D&D 5E Booming Blade seems a bit powerful

[Arial Black]

Okay, then, to what does the spell effect apply? I had not thought that saying the spell effects apply to the target(s) of the spell would have been controversial.

Apply to the game. Apply to the game world reality. To exist. Only one exists.

Here's my reasoning -- Malbadwrong the Warlock has hexed the noble Shiningwhite the Paladin with a STR hex. A few moments later, Tardiless the Ever Late Warlock arrives to the fight on Malbadwrong's side and also hexes Shiningwhite, this time with a DEX hex. I like the idea that the second casting supercedes the original. This is especially true for any spell that has a lasting effect that doesn't require concentration, like Bestow Curse (5th level slot or higher) -- the most recent curse takes primacy.

If you choose that route then shenanigans will quickly follow. Oh, my Str has been hexed and a grappler approacheth? My friendly warlock will hex my Int instead, and the enemies hex will be nullified.

Cursed? No problem! I don't need break enchantment/dispel magic, just a friend to curse me with something less bothersome.

Oh, no! I've been cursed to murder my own children! Never mind, I'll just get a mate to curse me to stub my toe, and my children will be safe.

 

[jaelis]

Well, taking the rule literally is a bit stronger than just 'my ruling', don't you think?

Yes but the exception

Yes, unless it is something that literally cannot be part of the spell effect, like a clause that states that something must happen first in order for the spell to be cast. Cause must come before effect.

to me means that the rule you're quoting was not intended to be interpreted strictly. Specifically, I think they are using "effect" in a general language sense, not as a game-defined term. Because, as you note, if you interpret it strictly as a game-defined term you run into trouble. We differ on how to fix that trouble, which I would call different DM rulings.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Apply to the game. Apply to the game world reality. To exist. Only one exists.

Huh. Could you give me an example of such a spell that targets the entire game world reality? And only one of what exists?

If you choose that route then shenanigans will quickly follow. Oh, my Str has been hexed and a grappler approacheth? My friendly warlock will hex my Int instead, and the enemies hex will be nullified.

Cursed? No problem! I don't need break enchantment/dispel magic, just a friend to curse me with something less bothersome.

Oh, no! I've been cursed to murder my own children! Never mind, I'll just get a mate to curse me to stub my toe, and my children will be safe.

Wait, it's shenanigans to have a party member take effective action to assist you against a grapple? What if, instead of casting an INT hex to overcome, they just took the help action to help with the grapple check? Same outcome? Yep. And, that ally Warlock just used one of their two spell slots to remove a penalty against a grapple when they could have just hexed the enemy grappler with a STR hex, achieved the same effect, and then EB'ed the enemy grappler to boot. Honestly, if the worst thing here is that your party Warlock makes bad choices, is it really shenanigans?

And the curse spell doesn't work like that. It helps to check up on the spell's effects before declaring shenanigans with incorrect effects, but, yes, you could override a curse that was particularly bad with a different one that isn't as immediately bad. But, realistically, the 5th level slot duration is 8 hours -- which means countering that curse cost a 5th level slot that isn't coming back before the duration would run out. For a 7th level slot, it's 24 hours, so same deal. You're burning a slot to get a less immediately bad outcome, and which is absolutely worse that casting the Remove Curse spell, from a much lower level slot (3rd). So it's a worse option. At 9th level slots, I'm burning out a 9th level slot for that swap, when I could have used a 3rd level slot to permanently end the effect with no downsides.

There's very little in the way of actual, game bending (much less breaking) results you're going to get out of this ruling. It's almost as if -- brace yourself -- I actually thought through the ramifications of my ruling before I shared it.

Now, you may have been thinking of Geas when you wrote the above, and I'm still perfectly fine with a PC geas-ing another PC or NPC to remove a hostile geas spell. Again, considering they could have just used a dispel magic or that 3rd level slotted remove curse to do it without having to come up with a service for a month (or year), this seems just fine to me. I'm still extracting resources, and this way, there's going to be unintended consequences occasionally that will make for fun gaming.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wait, it's shenanigans to have a party member take effective action to assist you against a grapple?

With rules that allow for one basically harmless spell to supersede another harmful spell completely, yes, it's kind of shenanigans.

I don't think that the intent of the Combining Magical Effects rule is to replace harmful spells with extremely less harmful versions of the same spell. That to me, is more of a DM adjudication side effect, not a feature and probably not intentional by the designers.

 

[James Gasik]

The question then becomes, let's say a character has failed his save against Bestow Curse, and now has disadvantage on, say, Strength saves and checks.

Later, an enemy spellcaster uses Bestow Curse (with the same level spell slot as the original curse) on that character, he fails his save.

Does he:

A- get hit by the second curse, no matter what it is.
B- get hit by the second curse, but it has no effect as a result of the Combining Magical Effects rules.
C- get hit by the second curse, but it has no effect unless it is a different curse entirely (say, now the character has disadvantage on Dexterity saves and checks).

Then, once we answer that question, we can move onto what happens if a cursed character is affected by a higher-level Bestow Curse:

A- the new curse supersedes the old curse because higher level spell slot = "more potent".
B- a longer duration/higher level spell slot does not equate to being "more potent".

As "potency" is not defined by the rules, we're left with the English definition: "having greater power, influence, or effect".

Is "potency" referring to the spell's level, or the spell's effect? Is a higher level version of the spell "more potent"? Or, as I think some of the posters are saying, can we not compare "disadvantage to Strength" to "disadvantage to Dexterity" as they are two different effects, and only "super-disadvantage to Strength" (if such a thing were possible) could be considered to be "more potent" than "disadvantage to Strength", regardless of spell level, duration, save DC or the like.

In fact, looking at save DC, if spellcaster A places a Sleet Storm with a DC of 14 in an area, and spellcaster B places a Sleet Storm with a DC of 15 in the same area, does the second Sleet Storm's effect supersede the first, due to it's higher DC, or is the effect not "more potent" because it's exactly the same as the first spell?

Where can one reasonably draw the line? The rules are silent, because 5e's goal is not to rigidly define most things, so that each DM can draw their own conclusions, which makes discussing most facets of the rules...difficult, to say the least.

 

[guachi]

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

The spell ending is (if it's even an effect) something that happens to the spell, not the target. Therefore, the prohibition against effects not combining doesn't apply.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The question then becomes, let's say a character has failed his save against Bestow Curse, and now has disadvantage on, say, Strength saves and checks.

Later, an enemy spellcaster uses Bestow Curse (with the same level spell slot as the original curse) on that character, he fails his save.

Does he:

A- get hit by the second curse, no matter what it is.
B- get hit by the second curse, but it has no effect as a result of the Combining Magical Effects rules.
C- get hit by the second curse, but it has no effect unless it is a different curse entirely (say, now the character has disadvantage on Dexterity saves and checks).

Then, once we answer that question, we can move onto what happens if a cursed character is affected by a higher-level Bestow Curse:

A- the new curse supersedes the old curse because higher level spell slot = "more potent".
B- a longer duration/higher level spell slot does not equate to being "more potent".

As "potency" is not defined by the rules, we're left with the English definition: "having greater power, influence, or effect".

Is "potency" referring to the spell's level, or the spell's effect? Is a higher level version of the spell "more potent"? Or, as I think some of the posters are saying, can we not compare "disadvantage to Strength" to "disadvantage to Dexterity" as they are two different effects, and only "super-disadvantage to Strength" (if such a thing were possible) could be considered to be "more potent" than "disadvantage to Strength", regardless of spell level, duration, save DC or the like.

In fact, looking at save DC, if spellcaster A places a Sleet Storm with a DC of 14 in an area, and spellcaster B places a Sleet Storm with a DC of 15 in the same area, does the second Sleet Storm's effect supersede the first, due to it's higher DC, or is the effect not "more potent" because it's exactly the same as the first spell?

A followed by A. Both with some elucidation.

If Bob the Barbarian is cursed, and gets cursed again, both curses exist on Bob, but only the most "potent" effect is applied. Since, as you note, it's impossible to compare individual curse effects without specific circumstances AND if you judge by specific circumstance you effectively obviate the rule, then non-circumstantial measures need to be taken into account. This is spell slot level, DC, etc. So, in the case of the second curse, since it is from a higher spell slot, it's the one that applies it's effect. If they were the same spell slot, I replace the older spell with the newer.

In your second example of overlapping sleet storms, I think you've highlighted an interesting discussion point -- with single target spells, the discussion has been on spells that have been successfully applied, because that's when the effect occurs but with area spells, like sleet storm, the spell affects everyone in the area and you're now checking to see if some effects can be avoided. I think, in the area effect issue, it's perfectly justified to go with spell slot then DC. I say this because if all the area effect overlaps have the same spell slot and same DC, no matter which you pick it's going to be that one DC, so it doesn't really matter which is selected to be applied -- just pick one and go. Otherwise, the only ex ante (before the event) factors to distinguish the spells are slot and DC. So, in this particular case, it would be the DC 15 Sleet Storm that is saved against.

Where can one reasonably draw the line? The rules are silent, because 5e's goal is not to rigidly define most things, so that each DM can draw their own conclusions, which makes discussing most facets of the rules...difficult, to say the least.

So, then, here's my general ruling philosophy: make rulings based on ex ante (before the event) criteria whenever possible. If you're ruling based on the specific outcome immediately before you, you have a higher chance of making a ruling that has unwanted knock-on consequences. Because of this I try to excise as much of the current situation as possible and look to how to make a ruling with as few of the details of the specific circumstance as possible. This isn't always possible, of course, some things are too intertwined with the specific situation to reasonably extract, but for the case in front of us of spells combining it's how I think. So, I examine the rule, and then examine what guidelines I can create that are specific situation independent, and craft an initial idea of how I'll apply this rule. I then try to break it by putting it into specific situations with an eye as to how I'd try and take advantage of the ruling. If, as here, so far, I can find a situation that doesn't break the ruling, that's my ruling. And, as here, it's a simple application that doesn't need to stop and consider the specific situation each time to see how I'm going to rule today.

And, while some seem to think burning spells to offset a negative is something that shouldn't be allowed, I've yet to see a case where this solution isn't at best a wash (and more often a clunky workaround that has drawbacks), which means that, for me, as I'm interested in presenting choices with consequences as the core of my game, it's just not anything I'm worried about. We aren't, for example, actually dispelling anything -- both effects are still there, only just one is applied -- so if the 'assist' spell is dispelled or concentration broken the original bad one is still there.

Besides, I just love the idea of a session that goes like this:

Bob the Barbarian: This curse the Lich has put on my sucks! I can't hit him with all this disadvantage!

Larry the Laughing Mage: Haha! I have an idea, I'll use my 7th level spell slot to case and INT curse on Bob! Since it's the same spell slot level as the Lich's curse, it'll supercede it and Bob can beat down the Lich. And Bob wouldn't make a INT save anyway.

Bob: Darn right I won't! Wait....

DM: Okay, Larry casts curse on Bob. Bob, do you want to save?

Bob: No, this is a great idea! I feel dumber already!

DM: Okay, the curse spell is cast and Bob is now under the effects of and INT curse.

Larry: So, what does the Lich do now, huh? He's got the beat down machine on him at full capacity, and I know he doesn't have any more high level slots left to cast Maze, so it's just a few more rounds of unlife left for him! HAHA!

DM: Well, the Lich's skeletal face seems to smile even wider as he casts a spell.

Larry: Ha! Won't help him, what spell does he cast?

DM: Remove Curse targeting your curse.

Larry: Haha! That's a 3rd level spell that... um, okay, Bob, you really need to make this save!

Bob: What save is it (picks up dice)?

DM: No, save. Bob, the Lich dispels the INT curse on you, and the original curse is back in effect. You have disadvantage on all attacks against the Lich.

Larry the Disgruntled Mage: That's a 7th level slot down the drain for not much.

 

[Arial Black]

The spell ending is (if it's even an effect) something that happens to the spell, not the target. Therefore, the prohibition against effects not combining doesn't apply.

The prohibition on combining spell effects is not limited to effects that apply to the target. That rule does not exist, therefore it cannot be cited.

The spell effect 'applying' means that the spell effect is 'in play'. It is what is affecting the game. If a spell effect does not apply (yet), then it is not affecting the game. A trigger that does not apply yet, cannot be triggered yet, because the trigger is not in play yet.

For booming blade, the 'spell effect' is the sonic bubble which sheaths the target. When that bubble exists, it 'applies' to the game, to the rules. Only the effects of one spell can 'apply', therefore only one bubble (the 'spell effect') can apply, meaning that only one bubble can exist/be in play.

You burst the bubble by moving through it. You cannot burst a bubble that doesn't yet exist.

 

[Arial Black]

Yes but the exception

to me means that the rule you're quoting was not intended to be interpreted strictly. Specifically, I think they are using "effect" in a general language sense, not as a game-defined term. Because, as you note, if you interpret it strictly as a game-defined term you run into trouble. We differ on how to fix that trouble, which I would call different DM rulings.

If you interpret it less strictly then each individual player and DM can pick and choose which parts of the 'spell effect' actually count as the 'spell effect', and each will have his own motives for their own bias.

For a set of rules which exist to make sure we all understand what the rules are, your approach would lead to no-one being sure that their understanding of the rules aligns with anyone else's, making the game virtually unplayable.

Players can only make decisions if their expectations of cause and effect are logical. If they have no expectations of what would happen even after reading the rule then they cannot make reasonable decisions. This causes the game to fail.

The spell descriptions must define the rule that is that spell. Two people must be able to read that description and know the rules consequences. It cannot become a pointless exercise to read the spell description to find out what the spell does!

 

[jaelis]

If you interpret it less strictly then each individual player and DM can pick and choose which parts of the 'spell effect' actually count as the 'spell effect', and each will have his own motives for their own bias.

For a set of rules which exist to make sure we all understand what the rules are, your approach would lead to no-one being sure that their understanding of the rules aligns with anyone else's, making the game virtually unplayable.

Players can only make decisions if their expectations of cause and effect are logical. If they have no expectations of what would happen even after reading the rule then they cannot make reasonable decisions. This causes the game to fail.

The spell descriptions must define the rule that is that spell. Two people must be able to read that description and know the rules consequences. It cannot become a pointless exercise to read the spell description to find out what the spell does!

The rules contain all kinds of gaps and ambiguities. (The one we are talking about is clearly an example, since a perfectly literal reading is unplayable.) And yet the game has not failed