D&D 5E Rant about Forced Movement

[Sword of Spirit]

I mean, they've employed tactics like these before without a quibble and I just accepted it ("yes yes, your eldritch blast pushes someone into the moonbeam, they take damage"). Never before did anyone say "wait, he wasn't moved there!".

Lol! Yeah. The funny thing is that even DM's sometimes seem to put on those "player goggles" when they are in the role of player rather than DM. And this is with honest players, lol!

From memory, here's what the basic 2014 types of area of effect damage are and why they are that way.

Type 1: Area Discouragement. Moves Into + Ends Turn (no more than once per turn). This type is designed to give the opponents an option of whether they want to take damage or not. They can either go into or stay in an area and take damage, or get off my lawn and never take any damage at all. These can deal more damage than the other types because you are giving them a choice. The reason they don't just say "ends turn" and leave it at that, is because then someone could move into, attack the caster (or whatever) and then retreat from it on the same turn and take no damage, which would defeat the point. The booming blade cantrip is channeling the same intention. These are actually pretty interesting, because you can use them to get enemies to move where you want them a lot of the time. Think of fun ways to synergize that with your allies!

Type 2: Area Damage + Discouragement. Moves Into + Starts Turn (no more than once per turn). This type is designed so that opponents that can fit into the area at the same time will take damage once. After that it's their choice and functions about the same as Type 1 most of the time. You can also use other abilities to pull your allies out of this area, or push enemies into it, to prevent or cause damage, but it's not really a problem generally. Its balance is tolerant of that sort of smart play. This type is likely going to do less damage than Type 1 because you get the (almost) guaranteed initial damage triggering on their turn.

Type 3: Moving Area Damage + Discouragement Doom. Enters + Ends Turn (no more than once per turn). This is the big guns. It causes guaranteed damage in an area like Type 2, but the caster can move around and cause that damage to a lot more creatures than the area. After that, it basically functions like a turbo-charged Type 2 (despite having Type 1 phrasing). You get to choose whether to take any additional damage on your turn, but you can theoretically be pushed and pulled out of them again and again on different turns. These spells need to have pretty low damage (or be spells that don't deal any damage at all) to be balanced when you have a lot of enemies. They're the ones to really look out for and make sure that the design is intentional, and that you as a DM are comfortable with them. You might just want to house rule them into Type 2s instead.

Other Types: Probably Mistakes. Enters + Starts Turn (once per turn or not). This one would guarantee (short of pulling someone out) that you are going to take damage twice before you have a chance to do anything about it. That is never (or maybe almost never, I could be wrong) the intent. It's an even-more turbo-charged version of Type 3. Anything + Anything (NOT limited to once per turn). These are also probably mistakes. If they aren't mistakes. It's possible that something with really low damage is intended to work that way, but you probably want to look hard at it to make sure it seems intentional and you like how it works.

Wouldn't it be great if the DMG had told us this kind of stuff? I mean, we only learned about the fairly important design concept of "ribbons" that had used because they mentioned it in a UA. I don't know why they are so tight-lipped about the underlying math, design intent, etc. Is corporate afraid someone is going to learn all the behind the scenes design and make a better version of D&D than they did? Maybe they are! Maybe they might! Still ridiculous practice nowadays to treat the intent behind rules as a trade secret. Could also just be that the designers who know the stuff aren't particularly interested in spending their personal time explaining everything to us, and there wasn't space in the DMG. Next time someone catches a designer at a Con somewhere, ask them why they don't share more about the mechanical design process.)

 

[MarkB]

isn't that a difference of how you move rather than the cause of movement though?

Arguably yes, which is why I said it wasn't much of a distinction.

 

[MarkB]

The player's main beef was how he got pushed on the enemy's turn, took damage, then at the start of his turn, he'd take more damage and drop without having any real way to act. Which I get- those kinds of moments just suck, which is exactly why my group has so many reaction abilities (enough to make me dread attacking them, lol).

But I don't see how poking holes in spell effects to elude them because they were written in a less than clear manner or because someone made an off the cuff remark "clarifying" something without issuing direct errata in newer versions of the rules to muddy the issue bother me.

I mean, they've employed tactics like these before without a quibble and I just accepted it ("yes yes, your eldritch blast pushes someone into the moonbeam, they take damage"). Never before did anyone say "wait, he wasn't moved there!".

What bothered me the most about it was when I said "look, you obviously feel strongly about this, so ok, we'll play it this way from now on, you only take damage at the start of your turn", but the player was like "no no, I'll take the damage." And when he was pulled out of the spell area, he was like "ok, I die then because of the booming blade effect" and when I said no, that spell says the movement has to be willing, he as like "well, how should I know?".

I mean, you took the time between turns to look up sickening radiance and found some forced movement discussion that you cited to tell me I'm wrong...but didn't bother to look up this other spell?

Then he started saying "well if the rules work the way you say, then people should take damage when the Cleric approaches them with spirit guardians" and I was like, "no, that's been clarified. There's a difference between moving into spirit guardians, and having spirit guardians dropped on top of you". To which he said "that doesn't make any sense".

"I didn't design this bloody game!" I finally said, throwing my hands up in the air. "It's a balance decision, not one that makes sense."

"Well, then, it shouldn't have to make sense how I don't get burned by being pushed into the spell."

And when someone else was rescued from the sickening radiance before their turn, taking no damage, which makes even less sense, lol, I could feel him glaring at me. He didn't talk much on the ride home either.

And I kept thinking that this all could have been avoided if the game's rules were clearer (or that Crawford was- this is far from the first time I've tried running the game by the book only to have some comment of his thrown at me, lol).

That irritation is what led to the OP. So far from what's been said by everyone here, I was technically correct...but I'm not going to say right, because maybe this sort of thing is kind of BS, but I can't help but think that this is what sickening radiance is for, since unless you can trap enemies inside, casting it leads to one round of damage, then everyone runs out, and the fact it lasts for a whopping ten minutes becomes somewhat meaningless, but I'll probably never look at the spell again because of this incident!

For me, having my player's trust is important as a DM. If they feel I'm being unfair, then I guess I have to switch tactics. This entire last battle, I took the opportunity to turn their tactics against them, which was cathartic to a degree, but given that it made the game less fun for them, I'll have to not do this in the future.

I don't see D&D as a "me vs. them" exercise, but I don't think they realize how annoying some of their shenanigans are, lol.

Yeah, I feel you on this one. I've been that DM, and heck, I've been that player too. Sometimes we just take these situations too personally, and it gets hard to keep the rules discussion rational and dispassionate under those circumstances.

 

[mellored]

I don't mind "friendly fire free" magic.

IMO, I like it as a cleric thing. Divine protection is aware of who is who.

Where as wizard and sorcerers spells are more physical in nature.

Though I don't know how you would do a simple Alarm without it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMO, I like it as a cleric thing. Divine protection is aware of who is who.

Where as wizard and sorcerers spells are more physical in nature.

Though I don't know how you would do a simple Alarm without it.

You have it work on everything, just like a nonmagical alarm, or you have a word that temporarily disables it. What you don't do IMO is have the spell just "know".

 

[mamba]

I think there’s a difference between arguing a rule on a forum versus figuring out a rule at the table.

that is why I said some tables… you can find stubborn supporters of either side at the same table

 

[Maxperson]

But to carry your example out, why exclude the caster then? If it’s a dangerous area, it’s a dangerous area for all.

From my POV, it’s a divine spell coming from a higher power with some level of intelligence that can discern enemies from allies.

I can see magic being created to hurt everyone else, but the caster. That doesn't take any sort of intelligent discretion on the part of the non-intelligent spell. Figuring out friend from foe does, and while I can see the argument you make with divine spells, 1) that doesn't affect arcane spells that do the same thing, and 2) I don't buy it for my game. The gods aren't watching every cleric at once just so that they can pick out friend from foe when they cast a spell.

 

[DEFCON 1]

you say that as if it were a benefit that every table has to hash out what the rules mean by themselves

You're right. I do.

If someone disagrees, there are plenty of other games to play, as I said.

 

[mamba]

You're right. I do.

If someone disagrees, there are plenty of other games to play, as I said.

WotC isn’t offering a second book with clearer rules, not sure I want to play PF2 just because Crawford has trouble writing the rules in a clear way

 

[CreamCloud0]

Arguably yes, which is why I said it wasn't much of a distinction.

i'll rephrase, i would personally EXPECT physical movement either intentional or forced to trigger opportunity attacks when you approach, whereas teleportation by either method to NOT trigger said opportunity attack, you're popping into existence, catching the person who's space you're getting up into off guard even if you're not doing it on purpose.

your method of traversal matters, the reason for that movement less so, IMO.