D&D 5E Booming Blade seems a bit powerful

[Pathkeeper24601]

The triggering aspect is also part of the spell's effect, by my reading. While two instance of the same spell are affecting the same target, "instead" of combining, the most potent instance has an effect, and the second instance does not. It's still an ongoing spell, so it could e.g. be seen by detect magic, but it can't do anything while the more potent instance remains on the target. No triggering, no damage, and no ending itself early--those are all part of the spell's "effect" under my interpretation. To be clear, anything that the ongoing part of the spell does, compared to an imaginary blank spell with no effect, is what I'm calling the spell's effect, because that's the only thing I can think of that makes any sense to me (since the term was never precisely defined, they just gave an example for Bless). An imaginary blank spell with no effect cannot trigger on some condition, or end itself early, so those must be part of Booming Blade's effect under my interpretation. If there's anything in the rules to say that the trigger condition and early ending are not part of the spell's effect, then I don't see it.

Most spells with a trigger to end early do so "the first time" something happens, so it usually shouldn't matter if an impotent second instance hangs around and can't trigger, except as extra ongoing effects to see with detect magic, dispel, etc... there's probably some way for a DM to mess with players who keep doing that, or find some clever use for a particularly long or high level untriggerable spell, but otherwise I think it's just a weird quirk of the rules with little to no effect on anything. Booming Blade does not use "the first time" in the trigger condition, and Death Ward only uses it in one of its possible trigger conditions, so in those cases the distinction becomes important.

So you agree that this is a form of RAI(nterpreted) ("by my reading"). Looking back at the "Combining Magical Effects" there are two cases. Different spells effects combine and with same spell effects, only one is applied. In other words, both spells are in effect, but the target is only affected by a single instance. So, both Booming Blades are in effect (thus the second still gets its initial damage and still triggers), but only the more potent one is applied. I have no problem rolling both to see which is more potent if they are the same strength.

 

[KarinsDad]

The same is with Death Ward. Putting two copies on a player would be overkill. They both would trigger the first time the player goes to 0 hp or is hit with an instant death effect. The result would be the same regardless of how many Death Wards are triggered.

The duration section of Combining Magical Effects appears to disagree with this interpretation.

The literal interpretation is that only one Death Ward would stop working since the duration of both Death Wards is still active, but since "the more potent" Death Ward prevents the PC from dropping below zero at all, the other Death Ward doesn't even trigger.

I definitely see this as it works one way literal RAW, but that RAI or even DM preference works the other way.


Edit: In the Combining Magical Effects example, the trigger of Bless is not handled twice and then one of the effects goes off (nor are both dice for the effect rolled and the more potent one used). Bless is a good example for Combining Magical Effects because it too has triggers (like Booming Blade and like Death Ward), they are just not triggers that end the duration of the effect.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

The duration section of Combining Magical Effects appears to disagree with this interpretation.

The literal interpretation is that only one Death Ward would stop working since the duration of both Death Wards is still active, but since "the more potent" Death Ward prevents the PC from dropping below zero at all, the other Death Ward doesn't even trigger.

I definitely see this as it works one way literal RAW, but that RAI or even DM preference works the other way.

Actually the "literal' interpretation is that both effects would occur but the most potent would apply. Since both copies of Death Ward do the same thing it doesn't matter which one applies. Lets look at what this means with the provided example of Bless. It quite simply states that only one effect is applied, but doesn't say the other is not in effect. If one of the casters lose concentration on their Bless, the other copy would still be in effect and the character can continue to roll d4's.

Now for something even more controversial but true. By the very nature of this discussion, RAW no longer exists for this rule. Basically to have RAW, everybody has to read the rule and come to the exact same conclusion. Once two (or more) people read the same rule and come to different conclusions only the two RAI's exist (Intended and Interpreted). People can claim their interpretation is closer to the intention of the rules, but the ability to claim RAW is very tenuous. I've come to this conclusion after taking part and following in many rules discussions where each side claim the holy "RAW" with equal insistence.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually the "literal' interpretation is that both effects would occur but the most potent would apply. Since both copies of Death Ward do the same thing it doesn't matter which one applies.

Combining Magical Effects explicitly states "he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus die". If he only can roll one bonus die, there is no rule there that says that he rolls both bonus die and uses the more potent result.

The most potent effect text refers to the same spell where one of the spells itself is generally more potent (like Booming Blade where one PC is level one and another is level seven, the seventh level PC's Booming Blade is more potent since it averages more damage).

Most potent does not mean that you roll both effects and then see which one is better. Or at least, that is what the Bless example appears to indicate. It is not explicit one way or another. It doesn't say "he or she gets to roll both dice and pick the better result" nor does it say "he or she doesn't get to roll both dice, only one spell effect is in effect (i.e do not trigger both spells and take the better of the two dice)", nor does it say "he or she doesn't get to roll both dice and add them together".

Given that it doesn't explicitly state any of these interpretations of what that sentence means, the only thing we have to go on is "he or she DOESN'T get to roll both dice" means that two sets of dice are not rolled. Period. The sentence indicates that two dice are not rolled. Not for Bless. Not for Booming Blade. Not for more potent effect.

Lets look at what this means with the provided example of Bless. It quite simply states that only one effect is applied, but doesn't say the other is not in effect. If one of the casters lose concentration on their Bless, the other copy would still be in effect and the character can continue to roll d4's.

Yes, if one caster loses concentration, then both same spells are up since the Combining Magical Effects spell explicitly says that their durations overlap.

If the Bless example indicated anything about both spells triggering or the effects of both spells occurring, then the one interpretation would have a leg to stand on. But if Bless doesn't have both spells trigger (as best we can tell), then neither does any other triggering spell. The only way to interpret it the other way is to allow the "more potent effect" rule to trump the "doesn't get to roll two bonus dice" rule and actually allow Bless to roll two die and take the better of the two. Otherwise, that interpretation is being inconsistent.

If the alternative interpretation doesn't allow both Bless triggers to fire off, it shouldn't allow two triggers from a duplicate of any other spell to occur either. Especially because the trigger portion of a spell IS part of the effect portion of a spell.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Combining Magical Effects explicitly states "he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus die". If he only can roll one bonus die, there is no rule there that says that he rolls both bonus die and uses the more potent result.

The most potent effect text refers to the same spell where one of the spells itself is generally more potent (like Booming Blade where one PC is level one and another is level seven, the seventh level PC's Booming Blade is more potent since it averages more damage).

Most potent does not mean that you roll both effects and then see which one is better. Or at least, that is what the Bless example appears to indicate. It is not explicit one way or another. It doesn't say "he or she gets to roll both dice and pick the better result" nor does it say "he or she doesn't get to roll both dice, only one spell effect is in effect (i.e do not trigger both spells and take the better of the two dice)", nor does it say "he or she doesn't get to roll both dice and add them together".

Given that it doesn't explicitly state any of these interpretations of what that sentence means, the only thing we have to go on is "he or she DOESN'T get to roll both dice" means that two sets of dice are not rolled. Period. The sentence indicates that two dice are not rolled. Not for Bless. Not for Booming Blade. Not for more potent effect.



Yes, if one caster loses concentration, then both same spells are up since the Combining Magical Effects spell explicitly says that their durations overlap.

If the Bless example indicated anything about both spells triggering or the effects of both spells occurring, then the one interpretation would have a leg to stand on. But if Bless doesn't have both spells trigger (as best we can tell), then neither does any other triggering spell. The only way to interpret it the other way is to allow the "more potent effect" rule to trump the "doesn't get to roll two bonus dice" rule and actually allow Bless to roll two die and take the better of the two. Otherwise, that interpretation is being inconsistent.

If the alternative interpretation doesn't allow both Bless triggers to fire off, it shouldn't allow two triggers from a duplicate of any other spell to occur either. Especially because the trigger portion of a spell IS part of the effect portion of a spell.

OK, I will give you rolling both BB would be a ruling (ROFun) to determine the "most powerful" when it comes to damage. You could just as easy rule that when the effect is equal, the first copy is applied and rolled. That still doesn't change that both are individual spells and in effect and are triggered at the same time, with just a single instance of the damage is applied. I would seriously question a DM that ruled that a player is running around with an effect that can't be triggered [until the natural duration of 1 round].

 

[KarinsDad]

That still doesn't change that both are individual spells and in effect and are triggered at the same time

But, that's not stated. "Instead, the most potent effect from those castings apply". There is ONLY one applicable effect at a time, not two. But applying two triggers, you are applying a portion of two effects, regardless of whether you are not applying the rest of the second effect.

It is an assumption on your part that both spells are in effect. Their durations are still working, but both effects are not. Only the more potent effect applies.


Btw, I actually tried to figure out a way to end up on the opposite side of this fence due to balance issues (like not having two Death Wards protecting simultaneously). And I see how making a ruling is perfectly reasonable like a ruling that triggers are not effects, only the final result is the effect. But, I tend to view it as only one same spell is up at a time (shy of the duration thing).


5E doesn't split out some portion of the text under the spell as effect and some other portion under the spell as not effect, but something else (like a trigger). Best I can tell, all of the text in the spell is the effect.

Edit: By making both Death Wards triggers fire off, two effects are occurring. The first Death Ward is expiring. The second Death Ward is expiring. Not just the expiration of the "more potent" spell.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

But, that's not stated. "Instead, the most potent effect from those castings apply". There is ONLY one applicable effect at a time, not two. But applying two triggers, you are applying a portion of two effects, regardless of whether you are not applying the rest of the second effect.

It is an assumption on your part that both spells are in effect. Their durations are still working, but both effects are not. Only the more potent effect applies.


Btw, I actually tried to figure out a way to end up on the opposite side of this fence due to balance issues (like not having two Death Wards protecting simultaneously). And I see how making a ruling is perfectly reasonable like a ruling that triggers are not effects, only the final result is the effect. But, I tend to view it as only one same spell is up at a time (shy of the duration thing).


5E doesn't split out some portion of the text under the spell as effect and some other portion under the spell as not effect, but something else (like a trigger). Best I can tell, all of the text in the spell is the effect.

Edit: By making both Death Wards triggers fire off, two effects are occurring. The first Death Ward is expiring. The second Death Ward is expiring. Not just the expiration of the "more potent" spell.

Nothing I wrote contradicts what is written in the book. You go through great verbal gymnastics to include the application of a spell as its overall effect. Not all the text in a spell are effect (or mechanically how it affects a target). It is a combination of cause, effect, and trappings (fluff) written in natural language. So, lets look at BB:
Cause - Caster casts the spell (with any components).
Effect - Caster makes a melee attack. If miss, there is no further effect.
Cause - Caster hits target.
Effect - Initial instantaneous damage is determined and target is engulfed in the surrounding effect (noticeable by description).
Cause #1 - The target does not move, spell ends at the beginning of casters next turn.
Cause #2 - The target moves by its own volition before casters next turn.
Effect - surrounding effect goes off and damage is applied and spell ends
Trappings - all damage rolled is Thunder Damage and will trigger any existing outside effect (such as Resistance) relating to Thunder damage.

This series of events run parallel for each version of BB cast on the target. In the end, there is a rule that says only the most powerful version is applied, but that rule exists outside any individual casting of the spell.

Now, you want to get interesting, you combine this different rulings of movement. A creature with BB moves away from the caster. The caster has War Caster (or whatever, don't have book). What is the order the move, BB explosion, and opportunity attack (BB) applied. Both the initial BB and the AoO (BB) have the same trigger, moving out of current position away from caster. Does BB go off first, the AoO applying a second BB is then resolved, or is the AoO first, and the creature has the discussed situation of having parallel effects on it? I've seen it ruled the first when I was a Bard doing Dissonant Whispers with a Battledancer Wizard.

Edit - Just kind of hit me, if you are calling the whole thing an effect, then the second part of BB would not be applied to a target unless it is a more powerful version making this discussion moot as to whether it exists in limbo or not.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The one that hit the target first. It's the "first" spell. That's the simplest way to adjudicate it.

This does beg the question about Booming Blade used by a PC that does more damage with it (e.g. like an Arcana Domain Cleric who boosts cantrip damage). In that case, I would rule that the cantrip that does more average damage is the more potent cantrip.

There's no rule for it though. Since the argument that one instance of Booming Blade is "suppressed" by another is based on an extremely literal reading of the rules, once you start "adjucating" things the whole thing falls apart. We're way into houserule territory by now. Not a bad place to be, but it's a private place with little relevance to other gamers.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is a combination of cause, effect, and trappings (fluff) written in natural language. So, lets look at BB:
Cause - Caster casts the spell (with any components).
Effect - Caster makes a melee attack. If miss, there is no further effect.
Cause - Caster hits target.
Effect - Initial instantaneous damage is determined and target is engulfed in the surrounding effect (noticeable by description).
Cause #1 - The target does not move, spell ends at the beginning of casters next turn.
Cause #2 - The target moves by its own volition before casters next turn.
Effect - surrounding effect goes off and damage is applied and spell ends
Trappings - all damage rolled is Thunder Damage and will trigger any existing outside effect (such as Resistance) relating to Thunder damage.

This is a very good explanation and one that I would gladly say indicates what happens. The only sticky part is the: for the moving out of the square effect, do you roll damage twice taking the more potent damage, or do you only roll damage once (as the Bless example appears to imply)?


Basically, the real crux of the issue is that your interpretation allows some of the effects to happen for both castings of the spell, but not others. For example, the Booming Blade damage is only done once. The spell ends portion of that exact same effect (the visible booming energy sheathe) that you listed ends twice. You are picking and choosing which portions of the effect happen from just one of the spells and which happens to both spells. Unless you rule that all effects happen every time, it's just that the most potent works and the others do not. For example, you roll twice for Bless and take the larger of the two rolls. That explanation would resolve the conflict, it's just that the Bless example appears to imply that this is not what happens. It implies a roll once scenario (and that's a mechanically important difference).


Another interpretation is that one spell is just "turned off" while the other spell effect is there (or alternatively, the intersecting effects of one spell are turned off for example in the case of two intersecting Walls of Fire). The duration of the second spell keeps going, but everything else about the spell is effectively turned off. When the first spell ends, the second spell turns back on.

The (theoretical) downside of this type of interpretation is that one could have two Death Wards up, two Invisibility spells up (from different casters), etc. Some players or DMs might view that as a problem, others might view it as "so what?". I personally don't view that as an issue and just consider it creative spell casting on the part of the PCs at the expense of an additional spell slot. No different than a party of 5 PCs where 2 PCs cast Bless and 1 PC has 2 Bless spells up so that if the concentration of 1 caster is lost, that PC still has Bless up.


All in all, though, you have convinced me that this is an interpretation issue.

 

[Arceliar]

Somewhat tangential, but does anyone know what happens when two different instance of the same spell are trying to apply different effects?

If two different casters maintain Enhance Ability on the same target, one for Strength and one for Dexterity, what happens? Assuming they were cast using the same level of spell slot, by casters of equal level and casting ability, then I don't see anything to distinguish one as being more potent than the other. They're boosting different scores, so the choice of which one applies would matter.

If I try to apply a rule based on casting order, I get shenanigans. Saying the first instance takes priority means a target can prevent their self from being affected by a Suggestion or a Geas or Phantasmal Force by having an ally cast a version with a harmless effect. Or cast Bestow Curse on an ally, to give them disadvantage on attacks against the caster, and prevent anyone else from cursing them in the process. Saying the most recently cast instance takes priority fails for basically the same reason: now you can block the effect of another caster's spell by having a harmless version cast. Or you could block an enemy's Enhance Ability buff by boosting a score they don't care about--the spell doesn't say the target must be willing, and it offers no save, so why not cast it balefully?

I'm lead to believe that when the bless example was used, it was because the authors were thinking about spells that operate like bless when they wrote those rules. That is to say, spells of a fixed duration (+- concentration) and where each instance can have a different size but an equivalent kind of effect. In which case, the distinction between which of two equally potent effects wouldn't matter.. you don't have to know which instance of the spell is applying its effect, since you know they're all doing the same thing.