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

[FrogReaver]

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.

That's all you took away from my post?

 

[Charlaquin]

That's all you took away from my post?

That’s all I cared to respond to in your post. I think the RAW is somewhat ambiguous, but the RAI is clear and consistent with the most natural interpretation of RAW. I’ve made my case for why I think so and I’m not really interested in arguing semantics or entertaining the idea that the RAI isn’t really what Jeremy Crawford says it is. There really isn’t much more to say than that.

 

[jgsugden]

I always play these RAW - which I believe to be RAI as well. It isn't like the wording wasn't intentional. They knew exactly what they were saying.

Compare Insect Plague and Cloudkill. They made intentional differences for a reason. There are a few places in DotMM where the differences between those spells really stand out.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I understand that. And that principle means that one can choose any inertial frame to be viewed as being stationary and objects in other inertial frames to be moving relative to them. If all it takes for entering something is movement then you can always pick the inertial frames such that you are the one viewed as moving even when from the "traditional" inertial frame one wouldn't view oneself as moving.

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.

You asset this but it's just your assertion.

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.

Agreed. But the room from the system of Peters Body did 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".

That's not the meaning Relativity. There is never a preferred system from which to base what is moving on. One can base it on the bigger system or either particular objects intertial frame.

 

[FrogReaver]

I always play these RAW - which I believe to be RAI as well. It isn't like the wording wasn't intentional. They knew exactly what they were saying.

Compare Insect Plague and Cloudkill. They made intentional differences for a reason. There are a few places in DotMM where the differences between those spells really stand out.

I think we too often assume that any difference in spell wording was done so intentionally and that's not necessarily the case.

 

[FrogReaver]

That’s all I cared to respond to in your post.

Have a good day then.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's not the meaning Relativity. There is never a preferred system from which to base what is moving on. One can base it on the bigger system or either particular objects intertial frame.

As long as both systems are inertial systems that is true. In a rotaing system you will notice pseudoforces.
Also, you will notice, while one object might be acitvely converting energy, the other does nothing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Yes, that counts as entering. If you cast Moonbeam next to your target then another party member can shove them into it and they take damage at that time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"enter" in common English is not limited to just actively going into something.

Yes it is. It is a verb that specifically describes the activity of going into something.

The state of being inside something or outside something is unrelated.

 

[Lanefan]

I think we too often assume that any difference in spell wording was done so intentionally and that's not necessarily the case.

This has been the case since OD&D 1974.

It's sometimes best to just assume the designers and-or editors aren't perfect and proceed - however you like - on that basis.