Just as a friendly reminder to everyone, please ensure that you remain respectful and civil to one another. Attacking or insulting another user is never okay.
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.
I’m glad someone did. Even if it wasn’t me and even though we were using the same arguments.
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.
I’m glad someone did. Even if it wasn’t me and even though we were using the same arguments.
eh, it happens. To be fair, Sposta, you've convinced me on far less contentious topics lol
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!"
Can we roll back a tiny bit and explain why flavor text is now considered a spell effect?
"You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." That's flavor text. It happens to summarize what the spell does for visual purposes, and to give an example of the type of thing that Counterspell is looking for in terms of recognizing the spell, but it is 100% irrelevant to the mechanical function of the spell.
Or are we going to argue that you can't use your Reaction for Hellish Rebuke if your hands are tied and you're physically unable to point?
[edit] And this, then, would have further ramifications, because there are quite the list of spells that have Somatic components, but from my observation only av very small subset of those Somatic Components are described through spell text. This ruling makes some spells arbitrarily weaker, then, because their fluffy irrelevant text says something irrelevant, but we now MUST adhere to it because all the text of the spell is the effect. [/edit]
Can we roll back a tiny bit and explain why flavor text is now considered a spell effect?
It isn't.
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.
Is the damage from spirit guardians an ongoing effect? This is important because in practice ongoing effects are subject to the combining spell effects rule, but non-ongoing effects are not (because Xanathar’s simultaneous effects rule says that effects that occur at the same time actually occur right after one another).
The precedent here is the DMG’s combining game effects, which says that for the “Fire Form” ability effect (which does damage at the start of your turn and sets you on fire, which does additional damage), only the fire damage from being on fire is affected by the rule. This means that a singular effect can feasibly have ongoing and instantaneous components. The function of this ability is also very similar to the function of Spirit Guardians in the way it is worded.
I would rule that, if the Fire Form ability (which is “always on” and has unlimited duration) can have components that both are and are not subject to combining game effects, then spirit guardians can as well.
Is the effect targeting only the “target” or any creature who is in the AoE? By rule, the target of spirit guardians is self, and the rule does not refer to any other creature as a “target” of the spell. In fact, many saving throw based spells do the same (lighting bolt and cone of cold, for instance)
The example in the PHB for combining spell effects is referencing an effect that targets a creature, so there is no reference for instances where a non-target is affected by a spell targeting a different creature.
What is the “effect” of a spell and can there be more than one? By RAW, as has been stated (a lot), the description of the spell is its effect. That makes sense, except that some of the descriptions detail movements that must take place prior to the spell being cast (hellish rebuke and pointing, burning hands and the hand movements, many of the circle spells and summoning spells and creating the circle), and other spells detail multiple effects that can 1) be overlapped with different castings and 2) create options for the caster to choose from (prestidigitation, thaumaturgy, druidcraft, etc). I would say that the general description of the spell format is just that, a generalization, and is not implying rigidly that there can only be a singular effect for every spell written. For spirit guardians, there are two distinct things in the effect that have gameplay meaning, the damage, and the halving of speed (note that only one is tied to the saving throw). Whether that is two effects or one is irrelevant really for the conversation, because they are still multiple parts applied differently (one is a definitive ongoing effect with no save, and one is a repeated, but not necessarily ongoing (if you read the Xanathar’s rule) effect with a save)
Others are free to interpret the questions differently of course.
Is the damage from spirit guardians an ongoing effect?
No. The Aura that fills the AoE (and causes the damage) is the ongoing effect. The aura deals the damage. Since two auras from two castings of the spell don’t stack, then they cannot both cause any damage.
Would you consider eating a Goodberry the effect of the spell?
Up to ten berries appear in your hand and are infused with magic for the duration. A creature can use its action to eat one berry. Eating a berry restores 1 hit point, and the berry provides enough nourishment to sustain a creature for one day.
The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell.
I would say that eating a berry, being described in the textual section of a spell, is part of the effect and certainly needs describing in the effect. Is there a problem with this ? This is after all, the main purpose of the spell, to create berries that heal/nourish creatures.
Well, the question wasn't aimed at you but since you seem so keen on butting in.
What if someone doesn't actually eat any of the berries? Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
I've had a couple of days to cool off. I will make one last bid for my argument. A spell is a discrete magical effect. But the rules recognize that spells have more than one "effect." See the rules on casting a spell and saving throws.
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.
and
Saving Throws
Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.
[emphasis mine]
So, my point is that in these two rule sentences, effect seems to mean "mechanical impact on the game," exactly as most people would call those things. At least it guarantees that spells can have more than one effect, but I think that is a different argument.
If we look closely at the rule on saving throws, it is a great example because spirit guardians has several mechanical impacts on the game, and one offers a saving throw to avoid part of them. The rule for saving throw says that the part of the spell that can be avoided is "some or all of a spell's effects," meaning the damage is an effect of the spell and that a spell that allows you to avoid some of its effects must have multiple effects.
This gives you a choice of interpretation: is an effect (such as the one mentioned in the combining spell effects rule) the "discrete shaping of magic" or "the mechanical impact on the game?" I believe that at best you cannot discount one, since the rule seems to use the word in both ways. We also have a hint of intent, albeit not firm evidence, that it is the "mechanical impact" that matters from the rule in the DMG: the rule for combining game features in the DMG uses an example of a trait and shows that only the ongoing effect of that trait, and not the entire trait, that is subject to that rule.
From all of this, I don't think you can claim that my reading is so unreasonable as to break RAW in any way.
Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
No.
Because you assert that the "effect" of that spell is creating berries, not the actual healing those berries do (and there I agree with you). But if we are to go by the previously aired opinion that "absolutely everything" is part of a spells effect, the eating of said berries is also part of the spells effect. Which shows how weird that interpretation is. :)
Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
No.
Because you assert that the "effect" of that spell is creating berries, not the actual healing those berries do (and there I agree with you). But if we are to go by the previously aired opinion that "absolutely everything" is part of a spells effect, the eating of said berries is also part of the spells effect. Which shows how weird that interpretation is. :)
Well, to be fair Jeremy Crawford rules that the berries do benefit from Disciple of Life, but I question his judgement and rationality based at least in part on his choice of haircut.
I don't have a problem if use your interpretation. I just think that mine is not out of the realm of possibility, considering the lack of precision in the wording of the PHB -- it doesn't even stick to a single definition of "effect". I will point out that I don't think your interpretation could not be used, just that it can't be the only RAW interpretation because of the way the PHB uses words. I have gotten into this discussion before: the PHB is written in a natural language style, so I don't think that someone's reading of it as natural language can be discredited as "not RAW" (as long as it is a legitimate attempt at a natural language interpretation, which I think both of ours are in this case).
Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
No.
Um, what? They absolutely are (not that I'm exactly happy about it, but w/e). It applies by both RAW & RAI, and has been confirmed multiple times by devs. What is your rationale for believing otherwise?
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.
Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
No.
Um, what? They absolutely are (not that I'm exactly happy about it, but w/e). It applies by both RAW & RAI, and has been confirmed multiple times by devs. What is your rationale for believing otherwise?
I know Jeremy Crawford says it’s legal, I even said so.
Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
No.
Because you assert that the "effect" of that spell is creating berries, not the actual healing those berries do (and there I agree with you). But if we are to go by the previously aired opinion that "absolutely everything" is part of a spells effect, the eating of said berries is also part of the spells effect. Which shows how weird that interpretation is. :)
Well, to be fair Jeremy Crawford rules that the berries do benefit from Disciple of Life, but I question his judgement and rationality based at least in part on his choice of haircut.
That Jimmy Neutron wave just kills his credibility.
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.
Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
No.
Because you assert that the "effect" of that spell is creating berries, not the actual healing those berries do (and there I agree with you). But if we are to go by the previously aired opinion that "absolutely everything" is part of a spells effect, the eating of said berries is also part of the spells effect. Which shows how weird that interpretation is. :)
The answer above was not mine, but for me, the restoration of hit points by the berries is part of the effect of the spell. I was not aware of the polemic around Disciple of Life, but I do not see any reason for the feature not to apply. You need multiclassing for this to apply anyway and the effect would only occur once per creature, not once per berry. Overall, it's good healing, but much less than healing spirit for example, hardly overpowered, especially because, overall, the healing stays pretty small.
That was not the questioned asked, though. You're still avoiding the issue to promote your own narrative. You actually not actually answering the question asked kind of proves my point though, so thanks for that.
The point being made(I believe) is that eating the berries and regaining hit points doesn't have to be part of the spell effect but, generally is considered as such. Taking an action to actually eat the berries is what provides the healing effect though, right?
This begs the real question. What are the real effects of a spell and what is narrative fluff or semantics?
The point being made(I believe) is that eating the berries and regaining hit points doesn't have to be part of the spell effect but, generally is considered as such. Taking an action to actually eat the berries is what provides the healing effect though, right?
This begs the real question. What are the real effects of a spell and what is narrative fluff or semantics?
Well, the reason I asked is that the person I asked has asserted, multiple times even, that literally everything except casting time. range, components and duration is part of the spells "effect". Now that they realize that's not really a viable standpoint they try to skirt the issue.
The bolded section is exactly the crux of the whole line of questioning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond StaffJust as a friendly reminder to everyone, please ensure that you remain respectful and civil to one another. Attacking or insulting another user is never okay.
I’m glad someone did. Even if it wasn’t me and even though we were using the same arguments.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
eh, it happens. To be fair, Sposta, you've convinced me on far less contentious topics lol
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!"
Lol
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Can we roll back a tiny bit and explain why flavor text is now considered a spell effect?
"You point your finger and the creature that damaged you is momentarily surrounded by hellish flames." That's flavor text. It happens to summarize what the spell does for visual purposes, and to give an example of the type of thing that Counterspell is looking for in terms of recognizing the spell, but it is 100% irrelevant to the mechanical function of the spell.
Or are we going to argue that you can't use your Reaction for Hellish Rebuke if your hands are tied and you're physically unable to point?
[edit] And this, then, would have further ramifications, because there are quite the list of spells that have Somatic components, but from my observation only av very small subset of those Somatic Components are described through spell text. This ruling makes some spells arbitrarily weaker, then, because their fluffy irrelevant text says something irrelevant, but we now MUST adhere to it because all the text of the spell is the effect. [/edit]
It isn't.
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 me, I see three questions here:
The precedent here is the DMG’s combining game effects, which says that for the “Fire Form” ability effect (which does damage at the start of your turn and sets you on fire, which does additional damage), only the fire damage from being on fire is affected by the rule. This means that a singular effect can feasibly have ongoing and instantaneous components. The function of this ability is also very similar to the function of Spirit Guardians in the way it is worded.
I would rule that, if the Fire Form ability (which is “always on” and has unlimited duration) can have components that both are and are not subject to combining game effects, then spirit guardians can as well.
The example in the PHB for combining spell effects is referencing an effect that targets a creature, so there is no reference for instances where a non-target is affected by a spell targeting a different creature.
Others are free to interpret the questions differently of course.
No. The Aura that fills the AoE (and causes the damage) is the ongoing effect. The aura deals the damage. Since two auras from two castings of the spell don’t stack, then they cannot both cause any damage.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, the question wasn't aimed at you but since you seem so keen on butting in.
What if someone doesn't actually eat any of the berries? Are the berries covered by Life Clerics "Disciple of Life" ability?
No.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I've had a couple of days to cool off. I will make one last bid for my argument. A spell is a discrete magical effect. But the rules recognize that spells have more than one "effect." See the rules on casting a spell and saving throws.
and
[emphasis mine]
So, my point is that in these two rule sentences, effect seems to mean "mechanical impact on the game," exactly as most people would call those things. At least it guarantees that spells can have more than one effect, but I think that is a different argument.
If we look closely at the rule on saving throws, it is a great example because spirit guardians has several mechanical impacts on the game, and one offers a saving throw to avoid part of them. The rule for saving throw says that the part of the spell that can be avoided is "some or all of a spell's effects," meaning the damage is an effect of the spell and that a spell that allows you to avoid some of its effects must have multiple effects.
This gives you a choice of interpretation: is an effect (such as the one mentioned in the combining spell effects rule) the "discrete shaping of magic" or "the mechanical impact on the game?" I believe that at best you cannot discount one, since the rule seems to use the word in both ways. We also have a hint of intent, albeit not firm evidence, that it is the "mechanical impact" that matters from the rule in the DMG: the rule for combining game features in the DMG uses an example of a trait and shows that only the ongoing effect of that trait, and not the entire trait, that is subject to that rule.
From all of this, I don't think you can claim that my reading is so unreasonable as to break RAW in any way.
Because you assert that the "effect" of that spell is creating berries, not the actual healing those berries do (and there I agree with you). But if we are to go by the previously aired opinion that "absolutely everything" is part of a spells effect, the eating of said berries is also part of the spells effect. Which shows how weird that interpretation is. :)
Well, to be fair Jeremy Crawford rules that the berries do benefit from Disciple of Life, but I question his judgement and rationality based at least in part on his choice of haircut.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't have a problem if use your interpretation. I just think that mine is not out of the realm of possibility, considering the lack of precision in the wording of the PHB -- it doesn't even stick to a single definition of "effect". I will point out that I don't think your interpretation could not be used, just that it can't be the only RAW interpretation because of the way the PHB uses words. I have gotten into this discussion before: the PHB is written in a natural language style, so I don't think that someone's reading of it as natural language can be discredited as "not RAW" (as long as it is a legitimate attempt at a natural language interpretation, which I think both of ours are in this case).
Um, what? They absolutely are (not that I'm exactly happy about it, but w/e). It applies by both RAW & RAI, and has been confirmed multiple times by devs. What is your rationale for believing otherwise?
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.
I know Jeremy Crawford says it’s legal, I even said so.
That Jimmy Neutron wave just kills his credibility.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sorry, I missed some posts between refreshes.
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.
That was not the questioned asked, though. You're still avoiding the issue to promote your own narrative. You actually not actually answering the question asked kind of proves my point though, so thanks for that.
The point being made(I believe) is that eating the berries and regaining hit points doesn't have to be part of the spell effect but, generally is considered as such. Taking an action to actually eat the berries is what provides the healing effect though, right?
This begs the real question. What are the real effects of a spell and what is narrative fluff or semantics?
Well, the reason I asked is that the person I asked has asserted, multiple times even, that literally everything except casting time. range, components and duration is part of the spells "effect". Now that they realize that's not really a viable standpoint they try to skirt the issue.
The bolded section is exactly the crux of the whole line of questioning.