D&D 5E Booming Blade seems a bit powerful

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'd just like to point out that all these questions about which spell can superseede what etc. become irrelevant if you play with my reading of "most potent"

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd just like to point out that all these questions about which spell can superseede what etc. become irrelevant if you play with my reading of "most potent"

So does the Combining Magical effects rule, though, so....

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

So does the Combining Magical effects rule, though, so....

Not at all, it still prevents stacking numbers to the stratosphere, which is all I believe it is intended to do.

 

[James Gasik]

It probably IS intended to do that. But they could have used much simpler language to get that point across, which gives the implication (rightly or wrongly) that the rule is intended to do more than just prevent stacking. Because it never actually says it prevents stacking only, it doesn't even use the word "stack". Plus then you look at the DMG errata:

Combining Game Effects (p. 252). This is a new subsection
at the end of the “Combat” section: “Different game features can
affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features
have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the
most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap.
For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form
trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target
is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells,
class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic
items. See the related rule in the ‘Combining Magical Effects’
section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.”

Again, we have an example that talks about numbers, but the actual rule doesn't say "different game features with the same name that apply a numerical modifier do not combine, only the most potent applies".

It says different game features with the same name do not have their effects combine.

And it ends with a line telling you to refer to the related rule in the PHB.

If it's only intended to work with numbers, they really could have used better language to say so.

 

[Arial Black]

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

I suppose it's a spectrum, where 'totally literal, no exceptions' is at one end and 'hey man, Rule Zero means that I can do anything at any time so don't bother looking at the rules I will just make it up on the fly' at the other.

I lean toward the former, without being absolute. I find the latter unplayable; it becomes 'DM story time' and/or 'mother may I' and my decisions are rendered meaningless and reality surreal.

It's like trying to play chess where your opponent decides the abilities of his pieces every time he moves them. How could you even play a game like that?

 

[TheVisibleMan]

thanks for clarifying. i was wondering that. do you have evidence, or are you just using common sense?

 

[jgsugden]

thanks for clarifying. i was wondering that. do you have evidence, or are you just using common sense?

Are you responding to Arial Black from 2017 or to someone I have blocked?

 

[CapnZapp]

Are you responding to Arial Black from 2017 or to someone I have blocked?

Since it is a newly created account with only one post, it is also possible it's a spammer. Some spam bots first post a vague but not rules-breaking post, and only change it to include a spam link later on, in the hopes the edit will fly under the radar.

This comment is general and not directed at any post in particular.

 

[Azzy]

Bot-induced thread necromancy?