D&D 5E Rant about Forced Movement

[Vaalingrade]

Player spells/abilities should be fun to use; monster spells/abilities should be fun to react against.

that's just a good all-around philosophy for monster design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The solution is simple: the wizard didn't cast "Sickening Radiance". He cast "Lethargic Light", which in fact does the effect when a creature enters the space.

If I can get on a soapbox for a moment: Monster Spellcasters don't need to (and I'd argue, shouldn't) cast the same spells that the players have. It's something 4E did right: design-wise, player spells and monster spells should elicit different feelings and responses.

Player spells/abilities should be fun to use; monster spells/abilities should be fun to react against.

Disagree. Way too gamist an argument for my tastes. Siloing abilities based on the narrative role played by the creature using them is terrible for verisimilitude, and goes against everything I prioritize in gaming.

 

[grimmgoose]

Disagree. Way too gamist an argument for my tastes. Siloing abilities based on the narrative role played by the creature using them is terrible for verisimilitude, and goes against everything I prioritize in gaming.

If the reason the monster casts fireball rather than "voidstorm" is because voidstorm isn't in the PHB, I'd say that's silly, but I recognize your viewpoint - I just don't think it needs to suck up all the energy in the design space.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the reason the monster casts fireball rather than "voidstorm" is because voidstorm isn't in the PHB, I'd say that's silly, but I recognize your viewpoint - I just don't think it needs to suck up all the energy in the design space.

If the reason the caster NPC casts "firestorm" rather than fireball is because PCs and NPCs have different jobs in the game (even if they have the same job in the setting), that's not a good enough reason for me.

 

[grimmgoose]

If the reason the caster NPC casts "firestorm" rather than fireball is because PCs and NPCs have different jobs in the game (even if they have the same job in the setting), that's not a good enough reason for me.

Sounds like you and I wouldn't have a fun time in each others' games, then. That's alright.

 

[mamba]

I mean, I think one can draw a useful distinction

I am not saying there cannot be a distinction, I am saying the distinction should not matter / make no difference wrt the spell effect

If I take damage when I walk into it, but not when I get shoved into it (or vice versa), that is the madness I was talking about

 

[Guest 7037866]

If I take damage when I walk into it, but not when I get shoved into it (or vice versa), that is the madness I was talking about

Sounds more like out-and-out stupidity--not madness--IMO.

 

[mamba]

Sounds more like out-and-out stupidity--not madness--IMO.

depends on how far down that path you go…

 

[Stormonu]

I am not saying there cannot be a distinction, I am saying the distinction should not matter / make no difference wrt the spell effect

If I take damage when I walk into it, but not when I get shoved into it (or vice versa), that is the madness I was talking about

To me, it would only make sense if it's about the duration. Getting blown through it by a spell over the space of a second or an ally grabbing you by the lapel and hauling you out before you got singed, I could deal with. A round is ~6 seconds and everything that's happening in it isn't lock-step one action after the next but more-or-less all happening at once and we've got to use some sort of order to handle it without driving the DM insane when six people plus all the enemies try to do everything all at once.

There's a bit of give and take in how the game handles exactly when the effect triggers. In 2014, for example spirit guardians activating in the opponent's turn meant as a player I'd have to remind the DM each time a monster activated to have him apply the spell's effect. Moving it to the active player's turn is meant to simplify that as the player can apply the damage all in one go rather than interrupting each opponent's turn. Either way ends up with corner cases that can be abused because of timing and the DM just has to decide if putting their foot down and tell the players that that sort of manipulation is acceptable or not.

For me, it's not acceptable and I'll gladly ruin a player's day if they try to manipulate the rules in that way. But that also means that they can trust me I won't try to manipulate it in the same way.

 

[Hussar]

. Yo-yoing someone in-and-out of a furnace doesn't do more than holding them in it.
.

That is an excellent way of putting it.

Why should it do more damage to enter and leave a spell effect multiple times than just to be in it the entire time?