Indeed a wall of fire can be moved into, so nothing denies you the possibility to do so compared to say a stone wall.
An earth elemental can walk through a wall of stone. And a fire elemental can walk through a wall of fire without harm.
Neither of these special cases allows a normal human commoner to do either. he either bursts into flames and dies. or hurts his face, if he tries. Both prevent him from walking through really well.
They, deny, his ability, to move, to the protected areas.
A flaming sphere would prevent him from ever doing anything ever again if he ends his turn next to it, so it denies him that option too.
These are area/movement denial spells by design. That's what they do.
You seem to confuse wether one can move with or without harm as movement denial. A human commoner is not denied his ability to move into a wall of fire or flaming sphere , but doing so can be halrmful so and if it does and die, then it's death that becomes a source of movement/action denial. But the fact that it could move into such area is the direct proof that it was not denying movement at all.
A human commoner cannot move through a wall of fire. That is for sure movement denial. Death is the best CC.
In this case the only thing preventing the commoner from moving is the Unconscious condition or death, not a mechanic specific to the Wall of Fire spell. The only affect the Wall of Fire had was to cause damage. Also with 1d8 hit points it is possible, though unlikely, for a human commoner to survive 5d8 damage and move to their intended destination.
The damage of Wall of Fire may make some movement choices less desirable than others by giving them a cost via damage. However, it does not explicitly prevent them like Hold Person does. Moving through the Wall of Fire may even be the best choice if you expect to take damage from it on future rounds otherwise. We may disagree about specific terminology but I think we can all agree that this is how Wall of Fire works and how it impacts combat tactics.
To bring this back to the original topic of this thread the same is true for Flaming Sphere. The spell may describe one way of causing damage as ramming the sphere into a creature but the only mechanical effect the spell has is to cause damage. So a strict RAW application of the spell would allow a creature to move into and/or through the space the sphere is in. If the creature ends their turn within 5ft of the sphere then they will take damage which may result in them dropping Unconscious or dying, but that is all.
To bring this back to the original topic of this thread the same is true for Flaming Sphere. The spell may describe one way of causing damage as ramming the sphere into a creature but the only mechanical effect the spell has is to cause damage.
Good call.
So a strict RAW application of the spell would allow a creature to move into and/or through the space the sphere is in.
Claim: Unsupported.
RAW does not determine either way. DMs are free to make this sort of decision in their game.
If the creature ends their turn within 5ft of the sphere then they will take damage which may result in them dropping Unconscious or dying, but that is all.
Unconscious, if you click your link, tells you that they "can't move". So if the spell cause them to go unconscious, it absolutely denies them movement, among other things. Maybe they shouldn't have ended their turn there. (area denial).
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 think the terms are something like hard versus soft denial. Hard denial is an actual limitation, soft denial is just a circumstance that makes choosing that thing harder.
The better English word for "soft denial" is "deterrent".
I think the terms are something like hard versus soft denial. Hard denial is an actual limitation, soft denial is just a circumstance that makes choosing that thing harder.
The better English word for "soft denial" is "deterrent".
Not if you are talking about functional gameplay decisions, which is why people more competent than me in game design/play co-opted and use the terms. If you are only interested in the actual gameplay outcome, then denial is denial, and the action of that denial is only a minor factor and can be attached as a descriptor of it. Your position is like saying technical jargon shouldn't exist.
And again, flaming sphere has more indicators that its actual area is hard denial rather than soft. Certainly the spaces subjected to fire damage around the sphere are soft denial. But the sphere itself can't be brought into existence in the area of a creature (see wall of fire, wall of stone, moonbeam, conjure animals for comparison), it rams into creatures (see moonbeam, wall of fire for comparison of other spells that describe entering the area of the effect). Comparing those two features with similar spells indicates to me that the object takes up space.
The better English word for "soft denial" is "deterrent".
It might well be but Area Denial has been a military/strategy term for ages. And we're talking things like landmines v personnel/tanks, tank traps v tanks/other vehicles or trenches with sticks v cavalry back in the day. All more of the "slow down or hinder" variety and not of the "make it impossible" one.
And when the term moved into gaming it has usually followed the same sort of concepts so spells like Flaming Sphere, Moonbeam, Spirit Guardians or Wall of Fire certainly seems to be a good fit for being area denial spells.
In this case the only thing preventing the commoner from moving is the Unconscious condition or death, not a mechanic specific to the Wall of Fire spell. The only affect the Wall of Fire had was to cause damage. Also with 1d8 hit points it is possible, though unlikely, for a human commoner to survive 5d8 damage and move to their intended destination.
The damage of Wall of Fire may make some movement choices less desirable than others by giving them a cost via damage. However, it does not explicitly prevent them like Hold Person does. Moving through the Wall of Fire may even be the best choice if you expect to take damage from it on future rounds otherwise. We may disagree about specific terminology but I think we can all agree that this is how Wall of Fire works and how it impacts combat tactics.
To bring this back to the original topic of this thread the same is true for Flaming Sphere. The spell may describe one way of causing damage as ramming the sphere into a creature but the only mechanical effect the spell has is to cause damage. So a strict RAW application of the spell would allow a creature to move into and/or through the space the sphere is in. If the creature ends their turn within 5ft of the sphere then they will take damage which may result in them dropping Unconscious or dying, but that is all.
Good call.
Claim: Unsupported.
RAW does not determine either way. DMs are free to make this sort of decision in their game.
Unconscious, if you click your link, tells you that they "can't move". So if the spell cause them to go unconscious, it absolutely denies them movement, among other things. Maybe they shouldn't have ended their turn there. (area denial).
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.
The better English word for "soft denial" is "deterrent".
Not if you are talking about functional gameplay decisions, which is why people more competent than me in game design/play co-opted and use the terms. If you are only interested in the actual gameplay outcome, then denial is denial, and the action of that denial is only a minor factor and can be attached as a descriptor of it. Your position is like saying technical jargon shouldn't exist.
And again, flaming sphere has more indicators that its actual area is hard denial rather than soft. Certainly the spaces subjected to fire damage around the sphere are soft denial. But the sphere itself can't be brought into existence in the area of a creature (see wall of fire, wall of stone, moonbeam, conjure animals for comparison), it rams into creatures (see moonbeam, wall of fire for comparison of other spells that describe entering the area of the effect). Comparing those two features with similar spells indicates to me that the object takes up space.
It might well be but Area Denial has been a military/strategy term for ages. And we're talking things like landmines v personnel/tanks, tank traps v tanks/other vehicles or trenches with sticks v cavalry back in the day. All more of the "slow down or hinder" variety and not of the "make it impossible" one.
And when the term moved into gaming it has usually followed the same sort of concepts so spells like Flaming Sphere, Moonbeam, Spirit Guardians or Wall of Fire certainly seems to be a good fit for being area denial spells.
The more proper term would be area denial. Movement denial implies it would actually stop targets from moving via paralysis or something like that.