When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there,
Only the first hit hurts each turn.
Each TURN, not each ROUND. For example, there is a two person combat going on, me and an Orc. I beat it on initiative:
-It's my turn - I using repelling blast or whatever on the Orc, pushing it into the sickening radiance. This is a turn, on which the creature entered the radiance, so it makes a CON save.
-The Orc is next in the initiative count - it is starting its turn - so, it makes a save.
Right? Or do I have something wrong on how that would work (assuming "ping-ponging" also works)?
Yeah, the “starts its turn there” only accounts for the targets turn, but there’s no limit to how often the “enters for the first time on A turn” part can hit, other than how many turns there are in the given combat round. If you have five characters capable of moving the target into the are on their turns, the target could take five hits in a round, plus a sixth if they start their turn inside the area.
Obviously this means those five pushers also need to be able to push the target OUT of the area to set it up for the next pusher, but still.
I'm not an official rules source, but it seems to me that it is clear, but as always, it is up to each DM and their group how they wish to play. 😊
SK, for what it's worth, Sickening Radiance does not use the term "enter" at all. It says "when a creature moves".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
ok, I think I follow you. So if we're saying that you can be affected by being tossed in there, you could potentially be tossed in and pulled out and tossed in again several times before its your turn thereby affecting you multiple times.
Who knows? Maybe you can.
It looks to me that when they use terminology like "When a creature moves into" they are referring to the situation where a creatures moves in as opposed to being moved in. I'm not saying your reading is wrong. I just think that the rule is written with the writers thinking about intentional movement, though I admit it is not specified that way.
Yeah, the “starts its turn there” only accounts for the targets turn, but there’s no limit to how often the “enters for the first time on A turn” part can hit, other than how many turns there are in the given combat round. If you have five characters capable of moving the target into the are on their turns, the target could take five hits in a round, plus a sixth if they start their turn inside the area.
Obviously this means those five pushers also need to be able to push the target OUT of the area to set it up for the next pusher, but still.
Yeah, this is like your earlier Forcecage example - theoretically, you could have a party full of folks who could alternate using Lightning Lure/Thorn Whip and Repelling Blast/Whatever Kind of Shove to yo-yo a creature in and out of the radiance, but in practice, it's pretty unlikely.
RAW - it doesn't say the movement has to be voluntary, so it doesn't. There's no general rule that movement has to be voluntary/use your own movement with AoE spells (like there is with opportunity attacks). Reading stuff into 5E that it doesn't explicitly state is a path to madness.
Lesser side point - why would the radiation care if you entered it voluntarily or not? (this doesn't get you very far - Prismatic Wall definitely requires your voluntary movement, and there's no logical reason that should be the case either)
If I go in on my turn and I stay there, it hurts me once each round.
If I run in and out several times on my turn--no matter how many times, it hurts me once each round.
If someone shoves or carries me in and out several times on someone else's turn, it somehow hurts me multiple times each round.
And the same amount of time passes in a round in all three scenarios
:p
That’s why I’m wondering if it was RAI for the third point to be true. It seems like it wouldn’t be
Yup, and it's my position that--though I personally don't accept #3 as RAW either--it certainly can't be RAI. That's the exact same BS that made 4e garbage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Hm. For some reason I always read spells of that type as "When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on its turn"; having a shove cause the target to take damage twice (once on being pushed in, once for starting turn there) seems a bit unfair.
I mean, it's clearly RAW that it can hit multiple times. The spell says "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time on a turn . . ." If it was meant to only hit once, it would say "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time in a round . . ."
I mean, it's clearly RAW that it can hit multiple times. The spell says "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time on a turn . . ." If it was meant to only hit once, it would say "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time in a round . . ."
I agree that the RAW very much says that, and as a DM I would ignore that because, as the scenarios above make clear, it doesn’t make sense. All turns in a round occupy the same time (we play them sequentially but in game they occur consecutively) and so if you are entering the AoE for the first time on my turn in round 1, you are also entering it for the first time on everyone’s turn, including yours, in that same round. So you take the damage once only per round. to me to rule it any other way would be meta gaming rather than immersion
In this case I feel like maybe it's not even RAW though. The conclusion is an inference made based on a lack of explicit writing to the contrary despite the fact that the inference is incongruous with logical comparisons within the same fantasy rules environment. It is allowed in the sense that the spell description doesn't say you can't do it that way, so therefore you can. It's "Rules As Not Contradicted."
A rule does what it says it does and nothing more. I understand that. The rule doesn't say you cannot move someone in and out of the area of effect multiple times for multiple effects. But to me, a lack of explicit exclusion is not quite the same as a written rule. This would be like saying A rule does what the rule doesn't explicitly say it doesn't do. The spell description does not say that you cannot be dragged/shoved/carried/flung into the area of affect to receive multiple damage instances in a single turn. In fact, the spell description says nothing whatsoever about that situation.
All of this being said, I'm not even suggesting it's not allowed. I'm just saying the spell's description does not provide for it directly. You can only get to that conclusion by applying deductive logic to the spell's description. And if you're going to apply logic to it, then it's hard to ignore the absurdity of the three logical examples I gave previously.
I mean, it's clearly RAW that it can hit multiple times.
Agreed, but something being RAW doesn't mean it's a good idea. Maintained damaging zone spells generally balance the 'can hit multiple times' part of their effect with 'damage over multiple rounds' and 'victims can move out of the area' -- their purpose is mostly battlefield control, not raw damage output. Being able to shove someone into a zone and having them take damage twice (once when they enter the zone, once when they start their turn there) is more damage than the spells are really meant to do.
I mean, it's clearly RAW that it can hit multiple times.
Agreed, but something being RAW doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I agree - I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. In this case, while the spell as written could be abused in theory, I'm not sure in practice that you're going to have a lot of parties built around the concept of dipping guys in and out of Sickening Radiance.
In this case I feel like maybe it's not even RAW though. The conclusion is an inference made based on a lack of explicit writing to the contrary despite the fact that the inference is incongruous with logical comparisons within the same fantasy rules environment. It is allowed in the sense that the spell description doesn't say you can't do it that way, so therefore you can. It's "Rules As Not Contradicted."
A rule does what it says it does and nothing more. I understand that. The rule doesn't say you cannot move someone in and out of the area of effect multiple times for multiple effects. But to me, a lack of explicit exclusion is not quite the same as a written rule. This would be like saying A rule does what the rule doesn't explicitly say it doesn't do. The spell description does not say that you cannot be dragged/shoved/carried/flung into the area of affect to receive multiple damage instances in a single turn. In fact, the spell description says nothing whatsoever about that situation.
All of this being said, I'm not even suggesting it's not allowed. I'm just saying the spell's description does not provide for it directly. You can only get to that conclusion by applying deductive logic to the spell's description. And if you're going to apply logic to it, then it's hard to ignore the absurdity of the three logical examples I gave previously.
Sorry to quote myself, but the premise of my whole statement may be invalid. The text says "on a turn" and that can be directly interpreted as "on anyone's turn"
In this case I feel like maybe it's not even RAW though. The conclusion is an inference made based on a lack of explicit writing to the contrary despite the fact that the inference is incongruous with logical comparisons within the same fantasy rules environment. It is allowed in the sense that the spell description doesn't say you can't do it that way, so therefore you can. It's "Rules As Not Contradicted."
A rule does what it says it does and nothing more. I understand that. The rule doesn't say you cannot move someone in and out of the area of effect multiple times for multiple effects. But to me, a lack of explicit exclusion is not quite the same as a written rule. This would be like saying A rule does what the rule doesn't explicitly say it doesn't do. The spell description does not say that you cannot be dragged/shoved/carried/flung into the area of affect to receive multiple damage instances in a single turn. In fact, the spell description says nothing whatsoever about that situation.
All of this being said, I'm not even suggesting it's not allowed. I'm just saying the spell's description does not provide for it directly. You can only get to that conclusion by applying deductive logic to the spell's description. And if you're going to apply logic to it, then it's hard to ignore the absurdity of the three logical examples I gave previously.
Exactly, and that's why I say it is not actually allowed by RAW. The spell does not say that a creature is affected when it "enters" the area. It doesn't say that a creature is affected when it is moved into the area by another creature, effect, external force, etc. It says the creature is affected when the creature moves into the area, and that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. That is what the spell says it does.
Speaking to the larger issue at play with 5e, there is a real need for actual rules on what constitutes these various types of movement "scenarios". It's a pretty huge oversight to have a ton of different spells & features that trigger off moving in a specific way, yet having no codified definitions of what they mean.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I agree - I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. In this case, while the spell as written could be abused in theory, I'm not sure in practice that you're going to have a lot of parties built around the concept of dipping guys in and out of Sickening Radiance.
It used to be a thing in 4th edition (and 4th edition didn't even limit it to once per round, so you'd use a push effect to move someone in/out/in to a zone), but the options for doing it in 5th edition are somewhat limited -- mostly using Thunderwave, battle masters using pushing attack, or open hand monks. Also, a group that discovered that as an exploit probably wants to have useful zones at spell level 2 (level 3, which is when pushing attack or open hand technique is available), such as Moonbeam or Web.
I mean, it's clearly RAW that it can hit multiple times. The spell says "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time on a turn . . ." If it was meant to only hit once, it would say "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time in a round . . ."
I agree that the RAW very much says that, and as a DM I would ignore that because, as the scenarios above make clear, it doesn’t make sense. All turns in a round occupy the same time (we play them sequentially but in game they occur consecutively) and so if you are entering the AoE for the first time on my turn in round 1, you are also entering it for the first time on everyone’s turn, including yours, in that same round. So you take the damage once only per round. to me to rule it any other way would be meta gaming rather than immersion
I mean, kinda-sorta, but there is some sequence to it. The fighter's attack with his longsword against Monster A isn't occurring at the same time as her opportunity attack against Monster B, even though they're occurring in the same round.
All that said, I agree the outcome of the RAW in this case is logically absurd, but that's true with regards to a lot of the rules when they're applied to fringe cases like this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry you lost me there.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Each TURN, not each ROUND. For example, there is a two person combat going on, me and an Orc. I beat it on initiative:
-It's my turn - I using repelling blast or whatever on the Orc, pushing it into the sickening radiance. This is a turn, on which the creature entered the radiance, so it makes a CON save.
-The Orc is next in the initiative count - it is starting its turn - so, it makes a save.
Right? Or do I have something wrong on how that would work (assuming "ping-ponging" also works)?
Yeah, the “starts its turn there” only accounts for the targets turn, but there’s no limit to how often the “enters for the first time on A turn” part can hit, other than how many turns there are in the given combat round. If you have five characters capable of moving the target into the are on their turns, the target could take five hits in a round, plus a sixth if they start their turn inside the area.
Obviously this means those five pushers also need to be able to push the target OUT of the area to set it up for the next pusher, but still.
SK, for what it's worth, Sickening Radiance does not use the term "enter" at all. It says "when a creature moves".
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
ok, I think I follow you. So if we're saying that you can be affected by being tossed in there, you could potentially be tossed in and pulled out and tossed in again several times before its your turn thereby affecting you multiple times.
Who knows? Maybe you can.
It looks to me that when they use terminology like "When a creature moves into" they are referring to the situation where a creatures moves in as opposed to being moved in. I'm not saying your reading is wrong. I just think that the rule is written with the writers thinking about intentional movement, though I admit it is not specified that way.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah, this is like your earlier Forcecage example - theoretically, you could have a party full of folks who could alternate using Lightning Lure/Thorn Whip and Repelling Blast/Whatever Kind of Shove to yo-yo a creature in and out of the radiance, but in practice, it's pretty unlikely.
To me, it comes down to the following:
In review:
And the same amount of time passes in a round in all three scenarios
:p
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That’s why I’m wondering if it was RAI for the third point to be true. It seems like it wouldn’t be
Yup, and it's my position that--though I personally don't accept #3 as RAW either--it certainly can't be RAI. That's the exact same BS that made 4e garbage.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Hm. For some reason I always read spells of that type as "When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on its turn"; having a shove cause the target to take damage twice (once on being pushed in, once for starting turn there) seems a bit unfair.
I mean, it's clearly RAW that it can hit multiple times. The spell says "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time on a turn . . ." If it was meant to only hit once, it would say "When a creature moves into the spell’s area for the first time in a round . . ."
I agree that the RAW very much says that, and as a DM I would ignore that because, as the scenarios above make clear, it doesn’t make sense. All turns in a round occupy the same time (we play them sequentially but in game they occur consecutively) and so if you are entering the AoE for the first time on my turn in round 1, you are also entering it for the first time on everyone’s turn, including yours, in that same round. So you take the damage once only per round.
to me to rule it any other way would be meta gaming rather than immersion
In this case I feel like maybe it's not even RAW though. The conclusion is an inference made based on a lack of explicit writing to the contrary despite the fact that the inference is incongruous with logical comparisons within the same fantasy rules environment. It is allowed in the sense that the spell description doesn't say you can't do it that way, so therefore you can. It's "Rules As Not Contradicted."
A rule does what it says it does and nothing more. I understand that. The rule doesn't say you cannot move someone in and out of the area of effect multiple times for multiple effects. But to me, a lack of explicit exclusion is not quite the same as a written rule. This would be like saying A rule does what the rule doesn't explicitly say it doesn't do. The spell description does not say that you cannot be dragged/shoved/carried/flung into the area of affect to receive multiple damage instances in a single turn. In fact, the spell description says nothing whatsoever about that situation.
All of this being said, I'm not even suggesting it's not allowed. I'm just saying the spell's description does not provide for it directly. You can only get to that conclusion by applying deductive logic to the spell's description. And if you're going to apply logic to it, then it's hard to ignore the absurdity of the three logical examples I gave previously.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Agreed, but something being RAW doesn't mean it's a good idea. Maintained damaging zone spells generally balance the 'can hit multiple times' part of their effect with 'damage over multiple rounds' and 'victims can move out of the area' -- their purpose is mostly battlefield control, not raw damage output. Being able to shove someone into a zone and having them take damage twice (once when they enter the zone, once when they start their turn there) is more damage than the spells are really meant to do.
I agree - I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. In this case, while the spell as written could be abused in theory, I'm not sure in practice that you're going to have a lot of parties built around the concept of dipping guys in and out of Sickening Radiance.
Sorry to quote myself, but the premise of my whole statement may be invalid. The text says "on a turn" and that can be directly interpreted as "on anyone's turn"
I stand by the part about absurdity though.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Exactly, and that's why I say it is not actually allowed by RAW. The spell does not say that a creature is affected when it "enters" the area. It doesn't say that a creature is affected when it is moved into the area by another creature, effect, external force, etc. It says the creature is affected when the creature moves into the area, and that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. That is what the spell says it does.
Speaking to the larger issue at play with 5e, there is a real need for actual rules on what constitutes these various types of movement "scenarios". It's a pretty huge oversight to have a ton of different spells & features that trigger off moving in a specific way, yet having no codified definitions of what they mean.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It used to be a thing in 4th edition (and 4th edition didn't even limit it to once per round, so you'd use a push effect to move someone in/out/in to a zone), but the options for doing it in 5th edition are somewhat limited -- mostly using Thunderwave, battle masters using pushing attack, or open hand monks. Also, a group that discovered that as an exploit probably wants to have useful zones at spell level 2 (level 3, which is when pushing attack or open hand technique is available), such as Moonbeam or Web.
I mean, kinda-sorta, but there is some sequence to it. The fighter's attack with his longsword against Monster A isn't occurring at the same time as her opportunity attack against Monster B, even though they're occurring in the same round.
All that said, I agree the outcome of the RAW in this case is logically absurd, but that's true with regards to a lot of the rules when they're applied to fringe cases like this one.