Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Slowlearneruk Feb 16, 2015 8:18:19	I should preface this question with the observation that the Spirit Guardians spell appears to be significantly more powerful that other concentration AOE spells - I'm comparing here to Blade Barrier, Insect Plague and Wall of Fire - so it travells with the caster, you can select any number of allies to be unaffected, it does damage in a less frequently resisted form (radiant/necrotic) and is only beaten in damage by Blade Barrier (d10 vs d8).   This is not a problem on the face of it given that the damage is being done by spirits swishing around the caster (though it seems a shame that a cleric is doing a better job than a wizard in this respect). However, as a ref I was drawn to nerf it in a recent game when it was argued that when the will-o'-wisps were invisible the spirits could still do damage - furthermore as they were fighting in waist deep water, the wights singing into the murk were still affected.   Now I have no problem making a call at table but I also have no problem reviewing it afterwards - checking the rules - the wights would be in total cover when underwater and so they are unaffected (as per rules for targets in cover). But it also seems to me that as the spell specifies that allies must be seen to be excluded as targets, the converse ought to apply for enemies.   Any thoughts?
#2 Rhenny Feb 16, 2015 8:47:14	I don't have my phb with me now, but isn't the limitation for Spirit Guardian that it ends after doing 60 hp of damage?
#3 AaronOfBarbaria Feb 16, 2015 12:27:41	The spell creates an area which is dangerous to be in for the potential targets - they don't have to be seen in order for that area to harm them. Imagine it like the caster is surrounded in flames; flames do not have to see you to burn you.   That's why the damage is tied to a wisdom save rather than an attack roll or dexterity save, which is what would be used if there were a chance of being in the area but not being affected at all by the spirits flitting about.   As for the water providing cover... water is not solid enough to provide cover, it should only be providing concealment, and it doesn't hinder the area of a spell effect like spirit guardians. Sinking into the muddy ground beneath the water, though, would (but has its own set of complications for the creature using that tactic).
#4 Nevvur Feb 16, 2015 12:28:42	Rhenny wrote:
#5 jonathonhawke Feb 16, 2015 13:02:00	Rhenny wrote:
(Reply to #5) Rhenny	jonathonhawke wrote:
#7 slumgum Feb 17, 2015 5:04:45	Evoker Wizards and Sorcerer's are much better than clerics at AOE damage.  Clerics cannot protect allies from AoEs using a class feature, so it is ok to have it part of a spell.   Using instantaneous AoEs the Wizards and Sorcerers will outperform the Cleric and can use their Concentration to do something else (Haste the fighter, Control the enemy, etc).
#8 Slowlearneruk Feb 17, 2015 9:18:49	Thanks for thoughts on this.   I'm interested in comparisons with flames - clearly they don't need to see the target but then they don't ignore allies either, nor do they travel with you (flame shield does of course but only affects attacking characters). I take the point that in general wizards and sorcerers are better at putting out the damage - however I still contend that this spell is more effective as an AoE spell than any that they have to offer, and i think that is a strange design decision.   Water clearly can provide cover for some spells (fireball maybe?) in this case it was completely opaque - I had established that it was very muddy. It is an interesting contention that being able to see through the water would make it give concealment rather than cover. Would a force wall not give cover, or even a thick glass window? Could you shoot someone with a magic missile through water, though glass? Sounds like all of these are judgement calls for the ref - I don't think you can be dogmatic about it.   Cheers,       ..slow
#9 mellored Feb 17, 2015 10:03:24	Slowlearneruk wrote:
#10 slumgum Feb 17, 2015 10:03:53	Using a 3rd level spell a Wizard can do 8d6 damage with Fireball.  That's 28 average damage. Using a 3rd level spell a Cleric can do 3d8 damage with Spirit Guardians.  That's 13.5 damage (less than half of Fireball).    A cleric has to maintain concentration on Spirit Guardians (and maintain range of enemies) for 3 rounds to pass this.     What you're doing is comparing one very specific part of one class to one very specific part of another class and not considering any other aspect that balances the classes.  A cleric that concentrates on Spirit Guardians is not concentrating on Bless, Armor of Faith, or Beacon of Hope, or any other cleric spell that helps the cleric do what clerics do best: Heal and mitigate damage.   A wizard can do exceptional AoE with instaneous spells, or choose from many concentration AoEs to be more efficient with spell slots but do less upfront damage.  Most of their concentration AoEs have built in utility too.  The point is a wizard or sorceror is very versatile when it comes to damage.  A cleric is not.   You seem pretty zeroed in on the conclusion you had already come to in the original post, but if you want to do some more research pg 196 is where "Cover" is explained.  Nothing suggests that water provides any cover.
#11 RulesJD Feb 17, 2015 12:52:45	slumgum wrote:
#12 mellored Feb 17, 2015 12:59:41	RulesJD wrote:
#13 Slyck314 Feb 17, 2015 17:18:03	My characters used it to great effect. The where surrounded by a horde of dretches while secure in a L. Tiny Hut. The cleric let loose with Spirit Gaurdians as the Hut was dropped and with the 10 minute duration where able to destroy hundreds of the near mindless fiends.
#14 RulesJD Feb 17, 2015 21:45:10	mellored wrote:
#15 Macv12 Feb 17, 2015 22:50:55	Or, one could just add to zones like this: "an enemy can only be affected by this damage once per round," or "cannot be affected again until the start of its next turn," or something in that vein, then be as liberal as you want with when it triggers. It always seemed silly to me that it's more effective to ping-pong an enemy through a fire repeatedly than to tie them up and leave them in it.
#16 mellored Feb 18, 2015 6:11:44	RulesJD wrote:
#17 QwertyAzerty Feb 18, 2015 6:49:16	Cover offer PROTECTION that stop the attack, preven the attack from going something usually SOLID like a tree, a wall (even a wall of force) etc..., so a "arrow" proof glass window (or a wall of force) offer cover to someone behind since even if the archer can see him perfectly and aim perfectly for the target heart, if the archer hit the window/wall of force, the target will be safe since the arrow cannot physically pass trought the cover. Even a sharpshooter archer who ignore cover, is still unable to hit a target with total cover (since total cover, even if behind a transparent wall of force) cannot be hit since there is a strong force preventing the arrow from touching the target. Very strong wind COULD POTENTIALLY provinde COVER, since the wind will push the arrow away from the target, making it harder to aim (and adding a +2 or +5 depending on the wind speed or even make it impossible for the arrow to reach the target (shooting an arrow with a tornado nearby for example)   Concealment offer no protection, there is nothing to prevent you from hitting the target, but offer visibility issue. An arrow have no problem going trhough the mist, fog, dim light etc..., but the archer will have difficulty to see the target.   so now your murky water offer Concealment since murky water offer VISIBILITY problem, both from the murky nature of the water and from the defraction factor of water. If your murky water had a strong current, then it could offer cover since the arrow would be sweep away (like with a strong wind)   If the water only reach the waist of the player, the capability of the water to stop the arrow from moving is negligeable since arrow are aerodynimic and will slice water pretty easily (might reduce the range of the bow by half maybe, so a long bow being normaly 120/320 would become 60/160) but other then that the arrow will still hit the target since the water is just murky, not floating rocks.
#18 mellored Feb 18, 2015 8:08:41	QwertyAzerty wrote:
#19 RulesJD Feb 18, 2015 10:42:38	mellored wrote:
#20 mellored Feb 18, 2015 11:44:39	RulesJD wrote: