D&D 5E AoE spells: Do you play by RAW or RAI?

[overgeeked]

An issue with area of effect spells keeps coming up in our campaign and I'm wondering how many people play by rules as intended:

"Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect."

So a spell like moonbeam, cloudkill, or spiritual guardians doesn't do damage when cast over a creature. So you might not do any damage the first round you cast it depending what you roll for initiative.

I've never seen it played that way in any of the three campaigns I've played in or in about six months of weekly Adventurers League play with numerous DMs. So I'm curious if anybody actually plays that way?

Yeah, we play it that way. Have since 5E launched. The timing of effects matters so you don't double dip damage.

If spiritual guardians dealt damage on casting and at the start of the creature's turn, you'd hit it twice before it could do anything. Effectively doubling the damage of an already great spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK dude, you know this isn't a helpful point, right?

Why?

To enter something, you must actively go into it. You know that's how the word is being used in common English usage here.

Then we disagree on the meaning of "enter". In common English "enter" often does refer to actively going into something. However, "enter" in common English is not limited to just actively going into something.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is not how you combine this principle with basic grammar...

How else would you?

 

[auburn2]

"Enter" is an action. You have to move in order to enter something. If someone turn on a spotlight directly above your head you do not enter the beam of light, it appears an you are in it.

Ok how about if someone pushes you into it? If I turns on a spotlight just to the right of you and someone else comes along and pushes you into that beam, you do "enter" it.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is boring semantics. RAW is somewhat ambiguous, but since we know RAI and it is consistent with one of the ways RAW can be interpreted, I don’t think there’s a problem.

Thank you. RAW is somewhat ambiguous which is the crux. We don't really know RAI - only what years later has been stated to be RAI. Most likely that is the same but there's been some flip flopping and so our confidence in what is actually RAI based on developer statements isn't as high as it once was.

That said, if given the option I would rule your way. It seems far more balanced, seems more likely to be the intention based on multiple logical paths and is consistent with RAW. Strangely I always have ran Spirit Guardians that way, but Moonbeam the initial casting turn we always allowed to do damage. We were being a bit inconsistent it seems.

Flaming sphere can deal damage to any given creature up to once on its turn, and up to once on the caster’s turn. The non-RAW interpretation allows it to do 50% more damage on the turn you cast it.

Flaming sphere is based on ramming the sphere into them and then also on ending their turn beside it - not starting their turn in it like others. There's no way to allow that to do 50% more damage on the turn you cast it.

Flaming Sphere doesn't actually have a turn - but you likely didn't mean that even though your wording seemed to suggest it.

 

[tommybahama]

Where the heck did you find that rai for persistent effects? I personally run their damage instant because it makes my life easier as a GM rather than waiting till monster q gers a turn. I dont generally have monsters enter these effects on their turns (deliberately or otherwise) but think I'd pop them right then if they did.

That silly maybe kinda sorta feela wrong and I think there is more than ample math to support doing it as harshly in favor of the spell being efficient at doing the thing it was cast to do

Sorry, I should have linked to it. Sage's Advice from April 2016

Errata: October 2016 | Sage Advice | Dungeons & Dragons

This Sage Advice includes a link to the Player’s Handbook errata and answers some D&D rules questions.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Mistwell]

Why?


Then we disagree on the meaning of "enter". In common English "enter" often does refer to actively going into something. However, "enter" in common English is not limited to just actively going into something.

No. Most topics there are two sides, and different perspectives. Not this one. This is ridiculous. You tried to use a physics definition to redefine a common Englsh word of "enter" so you could get double damage in the first round of combat with it. You know, I know, everyone here knows where you are going with this and why you're going there. Knock it off man, you cannot use this abusive exploit because you think you're being clever. You don't enter something for the first time because it was not there one moment and an instant later you're somewhere in it's field, by the way enter is used in D&D. You know it relates to you moving into it for the first time, not just standing still.

And if that wasn't clear, it's quite clear in that sage advice, " Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How else would you?

Ok, so....

when speaking about relative movement, you need to speak about inertial systems. And even though, motions are relative, things might look different in different systems.
When you approach speed of light, time and distance are relative too, and one person´s shorter way is the other one´s longer time.
Also, with non-inertial (rotating) systems, things get more complicated.

With that out of the way, a basic sentence has subject, verb and object.

"A enters B" has A as the subject, the one doing something, and B as the object, which is more passive. So if Peter enters a room, it is totally clear, that Peter has moved into the room, and not the other way round. Peter had to do the effort of entering the room, using his energy. The room in the rotating system of the earth did not move.
So when you speak of relative movements, you need to take more into account than just two objects, because they usually exist within a bigger system, which is usually more or less "fixed".

Sorry if this explanation is not perfect but I find it difficult to explain in English.

 

[Charlaquin]

Flaming sphere is based on ramming the sphere into them and then also on ending their turn beside it - not starting their turn in it like others. There's no way to allow that to do 50% more damage on the turn you cast it.

Flaming Sphere doesn't actually have a turn - but you likely didn't mean that even though your wording seemed to suggest it.

By “its turn” I meant “the creature’s turn.” But yes, I misremembered how it works. Since it doesn’t function the same way as Moonbeam et al, it isn’t a counterpoint to my argument that such spells can do extra damage on the first round you cast them under the non-RAI interpretation.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. Most topics there are two sides, and different perspectives. Not this one. This is ridiculous. You tried to use a physics definition to redefine a common Englsh word of "enter" so you could get double damage in the first round of combat with it.

Incorrect. I assert that "enter" can already mean either thing in natural English usage. That Physics supports my case is just gravy. There's not desire to exploit the game or argue some ambiguous rules to ink out a few points extra damage. So please don't accuse me of that.

You know, I know, everyone here knows where you are going with this and why you're going there. Knock it off man, you cannot use this abusive exploit because you think you're being clever.

I'm going to ignore this part as it's incorrect and outright rude.

You don't enter something for the first time because it was not there one moment and an instant later you're somewhere in it's field, by the way enter is used in D&D. You know it relates to you moving into it for the first time, not just standing still.

IMO, if it wasn't there before and now you are suddenly in it then you have entered it. That's not an uncommon usage of the word - it's just in everyday life such a situation rarely ever comes up.

Sci-fi might be a better example. Say you go to sleep and then wake up on another world. It would be fair for such a person in that situation to say "I have entered a new world".

And if that wasn't clear, it's quite clear in that sage advice, " Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect."

Do you always cite Sage Advice or only when it agrees with you?