Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vegepygmy" data-source="post: 4924852" data-attributes="member: 40109">That's no different than the second option. You said so yourself. Thus, your description seems biased to me. Actually, it works exactly like those other situations, if you apply the rule literally. As I pointed out above, the "instantaneous effect" rule explicitly states that two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively. It's only when you treat a single spell with more than one area of effect as if it were two spells instead of one that the result becomes inconsistent. In other words, the only "problem" is the one you create by treating the sculpted spell as if it were more than one spell. No. It implies that the four areas are all one "fireball." If I use Sculpt Spell on a sleep spell to create four cubes, and I overlap them on a single target, I see no reason why that target would have to make four saving throws. It's the same spell. It just has the ability to affect targets in a non-contiguous area (an ability that I chose not to take advantage of when I overlapped the cubes). That doesn't imply that getting hit with two sleep spells is no worse than one. What I'm suggesting is that it's your expectation that is flawed, rather than the non-broken interpretation. If you simply read and apply the rules literally, and stop trying to treat a sculpted spell as more than one spell, the inconsistent result doesn't occur. The feat is not written as clearly as it could be. That's a common problem with supplemental rules. But you have a choice: you can interpret the feat as sculpting the area of a single spell, or as dividing a single spell into multiple spells. Given that the name of the feat is Sculpt Spell rather than Twin Spell, or Duplicate Spell, or Multiply Spell, your decision shouldn't be difficult.</blockquote>

Verification