But spell effects are not modified by Grid rules. Generally. Ranges are, sure, because that is specifically address by the Grid rules. but the "2d4 piercing damage per 5' traveled." portion of Spike Growth is not changed by grid rules.
"Every 5 feet" is either a range or a speed either way in Grid Play it's in square otherwise you wouldn't take damage because you don't travel in feet! loll
If you don't use 5 feet = 1 square for spells and other effects, there could be more stuff impacted! When a game element says X feet, you have treat it as distance range in square or nothing will work! Saying you don't modify stuff in X feet because you use Grid Play absurd you must convert either way.
You're free to homebrew this shortcut for your games if you feel it simplifies play. Totally.
But the grid optional rules don't tell you to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You're free to homebrew this shortcut for your games if you feel it simplifies play. Totally.
But the grid optional rules don't tell you to do so.
Feel free to think i'm homebrewing anything. It's called making a ruling more than anything.
there's amny things the rules don't explicitly say that you most often make a ruling ☺
Sure, but then we agree what you're doing... whether called homebrewing or Making a Ruling, falls into a category outside of what is actually written in black and white on the pages of the rulebook. Again, and I mean this genuinely, though sometimes when I do say similar people think I'm being disingenuous... but.. you are entirely and totally free to do that in actual play. I'd even encourage it TBH. In actual play I'd probably do the same. It is faster and smoother to just streamline it like that.
The thing is, here, on this specific forum, I don't really often come from the POV of running a game smoothly, or what sort of ruling I would/could/should make in practice. Instead, from the POV of someone talking about the Rules and Mechanics of the game themselves, in isolation, in a more academic way. What do the words on the pages actually say?
From that perspective, considering only what the rules say themselves; nothing tells you to convert spell effect descriptions into squares. So you don't. Not by RAW.
Similarly, regarding the original topic, nothing calls teleporting; Movement. So it isn't. Not by RAW.
Could you "Make a Ruling" that it is, in your game? Of course, sure, DMs have a LOT of flexibility to make it all work smoothly in practice. What's curious is that because the RAW actually spell this out, that DMs can ad hoc as they go... technically anything the DM "makes a ruling" about... becomes RAW... but, only for that specific game. Generally speaking, here, it is better to stick with what is universally RAW, what the text of the books say directly. Not what a DM could or could not Make a Ruling about. Because they could make any ruling whatsoever.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's not how grammar works there, but it really doesn't matter.
Sorry I'm not english native so if i express my self mistakenly it's possible. But if speed is in feet, having 25 feet of movement the lowest whole number deniminator possible is 1/25. And the rules i posted expressely mention moving foot by foot.
Unless there is any mention elsewhere in the rules about moving as a fraction lower than that, i assume you move by 1 foot segment.
Like the spike growth example but moreso, most of the time it's not going to come into play anyway. Heck, most of the time in TotM you're not going to specify a distance you've moved at all, just saying "I move over there" and the DM telling you what happens when you do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Absolutely no one suggested, implied or even contemplated that someone would take damage twice for the first 5 feet of movement, regardless of how the movement is broken up.
But you already knew that.
If you take damage next round for moving part of a space last round, why not? You are saying 'Well if the damage was 0, we will keep adding the potential damage until it counts.' The enemy's weapon missed last round but only barely, so this round they get a bonus to hit?
The logic is not there.
Personally I think the Two Weapon fighting example highlights their error pretty well. Compare the structure to the Spike Growth.
TWF:
When you take the Attack actionand attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
SG:
When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels.
If you think the damage carries over round after round somehow, and just keeps adding up specifically for the reason: Nothing says it ever ends.
Well, then you'd need to similarly rule that once you have attacked with a mainhand weapon, you can forever and for eternity make bonus offhand attacks because it also doesn't say it ends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Sure, but then we agree what you're doing... whether called homebrewing or Making a Ruling, falls into a category outside of what is actually written in black and white on the pages of the rulebook.
From that perspective, considering only what the rules say themselves; nothing tells you to convert spell effect descriptions into squares. So you don't. Not by RAW.
You don't change the book, you adjucate them as per Grid Play rules which are RAW. It's not homebrewing. Using 2.5 fraction in return is homebrewing as the rules don't say that, they say you move in 5 foot segment.
What do you think "5 feet of travel'" is exactly? It's either movement or range for Grid Play. So when you walk into a square in Spiked Growth area;
Did you move into it? Yes you entered a square inside the area.
Did you do 5 feet of travel? Yes since you move square by square on the grid using your speed in 5-foot segments.
Like i said, ToTM is possible to move into the area without taking damage because you move in 1-foot segment, but in Grid Play, since you move in 5-foot segment, moving means a minimum of 5 feet of travel because you move square by square to enter.
Again, though, how is that different from saying 'Did you move into it? Did you do 30 feet of travel?' In the first 5' does not actually equate to 5' in.
It is in grid play. If it doesn't equate 5 feet it's below the minimum number of feet segment required to enter a new square and actually move.
You move square by square on the grid using your speed in 5-foot segments. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left so to move
To illustrate another exemple of minimum movement discrepency between ToTM and Grid Play, a prone creature having 1 square of speed left cannot move by crawling (2 is needed) while in ToTM it can move 2 feet (round down).
If you want to house-rule your grid play so that movement is "middle of a square to middle of the next" rather than simply "square to square", all that would do is force people to cast their area of effect spells like spike growth with its edges in the middle of squares, rather than following the grid lines. Wherever you decide movement starts, the AoE would line up with it.
Poof, your phantom 2.5 feet of movement "outside" the spike growth just vanished.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Again, though, how is that different from saying 'Did you move into it? Did you do 30 feet of travel?' In the first 5' does not actually equate to 5' in.
It is in grid play. If it doesn't equate 5 feet it's below the minimum number of feet segment required to enter a new square and actually move.
You move square by square on the grid using your speed in 5-foot segments. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left so to move
I agree that in grid play that you need 5' of movement (one square of movement) to move in one square but disagree that equates to moving 5' in. I do understand your logic. We likely just have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, this precisely. Costing 5' to enter the square doesn't equate to having moved 5' within it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So a question is does a creature take that last bit of damage when they cross that 40th foot mark on the way out or have you effectively made the area smaller than 40' diameter? Because RAW the spell is a 20' sphere.
Remember when you answer that there is exactly no language in spike growth limiting the movement to one turn or round or any length of time. You could move 6" a round and still cross the 40' within the spell's duration.
If you say that the spell is its full size, then I will agree to disagree. Otherwise, RAW, you are wrong. The spell tells you its spell effect size.
Another important question. The spell creates difficult terrain. If you don't mitigate that, how much movement do you deduct from your speed to move from a square outside of the effect to inside of the effect?
Because that should really inform your answer to whether you take the 2d4 of damage.
Related: If the first 2.5' of movement is in the previous square, can a creature with a 30' speed move 5 or 6 squares over normal terrain on their turn? Remember the rule: " To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left,..."
I agree that in grid play that you need 5' of movement (one square of movement) to move in one square but disagree that equates to moving 5' in. I do understand your logic. We likely just have to agree to disagree.
The grid is a convenience to make measuring 5 ft increments easier.
The spell also doesn't have an actual stepped edge to it; a spell with a radius of effect will have some of that spell's boundary creeping into one or both squares on the outer boundary, so almost all of a 5 ft movement could be inside the spell area (if using the strict measurement from centre of one grid to another).
Costing 5' to enter the square doesn't equate to having moved 5' within it.
In Grid Play it specifically is as you move square by square in 5-feet segment. You move in 5 feet segment precisely. Since no portion of a square inside the area of a Spiked Growth is also out of it, if you move into a square inside the area in 5 feet segment, it means you moved 5 feet in it.
I agree that in grid play that you need 5' of movement (one square of movement) to move in one square but disagree that equates to moving 5' in. I do understand your logic. We likely just have to agree to disagree.
The grid is a convenience to make measuring 5 ft increments easier.
The spell also doesn't have an actual stepped edge to it; a spell with a radius of effect will have some of that spell's boundary creeping into one or both squares on the outer boundary, so almost all of a 5 ft movement could be inside the spell area (if using the strict measurement from centre of one grid to another).
This is another edge case. (pun intended)
Generally, a spell effect applies to a square if it covers half of that square:
"If at least half of a square is in the area of effect, creatures in that square are affected."
So you'll know which squares are spell effect area squares and which ones are not. There won't be some mishmash of partially affected squares, as you illustrated.
You can find this sort of helpful information on how to actually run a game in your Dungeon Master Guide. In the section of using Miniatures. This section expands on the grid options found in the PHB, and if you haven't read it lately, could be treasure trove of information for you about some of the options DMs have available to them on how to adjudicate play. Take a look!
Ultimately, if you want to assume that all of a characters movement happens inside the square they're moving into, you are free to do so. The game often presents options to sacrifice realism in the name of expediency. DMs are given a great deal of latitude to make calls like this. If it makes your games better, go for it! But, nothing in the text actually tells you to do so. RAW, that is not required.
As a DM, I will continue to adjudicate the RAW where possible in cases like this one, the RAI in other areas if the RAW is questionable, and rule in accordance with the RAF as a guiding principle just in general always. Here, in this particular case, it is just RAW that moving into the first square of Spike Growth doesn't trigger the "per 5ft within" 2d4 of damage. They did move within, so it did in fact trigger the damage calculation, but as it was less than 5ft, it was rounded down to 0.
Similarly, teleporting into the area, or within the area, doesn't even trigger the damage calculation whatsoever, by RAW, since it isn't even "moving with the area" at all. Even if it were (it isn't) that distance moved would calculate out to 0ft and thus, would trigger the effect at 0 damage.
Teleportation isn't a type of movement, by RAW. Any ruling that treats it as such will inevitably cause problems for you when you're suddenly trying to figure out how it interacts with all the various movement rules. The short answer: It doesn't. (Except were specified as an exception specifically) So it isn't even RAI or RAF either. And really, most everyone who argues it is movement still agrees not to treat it as movement. Essentially conceding their own argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree that in grid play that you need 5' of movement (one square of movement) to move in one square but disagree that equates to moving 5' in. I do understand your logic. We likely just have to agree to disagree.
The grid is a convenience to make measuring 5 ft increments easier.
The spell also doesn't have an actual stepped edge to it; a spell with a radius of effect will have some of that spell's boundary creeping into one or both squares on the outer boundary, so almost all of a 5 ft movement could be inside the spell area (if using the strict measurement from centre of one grid to another).
This is another edge case. (pun intended)
Generally, a spell effect applies to a square if it covers half of that square:
"If at least half of a square is in the area of effect, creatures in that square are affected."
So you'll know which squares are spell effect area squares and which ones are not. There won't be some mishmash of partially affected squares, as you illustrated.
You can find this sort of helpful information on how to actually run a game in your Dungeon Master Guide. In the section of using Miniatures. This section expands on the grid options found in the PHB, and if you haven't read it lately, could be treasure trove of information for you about some of the options DMs have available to them on how to adjudicate play. Take a look!
Ultimately, if you want to assume that all of a characters movement happens inside the square they're moving into, you are free to do so. The game often presents options to sacrifice realism in the name of expediency. DMs are given a great deal of latitude to make calls like this. If it makes your games better, go for it! But, nothing in the text actually tells you to do so. RAW, that is not required.
As a DM, I will continue to adjudicate the RAW where possible in cases like this one, the RAI in other areas if the RAW is questionable, and rule in accordance with the RAF as a guiding principle just in general always. Here, in this particular case, it is just RAW that moving into the first square of Spike Growth doesn't trigger the "per 5ft within" 2d4 of damage. They did move within, so it did in fact trigger the damage calculation, but as it was less than 5ft, it was rounded down to 0.
Similarly, teleporting into the area, or within the area, doesn't even trigger the damage calculation whatsoever, by RAW, since it isn't even "moving with the area" at all. Even if it were (it isn't) that distance moved would calculate out to 0ft and thus, would trigger the effect at 0 damage.
Teleportation isn't a type of movement, by RAW. Any ruling that treats it as such will inevitably cause problems for you when you're suddenly trying to figure out how it interacts with all the various movement rules. The short answer: It doesn't. (Except were specified as an exception specifically) So it isn't even RAI or RAF either. And really, most everyone who argues it is movement still agrees not to treat it as movement. Essentially conceding their own argument.
Those of us who do treat teleporting as movement, the same as other types of movement, treat it with respect to the RAW RAI and RAF as all the same. That means if you enter an area of effect, you are bound to whatever that area's effect may be.
The fact that people have been splitting hairs on movement with regards to grid play, but trying to use FootByFoot( FbF) movement values is pathetic. Spike Growth and other spells clearly detail what triggers the effect of the spell, and DM's have the discretion to ether follow those triggers, or RAF depending on the situation.
As a player, trying to split hairs to avoid damage or effects are part of the ways we try to get and keep any edge we can during play, but any DM worth their salt will quickly let those types of players know quickly they won't let that type of disruption continue.
And a characters likelihood of meeting Death can be around any corner, even if that DM has Death tap that character on the shoulder once and awhile to remind them.
And really, most everyone who argues it is movement still agrees not to treat it as movement. Essentially conceding their own argument.
Those of us who do treat teleporting as movement, the same as other types of movement, treat it with respect to the RAW RAI and RAF as all the same.
You treat teleportation as movement? So, teleporting across difficult terrain costs addition ft? I suspect you don't. but, hey, if you do, can you also share how things that modify your movement speed interact with how you treat teleportation as movement too? Would love to know how you do these things.
Things that slow, things that increase movement speed. things that drop your movement speed to 0, that stops teleports too? Extra movement costs. Grapple, just generally, how about that? restrained? This is fascinating to hear how all these interact with teleportation "movement". Please do share.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
He is actually making some valid points there, points that have been actually accepted by most posting here.
If you're talking about Rav, no, no they have not. Or maybe I missed something? Why don't you sum up the "valid points" you think they've made that are "accepted by most"?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
He is actually making some valid points there, points that have been actually accepted by most posting here.
If you're talking about Rav, no, no they have not. Or maybe I missed something? Why don't you sum up the "valid points" you think they've made that are "accepted by most"?
Look, we disagree on things. I disagree with him on things too. But while we debate on whether the arrival involves movement, we all seem to agree that it is only the last 5' under dispute. Or am I wrong on that? Do you consider that someone arriving in a spike growth field by teleport should take damage as if they ran in from the edge to wherever they arrive?
Do you agree that one can teleport out of a grapple? Or teleport at all when grappled?
Did you even read the specific points you are insisting that you are disagreeing with?
I asked for examples of "valid points" they've made over the course of a debate that has gone on for at least two threads and over 60 pages, and all you could come up with was things no one has ever disputed or argued against -- which should make you wonder what the purpose was in bringing them up at all.
Is saying one plus one equals two a "valid point" as well?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Teleportation isn't a type of movement, by RAW. Any ruling that treats it as such will inevitably cause problems for you when you're suddenly trying to figure out how it interacts with all the various movement rules. The short answer: It doesn't. (Except were specified as an exception specifically) So it isn't even RAI or RAF either. And really, most everyone who argues it is movement still agrees not to treat it as movement. Essentially conceding their own argument.
Those of us who do treat teleporting as movement, the same as other types of movement, treat it with respect to the RAW RAI and RAF as all the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're free to homebrew this shortcut for your games if you feel it simplifies play. Totally.
But the grid optional rules don't tell you to do so.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Feel free to think i'm homebrewing anything. It's called making a ruling more than anything.
there's amny things the rules don't explicitly say that you most often make a ruling ☺
Sure, but then we agree what you're doing... whether called homebrewing or Making a Ruling, falls into a category outside of what is actually written in black and white on the pages of the rulebook. Again, and I mean this genuinely, though sometimes when I do say similar people think I'm being disingenuous... but.. you are entirely and totally free to do that in actual play. I'd even encourage it TBH. In actual play I'd probably do the same. It is faster and smoother to just streamline it like that.
The thing is, here, on this specific forum, I don't really often come from the POV of running a game smoothly, or what sort of ruling I would/could/should make in practice. Instead, from the POV of someone talking about the Rules and Mechanics of the game themselves, in isolation, in a more academic way. What do the words on the pages actually say?
From that perspective, considering only what the rules say themselves; nothing tells you to convert spell effect descriptions into squares. So you don't. Not by RAW.
Similarly, regarding the original topic, nothing calls teleporting; Movement. So it isn't. Not by RAW.
Could you "Make a Ruling" that it is, in your game? Of course, sure, DMs have a LOT of flexibility to make it all work smoothly in practice. What's curious is that because the RAW actually spell this out, that DMs can ad hoc as they go... technically anything the DM "makes a ruling" about... becomes RAW... but, only for that specific game. Generally speaking, here, it is better to stick with what is universally RAW, what the text of the books say directly. Not what a DM could or could not Make a Ruling about. Because they could make any ruling whatsoever.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Like the spike growth example but moreso, most of the time it's not going to come into play anyway. Heck, most of the time in TotM you're not going to specify a distance you've moved at all, just saying "I move over there" and the DM telling you what happens when you do.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Personally I think the Two Weapon fighting example highlights their error pretty well. Compare the structure to the Spike Growth.
TWF:
SG:
If you think the damage carries over round after round somehow, and just keeps adding up specifically for the reason: Nothing says it ever ends.
Well, then you'd need to similarly rule that once you have attacked with a mainhand weapon, you can forever and for eternity make bonus offhand attacks because it also doesn't say it ends.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You don't change the book, you adjucate them as per Grid Play rules which are RAW. It's not homebrewing. Using 2.5 fraction in return is homebrewing as the rules don't say that, they say you move in 5 foot segment.
What do you think "5 feet of travel'" is exactly? It's either movement or range for Grid Play. So when you walk into a square in Spiked Growth area;
Did you move into it? Yes you entered a square inside the area.
Did you do 5 feet of travel? Yes since you move square by square on the grid using your speed in 5-foot segments.
Like i said, ToTM is possible to move into the area without taking damage because you move in 1-foot segment, but in Grid Play, since you move in 5-foot segment, moving means a minimum of 5 feet of travel because you move square by square to enter.
It is in grid play. If it doesn't equate 5 feet it's below the minimum number of feet segment required to enter a new square and actually move.
You move square by square on the grid using your speed in 5-foot segments. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left so to move
0 square = 0 feet
1 square = 5 feet
2 square = 10 feet
3 square = 15 feet
etc
To illustrate another exemple of minimum movement discrepency between ToTM and Grid Play, a prone creature having 1 square of speed left cannot move by crawling (2 is needed) while in ToTM it can move 2 feet (round down).
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, this precisely. Costing 5' to enter the square doesn't equate to having moved 5' within it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So a question is does a creature take that last bit of damage when they cross that 40th foot mark on the way out or have you effectively made the area smaller than 40' diameter? Because RAW the spell is a 20' sphere.
Remember when you answer that there is exactly no language in spike growth limiting the movement to one turn or round or any length of time. You could move 6" a round and still cross the 40' within the spell's duration.
If you say that the spell is its full size, then I will agree to disagree. Otherwise, RAW, you are wrong. The spell tells you its spell effect size.
Another important question. The spell creates difficult terrain. If you don't mitigate that, how much movement do you deduct from your speed to move from a square outside of the effect to inside of the effect?
Because that should really inform your answer to whether you take the 2d4 of damage.
Related: If the first 2.5' of movement is in the previous square, can a creature with a 30' speed move 5 or 6 squares over normal terrain on their turn? Remember the rule: " To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left,..."
The grid is a convenience to make measuring 5 ft increments easier.
The spell also doesn't have an actual stepped edge to it; a spell with a radius of effect will have some of that spell's boundary creeping into one or both squares on the outer boundary, so almost all of a 5 ft movement could be inside the spell area (if using the strict measurement from centre of one grid to another).
In Grid Play it specifically is as you move square by square in 5-feet segment. You move in 5 feet segment precisely. Since no portion of a square inside the area of a Spiked Growth is also out of it, if you move into a square inside the area in 5 feet segment, it means you moved 5 feet in it.
This is another edge case. (pun intended)
Generally, a spell effect applies to a square if it covers half of that square:
So you'll know which squares are spell effect area squares and which ones are not. There won't be some mishmash of partially affected squares, as you illustrated.
You can find this sort of helpful information on how to actually run a game in your Dungeon Master Guide. In the section of using Miniatures. This section expands on the grid options found in the PHB, and if you haven't read it lately, could be treasure trove of information for you about some of the options DMs have available to them on how to adjudicate play. Take a look!
Ultimately, if you want to assume that all of a characters movement happens inside the square they're moving into, you are free to do so. The game often presents options to sacrifice realism in the name of expediency. DMs are given a great deal of latitude to make calls like this. If it makes your games better, go for it! But, nothing in the text actually tells you to do so. RAW, that is not required.
As a DM, I will continue to adjudicate the RAW where possible in cases like this one, the RAI in other areas if the RAW is questionable, and rule in accordance with the RAF as a guiding principle just in general always. Here, in this particular case, it is just RAW that moving into the first square of Spike Growth doesn't trigger the "per 5ft within" 2d4 of damage. They did move within, so it did in fact trigger the damage calculation, but as it was less than 5ft, it was rounded down to 0.
Similarly, teleporting into the area, or within the area, doesn't even trigger the damage calculation whatsoever, by RAW, since it isn't even "moving with the area" at all. Even if it were (it isn't) that distance moved would calculate out to 0ft and thus, would trigger the effect at 0 damage.
Teleportation isn't a type of movement, by RAW. Any ruling that treats it as such will inevitably cause problems for you when you're suddenly trying to figure out how it interacts with all the various movement rules. The short answer: It doesn't. (Except were specified as an exception specifically) So it isn't even RAI or RAF either. And really, most everyone who argues it is movement still agrees not to treat it as movement. Essentially conceding their own argument.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Those of us who do treat teleporting as movement, the same as other types of movement, treat it with respect to the RAW RAI and RAF as all the same. That means if you enter an area of effect, you are bound to whatever that area's effect may be.
The fact that people have been splitting hairs on movement with regards to grid play, but trying to use FootByFoot( FbF) movement values is pathetic. Spike Growth and other spells clearly detail what triggers the effect of the spell, and DM's have the discretion to ether follow those triggers, or RAF depending on the situation.
As a player, trying to split hairs to avoid damage or effects are part of the ways we try to get and keep any edge we can during play, but any DM worth their salt will quickly let those types of players know quickly they won't let that type of disruption continue.
And a characters likelihood of meeting Death can be around any corner, even if that DM has Death tap that character on the shoulder once and awhile to remind them.
You treat teleportation as movement? So, teleporting across difficult terrain costs addition ft? I suspect you don't. but, hey, if you do, can you also share how things that modify your movement speed interact with how you treat teleportation as movement too? Would love to know how you do these things.
Things that slow, things that increase movement speed. things that drop your movement speed to 0, that stops teleports too? Extra movement costs. Grapple, just generally, how about that? restrained? This is fascinating to hear how all these interact with teleportation "movement". Please do share.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you're talking about Rav, no, no they have not. Or maybe I missed something? Why don't you sum up the "valid points" you think they've made that are "accepted by most"?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I asked for examples of "valid points" they've made over the course of a debate that has gone on for at least two threads and over 60 pages, and all you could come up with was things no one has ever disputed or argued against -- which should make you wonder what the purpose was in bringing them up at all.
Is saying one plus one equals two a "valid point" as well?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There has been a lot said, and it is easy to miss in all the replies. But, that is exactly what some people have been arguing.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.