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

[Shiroiken]

I just checked, both spirit guardians & moonbeam say for the first time on a turn. wall of fire wall of ice cloudkill incendiary cloud cloud of daggers & so on all have a similar if not identical phrase. On top of that, nearly every one of those spells is concentration. You seem to be making a case to safeguard against a situation that's not an issue. some of these spells have ways of moving them (ie moonbeam' bonus action, spirit guardians centered on caster, fog spells & wind, etc) while there are a wide array of ways to force an opponent into their effect ranging from the mundane shove to various magic spells where moving an opponent is the point of the spell.

The question is the term "enter." The intent is when a creature physically moves into the area, including involuntary movement (such as the spells you mentioned) it will be affected by the spell. If you instead assume that "entering the area" includes when the area enters a creatures space, this increases the effectiveness of the spell considerably. I'll use Moonbeam as an example.

You cast Moonbeam on an area with 4 creatures in it. By RAI nothing happens to them directly until the start of their turn, but by assuming they "entered" its area this turn, you do damage immediately. Then at the start of their turn, the creatures take damage (and possibly shapechange back) and presumably move away. By RAI, on your turn you can move the Moonbeam, presumably over the same or different enemies, and nothing will happen until the start of their turns (where the cycle repeats itself). By assuming the it moving over a creature is "entering" it for the turn, when you move the Moonbeam, every creature you move it over takes damage on your turn in addition to those who start their turn within in. This effectively doubles the amount of damage this spell does, which is why the RAI clarification exists.

 

[auburn2]

I would say I try to play RAW and as a player I usually do. As a DM, I often screw this up, especially if it is the first time one of these was cast in a while and the player doesn't know/remember how to play it right.

 

[tetrasodium]

The question is the term "enter." The intent is when a creature physically moves into the area, including involuntary movement (such as the spells you mentioned) it will be affected by the spell. If you instead assume that "entering the area" includes when the area enters a creatures space, this increases the effectiveness of the spell considerably. I'll use Moonbeam as an example.

You cast Moonbeam on an area with 4 creatures in it. By RAI nothing happens to them directly until the start of their turn, but by assuming they "entered" its area this turn, you do damage immediately. Then at the start of their turn, the creatures take damage (and possibly shapechange back) and presumably move away. By RAI, on your turn you can move the Moonbeam, presumably over the same or different enemies, and nothing will happen until the start of their turns (where the cycle repeats itself). By assuming the it moving over a creature is "entering" it for the turn, when you move the Moonbeam, every creature you move it over takes damage on your turn in addition to those who start their turn within in. This effectively doubles the amount of damage this spell does, which is why the RAI clarification exists.

the gap for things forcibly moved into the area is less for spells like moonbeam where it kicks in at the start of the creature's turn than it is for spells like incendiary cloud, create bonfire, grease, others I'm forgetting where it kicks in at the end of their turn if somehow forced into the spell where alice can cast the spell, bob can force a baddie into it, & the badie can simply walk out to ignore it without ever having made a save if you preserve the obviously wrong loophole

 

[auburn2]

The question is the term "enter." The intent is when a creature physically moves into the area, including involuntary movement (such as the spells you mentioned) it will be affected by the spell.

This is generally how I try to play it, although it is not clear to me. The only thing that makes me question this is the phrase "a turn" instead of "its turn". "A turn" implies they can take this damage on anyone's turn, to include taking it more than once a round.

Also if you think about this - if as a PC I shove a creature into a natural fire or a pit of lava or something like that, he would generally take the damage on my turn, so it would stand to reason if I shove a creature into a wall of fire, shouldn't he take damage on my turn as well?

I am not disagreeing with the majority here, just saying it is poorly worded if they intend the damage to be once a round and not up to once a turn.

 

[FrogReaver]

The question is the term "enter." The intent is when a creature physically moves into the area, including involuntary movement (such as the spells you mentioned) it will be affected by the spell. If you instead assume that "entering the area" includes when the area enters a creatures space, this increases the effectiveness of the spell considerably. I'll use Moonbeam as an example.

You cast Moonbeam on an area with 4 creatures in it. By RAI nothing happens to them directly until the start of their turn, but by assuming they "entered" its area this turn, you do damage immediately. Then at the start of their turn, the creatures take damage (and possibly shapechange back) and presumably move away. By RAI, on your turn you can move the Moonbeam, presumably over the same or different enemies, and nothing will happen until the start of their turns (where the cycle repeats itself). By assuming the it moving over a creature is "entering" it for the turn, when you move the Moonbeam, every creature you move it over takes damage on your turn in addition to those who start their turn within in. This effectively doubles the amount of damage this spell does, which is why the RAI clarification exists.

Not saying you are wrong but on a side note, isn't it crazy that the freaking damage beam can pass right over top of them and do nothing?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Let's try an example. Sign at Beach says do not enter water. You sit at the edge of the water. The tide comes in and engulfs you. Most people would conclude you entered the water even though you never moved from your position.

Personally I would have cited that as a solid example of someone not "entering" something. I don't know when or where you did this survey of "most people" but I think it may be a little off.

 

[J.Quondam]

Not saying you are wrong but on a side note, isn't it crazy that the freaking damage beam can pass right over top of them and do nothing?

Not really. Microwave- and sonic- based weapons used for crowd control do no damage at all unless they're held on a target for a while. We also routinely go out in the sunlight -- WHICH IS A FREAKIN' NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN SPACE!!! -- with no problem at all, because it takes several minutes or tens of minutes before the UV burn gets us.

The notion of non-instantaneous damage is not especially surprising or uncommon.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is generally how I try to play it, although it is not clear to me. The only thing that makes me question this is the phrase "a turn" instead of "its turn". "A turn" implies they can take this damage on anyone's turn, to include taking it more than once a round.

The “a turn” phrasing is necessary because it is possible to move when it isn’t your turn by taking the Ready action and using your reaction.

Also if you think about this - if as a PC I shove a creature into a natural fire or a pit of lava or something like that, he would generally take the damage on my turn, so it would stand to reason if I shove a creature into a wall of fire, shouldn't he take damage on my turn as well?

I don’t see any reason to think that entering the space needs to be voluntary for the damage to trigger. The key is that the creature be the one moving into the space, rather than the space moving to cover the creature (or being created covering the creature). If one of your allies shoves a creature into the space, that does potentially trigger the damage an additional time in the round, but your ally had to use their action to do so, so it balances out with the damage they’re not dealing by using their action to shove instead of attack.

 

[Mistwell]

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

I always cite sage advice. Come on, you and I have discussed rules for a decade now. You know I always cite sage advice if I can find one on it, and if I cannot I often tweet to Crawford looking for a clarification. If Crawfords rule breaks something else then I will question it, but no other rules get broken because of this opinion as this opinion is the obvious one which I think almost everyone was already using even without that ruling.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not saying you are wrong but on a side note, isn't it crazy that the freaking damage beam can pass right over top of them and do nothing?

You can stick your hand in liquid nitrogen and quickly pull it out without getting burned. The “damage beam” just takes a few seconds to accumulate any meaningful effect.