D&D 5E Rant about Forced Movement

[DEFCON 1]

Allow me to disagree. There are better ways to allow choice, for example, providing optional rules.
Excessive use of natural language leads to lack of consistency, causing the kind of problem described in OP. You can be clear with natural language, it will require more text, may be a little more tedious to read, but the fact is that this edition decided to use more natural language (too much, imo) in a reaction to the last edition, not because it provide more options.


This is a bad argument. If everyone who play D&D should just accept how it is instead of posting a discussion about it, what is the purpose of this forum?

I have in no way stopped you or anyone from posting here.

But as the game as it stands does not give the "precise language" model you wish (and no amount of anyone posting here will change that)... my comment was that if you wanted a "precise language" game, you would have to look elsewhere.

Comment about that all you want. But if you actually want to DO something about it rather just commenting, that's where the end of my post comes in.

 

[Nefermandias]

This is apparently nothing new, but it's my first encounter with it, so bear with me. An enemy Wizard cast sickening radiance, and another enemy punts a PC into it. Like a human, I assume "moves into" means just that, and tell the player to make a Con save. Before the start of their turn, they're coming at me with a "clarification" that "moves" and "enters" are two entirely different things, and being punted into radioactive hell is not damaging at all, provided you didn't walk into it under your own power.

Meanwhile, another player was pulled out of the area before the start of their turn, so they took absolutely no damage! I'm at a complete loss as to how any of this make sense.

If this is a gamist restriction on spells to prevent pinball forced movement strategies, I guess, but why isn't that a general rule? Why do some spells instantly damage you if you "enter" them by any means, and others are like "well, hey, if you get pushed into a wall of lasers and pulled out again, you take no damage"?

It's doubly annoying when I've watched actual play sessions on YouTube and listened to "tactical advice" which are like, "but of course, a grappler can move you into and out of spike growth and murder you like a vorpal cheese grater", but apparently, that's no bueno, lol.

You'd think someone would say "if your DM rules enter and move are the same thing, you can do this"!

It led to a heated argument with my players. Which I abdicated, I mean, if they feel this strongly about it, that can be the rule of the day. But it was really irritating to me that "reading the spell" did not "explain the spell". So much for "natural language"!

Don't argue with players. Your word is final. It says so in the rulebooks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My preferred solution to the nonsense of damaging zones is generally to limit the damage to once per round.

So if you ping pong an enemy in and out of a zone or run a character up and down a line, damage happens once.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Comment about that all you want. But if you actually want to DO something about it rather just commenting, that's where the end of my post comes in.

Pretty sure this is a discussion forum and trying to chase people out of the game with a rake doesn't work.

 

[Shardstone]

I rule that effects trigger whenever a creature enters into them, regardless of if they are transported there, forced there, or move there willingly. What's the fun otherwise IMO? Effects exist to be experience. Get dumped on by my vampire's howling aura of victims! Feel the heat of the red dragon, the chill of the white!

Light sadism is my ninja way.

 

[James Gasik]

Don't argue with players. Your word is final. It says so in the rulebooks.

Uh huh, and then they all quit on me because they feel (rightly) that I'm a tyrant, lol.

That having been said, under normal circumstances, I would have tabled any such discussion until after the session had concluded, since rules debates aren't really something I want to interrupt a session for. But the player was pretty steamed about the situation and I was taken aback by what I thought were fairly solid rules. It really felt to me like someone was deciding to argue with me that red was blue or something equally ludicrous.

Then they're like "well it says here that Jeremy Crawford said not only is red a shade of blue in D&D, but vermilion is a shade of lavender!" and I found myself wondering if I had gone mad!

 

[TiQuinn]

Uh huh, and then they all quit on me because they feel (rightly) that I'm a tyrant, lol.

That having been said, under normal circumstances, I would have tabled any such discussion until after the session had concluded, since rules debates aren't really something I want to interrupt a session for. But the player was pretty steamed about the situation and I was taken aback by what I thought were fairly solid rules. It really felt to me like someone was deciding to argue with me that red was blue or something equally ludicrous.

Then they're like "well it says here that Jeremy Crawford said not only is red a shade of blue in D&D, but vermilion is a shade of lavender!" and I found myself wondering if I had gone mad!

There’s a way to say your ruling is final without coming off as a tyrant, and it could be just that in order to move the game along, you’re making this ruling for the time being and the group can revisit it after the game is over.

As for a player getting hot at the table, I’ve seen players do this and always that person needs to check themselves and maybe leave the table. It’s a game, and getting riled up around one particular ruling, especially when you have so many other options as a player at your fingertips to impact the game - it’s just not a good look.

 

[O-Castitatis-Lilium]

I'm not really sure how the natural language thing is an issue. "Entering" and "Move into" are the same thing. Definitions will use different words depending on the dictionary, such as "To come or go into..." or "To set foot into...",but they all mean the same thing: the person entering is having to move into the space in order to be in the said area they want to be in.

So, if a spell says either "enter" or "move into", then it's the same thing, just using different words to describe the same situation. Now, usually I rule that players can't force an enemy into a spot to take the damage more than once, so as to keep my party from using the enemy as a humanoid yo-yo for their own entertainment. It's pretty easy to rule that if the spell says they take damage immediately, then they take the damage immediately, it the spell says they take damage on the start of their turn, then they take the damage then. if they move through it and end their turn there (which rarely happens) then that's when it happens. In the case of mixed spells, like ones that state they take damage immediately as the spell is cast and at the start of each turn thereafter, then at max the enemy will be hit twice with the same spell.

As for teleportation, while not technically considered movement in the traditional sense of it, such as under ones own locomotion; it would still count as entering an area that has been effected by a spell, if the teleportation takes the person there, and therefore they would be subjected to the spell rules as they are. Now, unless the teleportation spell states that it wouldn't count as entering a space of an AoE spell until whenever, then I would rule it as such, but so far I haven't seen that be the case. I have seen reaction spells like misty step say they don't cause opportunity attack, but nothing that states that teleportation negates the "entering" condition that the spells need.

In the end I really don't see an issue with the way the spells are written or the language they use. Now, if the players don't like the ruling, then there's always other tables they can join that will be more fun for them if they aren't having fun based on my rulings.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Pretty sure this is a discussion forum and trying to chase people out of the game with a rake doesn't work.

Not chasing. Just reminding people that talk doesn't get you want you want. Action does. If a person doesn't act, the person doesn't get what they want.

I mean if you think that if you just think reaaaaaaaallllly hard about what you wish the game was that it'll suddenly turn into that thing... that's certainly a choice. Best of luck to you if that's the way you're going.

 

[Nefermandias]

Uh huh, and then they all quit on me because they feel (rightly) that I'm a tyrant, lol.

That having been said, under normal circumstances, I would have tabled any such discussion until after the session had concluded, since rules debates aren't really something I want to interrupt a session for. But the player was pretty steamed about the situation and I was taken aback by what I thought were fairly solid rules. It really felt to me like someone was deciding to argue with me that red was blue or something equally ludicrous.

Then they're like "well it says here that Jeremy Crawford said not only is red a shade of blue in D&D, but vermilion is a shade of lavender!" and I found myself wondering if I had gone mad!

Owning your game and enforcing your rulings is not the same as being a tyrant.

People sometimes forget that the Dungeon Master isn't jut a storyteller, he's also a referee and has the final say in every matter related to rulings at the table.

It's your game. Own it.