Does the Fire Elementa’s Touch attack’s ongoing damage stack with itself? [duplicate]

If a fire elemental uses the Touch attack:

Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) fire damage. If the target is a creature or a flammable object, it ignites. Until a creature takes an action to douse the fire, the target takes 5 (1d10) fire damage at the start of each of its turns.

And then hits a creature twice, how would the emphasized text work? Would the creature have two instances of it and take 2d10 damage at the start of the turn or only one? If they would have it twice would they be able to put both out by dousing the fire?

Do the Fire Elemental’s Fire Form trait’s and Touch attack’s ongoing fire damage stack with each other?

Inspired by the following:

  • Does the Fire Elementa's Touch attack's ongoing damage stack with itself?

I realized that my own answer to that question hinges on the idea of features having the same name, but the Fire Elemental actually has two different features that cause extremely similar effects.

Notably it has the Fire Form trait and the Touch attack which state:

[…] In addition, the elemental can enter a hostile creature’s space and stop there. The first time it enters a creature’s space on a turn, that creature takes 5 (1d10) fire damage and catches fire; until someone takes an action to douse the fire, the creature takes 5 (1d10) fire damage at the start of each of its turns.

[…] If the target is a creature or a flammable object, it ignites. Until a creature takes an action to douse the fire, the target takes 5 (1d10) fire damage at the start of each of its turns.

Do these two ongoing effects stack with each other?

Does the Faerie Fire spell give advantage on attacks against invisible creatures?

The description of the faerie fire spell states:

Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can’t benefit from being invisible.

As I read it, there are two ways to interpret this. The first is that being held unseen is a benefit of being invisible, and therefore the spell removes that benefit. Since the invisible creature is then visible, you have advantage against it.

The other interpretation is that the order of the sentence matters; first, check if you can see them, and you have advantage if you can. Then, strip them of the benefits of invisibility. In this case, you would have a regular attack roll against the creature, without disadvantage from being invisible nor advantage from Faerie Fire.

What interpretation of the rule aligns with the intention of the faerie fire spell?

Does a Firbolg lose their invisibility granted by hidden step if their summon makes attacks or deals damage?

Hidden step states:

As a bonus action, you can magically turn invisible until the start of your next turn or until you attack, make a damage roll, or force someone to make a saving throw. Once you use this trait, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest.

My question is that if you summon a creature and command it to attack and deal damage for you, does that count as you making an attack/damage roll and therefore breaking your invisibility? Or does the fact that your summon is it’s own creature mean that you didn’t make any rolls that would break your invisibility (your summon did)?

Which Spheres of Might talents give a Vector attacks through Kinetic Overload?

The vector symbiat archetype, from Champions of the Spheres, has the ability Kinetic Overload, which reads, in part:

When a Brute, Scoundrel, or Wrestling talent would grant the vector an attack against a target within his telekinesis range as the result of performing a maneuver [emphasis mine], he may choose to make a ranged attack roll to pummel his target in place of the attack, dealing 1d6 + his casting ability modifier bludgeoning damage. This damage increases by 1d6 at 3rd level and every two levels thereafter and counts as magic.

My question is which martial talents from these three spheres actually grant these attacks? Some seem to obviously grant the attack (Scoundrel’s Mug, Wrestling’s Chink in the Armor), and others probably not (Wrestling’s Slip and Strike), but what about an ability such as Wrestling’s Piledriver?

When you successfully maintain a grapple against a creature you have already pinned, instead of one of the options normally available when you maintain a grapple, you may lift them over your head and smash them into the ground, automatically threatening a critical hit with your unarmed strike and rolling to confirm as normal. If the critical threat confirms successfully, the creature must make a successful Fortitude save or be staggered for 1 round. Use of this talent breaks your grapple on the creature. At +10 base attack bonus, the target is dazed for 1 round instead.

Does this fulfill the twin parts of Kinetic Overload, namely, "making an attack" (it’s automatically threatening a critical hit; no attack roll is being made, but a confirmation roll is called for), and "as the result of performing a maneuver" (it’s an option upon maintaining a grapple)? Does Kinetic Overload’s option to make the attack with telekinetic force override Piledriver’s requirement that the attack be made with an unarmed strike?

Piledriver’s the most confusing example I’ve found in my readings, but I’d like to see either a specific set of tests (does it have to be an attack roll, does it have to allow any weapon to be used with it, etc.) or a full list of all talents that grant an attack that Kinetic Overload can replace this way (probably no more than a dozen unless it’s a lot more generally applicable than I’m understanding it to be). I’m also working under the understanding that the attacks made as part of shove, marked target, and snag do not qualify, since they’re handled in their own paragraph of Kinetic Overload.

How many attacks can I make with Sudden Charge?

Braun is a young Dwarf Barbarian. He uses Sudden Charge to get to the Kobold.

With a quick sprint, you dash up to your foe and swing. Stride twice. If you end your movement within melee reach of at least one enemy, you can make a melee Strike against that enemy.

From what I understood, Braun could move 50ft and attack with a single action. He could then do 2 more attacks with his other 2 actions (for a total of 3 attacks). My table ruled that I could only do 2 total attacks. I don’t understand why, and .

If a Strike is always an action, what’s the point of saying "If you end your movement within melee reach of at least one enemy, you can make a melee Strike against that enemy"?

Does the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style apply to ranged, improvised attacks?

The Thrown Weapon Fighting Style states:

[…] In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.

My question is whether "a thrown weapon" means "a weapon with the thrown property" or "a weapon you have thrown". An example of something being in the latter category and not the former would be improvised weapons:

[…] If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

Do ranged, improvised attacks counts as "ranged attacks with a thrown weapon"?

How does attacking downwards affect ranged weapon attacks?

For 5e, ranged weapon attacks are associated with a normal range and a long range distance. For a flying attacker, how does attacking downwards affect that range?

Say a flying PC with a handaxe was flying 150 feet above an enemy. Can they throw their weapon down to hit it? It’s outside both the handaxe’s standard and long range, but the handaxe has nowhere to go but down.

Does it automatically miss? Does it become an improvised weapon?