D&D 5E Booming Blade seems a bit powerful

[guachi]

The rule says spell effects don't combine. For two Booming Blades cast by a level 1-4 you'd get:

Booming aura + booming aura = booming aura. Both effects still exist but one of them effectively is ignored. It's like 1 + 1 = 1. The effect is still there. It's just not doing anything.

Once the trigger happens (moving) you get:
1d8 + 1d8 = 1d8. Both effects still happen but one is ignored because the effects can't combine.

Then you get:
Spell ends + spell ends = both spells end. This happens because "spell ends" is internal to the spell. The effect affects the spell not the target so the prohibition against combining doesn't apply.

I'd be curious to see what game designer logic on this is.

 

[Arial Black]

Spell ends + spell ends = both spells end. This happens because "spell ends" is internal to the spell.

What do you mean by, "internal to the spell"?

 

[jaelis]

What do you mean by, "internal to the spell"?

I imagine that he doesn't feel the spell-ending information is part of the spell's effect.

 

[Arial Black]

Only the most potent effect occurs; I guess if the DM rules that your opponent's Str hex is more potent than your allies Cha hex, then I guess the Str hex would be the active one.

Basically, there's no rule that the first cast spell takes priority, so you wouldn't want to rely on that.

Sure, but if your friend is a 9th level warlock then all his slots are 5th level and warlocks don't get higher level slots. It would have to be a multi-class warlock where the other class gives you 6th level slots. Pretty niche.

If the spells are equally potent, then the first spell will take priority over the second. This is because when the first spell is cast then there is no second spell yet so the rule does not apply. When the second spell is cast, if it is more potent then it will take over, if is less potent then it won't. But if the second spell is equally potent then both spells are theoretically equal, but since they cannot combine by rule, and the first spell's effects are already applying, then for the second spell to have any effect it would have to either combine (which is against the rule) or end the first spell, which it has no power to do. Therefore, the original spell's effects apply while the durations combine, but if the first spell ends while still within the second spell's duration then the second spell will instantly begin to have its normal effect.

This applies to booming blade normally. The 'trigger' is part of the 'spell effect' and so the trigger of only one spell can apply, by rule.

 

[Arial Black]

I imagine that he doesn't feel the spell-ending information is part of the spell's effect.

Oh. If that's what he means, he's wrong.

 

[jaelis]

If the spells are equally potent, then the first spell will take priority over the second. This is because when the first spell is cast then there is no second spell yet so the rule does not apply. When the second spell is cast, if it is more potent then it will take over, if is less potent then it won't.

My point is that the rules don't specify how to measure a spell's potency (other than the case where it provides a bonus). So that is a DM ruling. If the DM decides that, in some situation, a Str penalty is more potent than a Cha penalty, then it is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You've changed what it says, and then use your changed definition to support your argument. Crucially, there is no 'result' that is a different thing than the 'effect'; that part is made up.

"Results" is clearly a synonym for "effect" in this case. If you're confused, just swap everywhere I said "results" with "effect" and the point is the same.

The words it uses are 'effect' (of the spell, the 'spell effect') and 'applies' ("only the most potent 'effect' 'applies'").

Two different spells work normally. Two of the same spell do not.

Since we don't disagree on what 'potent' means, let's assume that both spells are equally potent. While both spells are 'on' the target, the durations of each continue to elapse normally. But the 'effects' of both spells do not 'apply'. Only the 'effects' of one of them actually 'applies'.

Since the 'effects' of only one spell 'apply', that includes everything that is part of the 'spell effect'. For booming blade, the 'trigger' (willingly moves), the damage (thunder), and the 'ends early' (when triggered) are ALL part of the spell's 'effect'. Since each spell has 'trigger/damage/ends' as their 'spell effect', only one 'trigger/damage/ends' "...applies while their durations overlap", as the rule itself states.

"Only one 'trigger/damage/ends' applies" also means that "only one 'trigger' applies".

Yes, all of those are part of the effect, but only the damage is applied to the target. Triggers and end of spell conditions are not applied to the target, and so continue to work normally. Only effects applied to the target are evaluated for the most potent.

I don't think anyone here is debating the 'potent' part.

I hate being prophetic.

You know what? I think I might have been too focussed on 'stacking' as previous editions defined it, and assumed that 5E's Combining Magical Effects rule was all about that.

You're right, it isn't just about 'stacking', so the 'spell effects' do not combine even if those effects did a different thing for each casting, so I stand corrected.

Of course, the consequence of that is that you can abuse that rule no end! You can effectively make yourself completely immune to certain spells cast by a hostile caster by having a friendly caster cast the spell on you harmlessly. Have a friendly warlock hex you, and choose a stat you don't care about. He is not going to attack you, so his attacks doing extra damage doesn't matter. Meanwhile, the evil warlocks simply cannot hex you at all!

You can do the same trick with suggestion, or any of the other examples mentioned previously in this thread.

Perhaps I'll houserule it back to the way I thought it was, all about 'stacking'. Still, for a RAW discussion, my houserules are irrelevant. It's up to players and DMs to take advantage of this ill-thought-out rule until the DM is forced to make their own houserule.



I agree, and I mentioned this. If, at the start of your turn, you are within the areas of two different spirit guardians then you should only be affected by one. However, if you did not start in the area of any SG, and later moved into one, and then later on the same turn you moved out of that and into a different SG area, then you would be affected by each of them as usual, and take damage from them both. Of course, which idiot would do that?



Yes, you're right.

You mean, if the party wants to guess what spells might be cast on them, they can then burn spell slots to gain limited immunity from those spells, so long as they're less potent? Yeah, sorry, not seeing the actual abuse there. Immunity to hex spells still comes with disadvantage to one type of ability checks. As a DM, I can level that field nicely.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Nowhere does it say that "potency" is a static value. Obviously a hex affecting STR will be more potent than one hexing CHA at the moment that a Strength check is rolled, and vice versa for a Persuasion check.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nowhere does it say that "potency" is a static value. Obviously a hex affecting STR will be more potent than one hexing CHA at the moment that a Strength check is rolled, and vice versa for a Persuasion check.

I think you're confusing effective with potent.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I think you're confusing effective with potent.

I don't think so.