permitting players to do things that technically go against my interpretation of RAW just to take it away from them. That seems like a bad move all around. As opposed to just letting them know that it won’t work if they stand next to easchother. Then they spread out and paint two targets. Or they do something else and when the first one gets dropped the other player can bring up theirs as a clutch desperate last stand. Or anything other than specificly going against RAW to encourage them to do something that I will be forced to dictate that the baddies are gonna poo all over it. That just seems like bad DMing to me, or worse, malicious DMing where the point it to encourage the players to use up all their fun toys just to be taken away immediately.
When everybody says “let ‘em do it and nuke them next turn” that sounds like bad DMing to me. Basically, everyone’s response to the situation sounds like bad DMing to me. So, I gues what I’m saying isn’t “well what if the DM is bad” and more along the lines of “what you are suggesting sounds like bad DMing to me.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Fair enough, to each their own.
This is a VERY skewed scenario that you've basically stacked to your advantage to support your narrative. And you don't need to stand next to the other caster for the spells to overlap. Pretty much every player knows not to bunch up. Not to mention the fact that if they have other magic users in the party those fireballs might be counterspelled. But yes, fireballing hostile magic users is a good tactic. Whoudathunkit?
Yes, everyone in the thread understands this is your interpretation. As a DM, you are free to follow through on that at your table. But you're overstepping by continuing to push this argument. Other DMs will do as they see fit, pursuant to their interpretation.
And let me just say, the only reason this is in DM interpretation grey arealand to begin with is because the term "effect" is poorly defined in the rules. This came up in an argument about Dragon's Breath, too. What is the effect of that spell? The targeted creature gaining a new action? Or is each and every use of that 15 foot cone breath weapon considered an effect of the spell? It's incredibly ambiguous. Just like Spirit Guardians, it clearly matters what the correct answer is, but there's no way to determine it.
But it isn’t just my interpretation.
I am quoting RAW from chapter 10 of the PHB. The “effects of a spell” is clearly defined, and the fact that two castings of the same spell don’t stack is clearly stated.
If others choose to do it differently then I have no problem with that. But being told I’m a bad DM for adhering to RAW is 🐃💩, and I won’t put up with it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Think we gotta let this one go guys. DM is gonna rule it how they interpret it. The scenarios back and forth don’t seem to be able to resolve it.
You're saying that post 11 had it right?
Edit: I will say this, there seems to be three different arguments for this when there is usually only two.
IamSposta is absolutely correct in his interpretation; the damage not stacking is RAW (though, again, probably not RAI. Crawford certainly doesn't run it that way.)
At this point we're just debating what would be more fun, and there's nothing wrong with that debate, though this section of the forum - Rules and Game Mechanics - isn't really the place for it, since the RAW has been determined.
Thank you. Lei è molto gentile.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I wouldn’t let any player overlap Spirit Guardian spells. If the areas overlap, the more powerful or more recent one would prevail. I’ll throw in that I consider this “RAW” because it supports my view and will cause 13 more pages of discussion about spell effects haha 🙂
So, not to keep this going unnecessarily, but the Simultaneous effects rule in Xanathars seems to give guidance on effects that happen simultaneously. This made me think that, while the spirit guardians effect of the spirits is ongoing, the damage is not...so would this apply and imply both sets of damage would occur? The other effects (slowed movement) are continuous and would more obviously not stack
Simultaneous Effects
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
XgtE isn't actually RAW, strictly speaking. Also, that doesn't mention identical spells being cast, so isn't really relevant. It's just referring to what happens if you're under two ongoing effects at once; say you're being attacked by Spirit Guardians while being healed by Healing Spirit.
Sorry, I'm new to the forums, what does RAW stand for?
"Teach a man to make fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Rules as Written. As opposed to RAI (Rules as Intended) or RAF (Rules as Fun) or ROC (Rule of Cool).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Huh? XGtE is as RAW as official as it gets, so everything in there is RAW.
My only insight there is with regards to AL, where players must use PHB +1 other rulebook. If that other book is not Xanthars, then Xanthars things do not apply to you.
But I have yet to meet anyone who actually considers that valid, and I had not heard of AL until I joined these forums, so... *shurg*
Even that only applies to character creation and leveling. Rules wise, XGtE is as valid as anything else, though the rules in it are either optional or clarifications of the PHB.
Only the 3 core books are RAW. Everything else is optional.
The intro in XgtE:
Written for both players and Dungeon Masters, this source offers options to enhance campaigns in any world, whether you’re adventuring in the Forgotten Realms, another official D&D setting, or a world of your own creation. The options here build on the official rules contained within the Player’s Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Think of this source as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign — this is not a fourth core rulebook — but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game.