Level
4th
Casting Time
1 Action
Range/Area
30 ft
Components
V
Duration
8 Hours
School
Conjuration
Attack/Save
DEX Save
Damage/Effect
Radiant
A Large spectral guardian appears and hovers for the duration in an unoccupied space of your choice that you can see within range. The guardian occupies that space and is indistinct except for a gleaming sword and shield emblazoned with the symbol of your deity.
Any creature hostile to you that moves to a space within 10 feet of the guardian for the first time on a turn must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. The creature takes 20 radiant damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The guardian vanishes when it has dealt a total of 60 damage.
I’m just going to say this, since surprisingly nobody else did yet.
This reminds me of a Jojo stand.
This spell makes an excellent loyalty test since the spell attacks based on the character’s intent toward the caster.
My reading on a complex spell with a lot of edge cases:
Yeah, a lot of that is an awfully literal reading of the spell, but that's how The Crawford rolls. That said, the DM is always the ultimate boss, and that's how The Crawford rolls too; he's said that there are a bunch of by-his-own-books rules he doesn't use in his home games. So if the DM wants any of that different.... well, that's the way it is! Start bribing them today.
#6 is incorrect. There are no attacks, it is simply a damage effect. A creature that succeeds on its saving throw is dealt 10 damage, and 10 is subtracted from the 60 point total. If that creature is also resistant to radiant damage, only 5 damage is dealt and removed from the total.
From Sage Advice:
[Q] When a creature successfully saves against guardian of faith and takes 10 radiant damage, how much damage does that count against the total amount of damage the spell can deal? Is it 20 because that’s how much it dealt or 10 because that’s how much the target took?
[A] It dealt 10 damage to the creature, so 10 is subtracted from the total.
Then the word "dealt" should not have been used in that manner, or qualified with an explanation, i.e. "The Guardian lasts either for eight hours or until its targets have taken 60 hit points of damage after saves/resistances/immunities are considered, whichever comes first."
RAW "dealt" is the outgoing damage; it from the perspective of the guardian not the target. "The guardian vanishes when it has dealt" ... basic subject-verb connection, "guardian" as "it" is the subject therefore "dealt" is the verb as applied to the subject, the guardian, in the subjunctive clause defined by "when". Lacking further explanatory text the rest of the sentence (the subjunctive clause "it has dealt ...") is from the standpoint of the subject: the guardian. Without further qualification, the result at the receiving end regarding saves or resistances is not relevant to the pool of damage with which the guardian is created.
I don't see that as ambiguous, as it is from the point of view of the guardian not the target. It also doesn't pass the "common sense test" If the target is wholly immune to radiant and can thus take an infinite amount of attempted damage effects (8 hours, 20 points attempted every 6 seconds), I don't see how this would affect the "battery". 3 failed saves then the pool is exhausted if it lands, 4800 then time-out if it doesn't?
And since we're being literal, point 9 addresses the use of the word "attack" in point 6.
It's fine that Crawford explained it, and I hope it goes into errata or is corrected in newer printings of the PHB. We know his intent now, but that intent is not what is in the current PHB or currently in DnDBeyond. As Crawford tries to be hyperliteral, when understanding his intent I therefore read the PHB... the rules as-written... as hyperliteral. That doesn't mean I always follow the PHB, of course, or that there is never a disconnect between RAW and RAI (of which this is a good example) but we're talking about the official wording. I don't know if DnDBeyond is allowed to make its own edits, even in response to Sage Advice, as this would be a specification in the contract between Curse/Fandom and WotC.
I would allow it. I prefer to reward my players for thinking smart vs red conning things I don't like. Of its ok within the rules then I as a dm need to step up my game. Keeps me on my toes.
Actually, "dealt" is the specific word it should be using. Dealt means that it was received as you cannot have a "deal" without two involved parties. Only the damage that actually hits the creature is "dealt" and especially considering that this has to do with Dexterity saving throws, half of that damage is avoided or dodged when the creature succeeds in their save.
Edit: I would also like to mention that I mean this comment in regards to creatures that make their saves. In my personal opinion, resistance and immunity don't factor into the calculation to the total. If a creature fails the save and would be dealt 20 damage but resisted half of the damage, I'd argue that 20 should be subtracted from the total regardless of the actual amount the creature takes.
What if you teleport inside the range? Would it stills attack?
Does the hostile creature lose the rest of it's turn when it has to make the the Dex save?
no there is nothing in the spell about the turn ending if it hits u, its just dmg nothing else
Don't want to be like a rules lawyer but you can't benefit from multiple effects with the same name, But this is not an OP use of the spell and it is pretty cool & original.
just don't let them cast multiple during combat, otherwise you could have about 40-60 damage per turn at like lvl 8 or 9
this is not a spell effect that you benefit from. once cast, it is more or less independent of you. if you wanted to rule that you can only have one of these up at a time, you'd also have to rule that you can only have one continual flame spell up at a time.
Also, casting multiple of these in a single combat is hardly op - it still costs an action and a fourth level spell slot. the enemies are not guaranteed to walk into it again. even if you cast it directly on top of one of them and they move away taking 10-20 damage, that is pretty low for a fourth level spell slot.
where this spell really shines is if you have to block a doorway or something where enemy support might come through, because then it is almost guaranteed to do its entire damage or, even better, prevents them from taking efficient turns. but as a pure damage spell it kind of sucks.
This is the correct interpretation. though "dealt" doesn't have anything to do with "a deal", so the fact that "a deal" requires two parties is irrelevant; the second statement, that "only the damage that actually hits the creature is dealt" is correct.
If a spell could deal 20 damage, but instead deals only 10, it should be very clear what's happened: it's dealt 10 damage. However, I also agree that consistent with the wording of damage resistance/vulnerabilities, the damage "dealt" is calculated before those modifiers are applied, and the damage "taken" is calculated by applying those modifiers.
I'm not sure where Caerdwen got the idea that dealing damage happens in a vacuum, but neither the rules of DnD 5e or constructs of grammar support that.
Any reason I can't have an evil version of this with a "sword of black flames" that does necrotic damage?