D&D 5E Zone spells and amazing damage potential

[Tormyr]

So in your games, using shove to force enter doesnt trigger spell damage?

I don't think it needs to. Forced movement does not trigger opportunity attacks, and the spell damage will trigger as soon as the creature's turn starts anyway. If the spell damage only triggered at the end of the creature's turn, then I would allow the damage to happen instantly. But that is not the case with the handful of spells that have been mentioned in this thread.

 

[Paraxis]

I don't think it needs to. Forced movement does not trigger opportunity attacks, and the spell damage will trigger as soon as the creature's turn starts anyway. If the spell damage only triggered at the end of the creature's turn, then I would allow the damage to happen instantly. But that is not the case with the handful of spells that have been mentioned in this thread.

This, the forced movement will most likely result in the target starting it's turn in the area of effect and it will take the damage then.

 

[evilbob]

So here is how I'm going to handle these spells in my games:

...

Does that seem reasonable to folks? Am I missing something?

I think someone upthread already said this, but I think I can summarize your change thusly:
"when a creature enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there it takes damage"
change to
"once per round, when a creature enters the spell's area or starts its turn there it takes damage"

That limits them to just once per round damage, which stops the "wheelbarrow" abuse and the double-damage situations. But it doesn't change the "Hammer of Dawn" Moonbeam application. So you can still potentially hit lots of enemies, but you can't hammer them repeatedly each turn.

 

[Uller]

I don't think it needs to. Forced movement does not trigger opportunity attacks, and the spell damage will trigger as soon as the creature's turn starts anyway.

Don't you think these spells are more akin to battlefield hazards than OAs? If a character got pushed into fire would you wait until his turn to deal damage? Remaining in the fire until the start of his turn is no guarantee. It could be put out. An ally could pull him out. It just seems more satisfying to me to have these things deal damage immediately and then "ongoing" damage (to borrow a term from earlier editions) on his turn.

 

[Skyscraper]

Not exactly a bag of rats, but with this ruling it is an exploit.

I ruled on this when it first came up in the game and will stand by my ruling at the table, which is the "enters" part needs to be done with an action, movement, or reaction of the target pretty much just like an attack of opportunity being triggered.

But if I played Adventure League games, you bet I would be a halfling with spiritual guardians who lets his allies push him around in a wheelbarrow all night long.

Okay. We seem to have a dissimilar gaming style then in this respect then. To me, D&D is a RPG first and foremost, and as such I cannot imagine for one second a party of PCs agreeing to the kind of strategy you're suggesting, let alone the halfling accepting to enter the barrel. Our group simply ignores these kinds of bag-of-rats shennanigans, meaning, we don't even discuss them, they're's no need, they'll not even be proposed. I assume that this and other loopholes in the rules exist and either have already been revealed or will be revealed in the future. The purpose of the rules, at a very macroscopic level, is to give some structure to the gaming experience we're collectively having, but being developped by humans and as such being imperfect, it's likely that these rules can somehow be abused. This will be true of any system. And an area of rules abuse is like porn: you know it when you see it. Here, you have detected it from the outset, and you (a) consider it necessary to make a rule to prevent the abuse that you consider unreasonable; but (b) you suggest that, absent that rule, as a player, you would abuse the rules in this way to obtain a result even if you you consider it unreasonable. My question to you is: why do you need a rule to avoid what you know to be unreasonable? Why not simply decide that you'll not go there?

 

[Uller]

Okay. We seem to have a dissimilar gaming style then in this respect then. To me, D&D is a RPG first and foremost, and as such I cannot imagine for one second a party of PCs agreeing to the kind of strategy you're suggesting, let alone the halfling accepting to enter the barrel. Our group simply ignores these kinds of bag-of-rats shennanigans...

While I generally agree with you I think the problem is the weirdness in what happens when the rules are NOT being abused.

A cleric is 40' from an enemy. He casts spirit guardians and moves up 30'. Enemy takes damage. On its turn the enemy takes more damage backs up and attacks. Now the cleric moves up again. Enemy takes damage again and again on its turn. If instead the enemy had stood its ground or moved up it would have taken less damage. That seems to me to be a problem and it isnt that far fetched that it would come up often if a PC is frequently using this spell.

 

[Paraxis]

My question to you is: why do you need a rule to avoid what you know to be unreasonable? Why not simply decide that you'll not go there?

Because there are many types of fun. I get enjoyment out of running campaigns. I get enjoyment out of playing in serious story driven games. I also get enjoyment out of min/maxing powergaming exploiting rules and wrecking havoc in some games. It depends on the game.

You can have fun in a gritty heavy house ruled game where the DM does everything in his ability to limit players and make them crawl in the mud for the slim glimmer of victory. The very next night I can be riding in a wheelbarrow being pushed around killing small armies of goblins, in a different game.

 

[Skyscraper]

Is it the players or the PCs that crawl in the mud? Because, if the former, we're talking extreme LARP

 

[Paraxis]

Is it the players or the PCs that crawl in the mud? Because, if the former, we're talking extreme LARP

I meant characters, don't enjoy crawling in the mud for real. I have tried LARP but it wasn't my thing at all, but I do like going to renaissance festivals and watching other people recreate sword fights, jousts, and now that I think about it mud fights too.

 

[neobolts]

Because there are many types of fun. I get enjoyment out of running campaigns. I get enjoyment out of playing in serious story driven games. I also get enjoyment out of min/maxing powergaming exploiting rules and wrecking havoc in some games. It depends on the game.

You can have fun in a gritty heavy house ruled game where the DM does everything in his ability to limit players and make them crawl in the mud for the slim glimmer of victory. The very next night I can be riding in a wheelbarrow being pushed around killing small armies of goblins, in a different game.

I feel like everyone in this thread is agreeing without realizing it.

This is:

1. RAW legal via official channels,
2. logical in terms of the question "Would this logically hurt the target?", and
3. a brilliant bit of powergaming your DM should turn back on you tenfold if you are gutsy enough to unleash it in their game.