I'm not sure that later spells using "moves into" implies that earlier "enters" were intended to also be "moves into". Just as easy to get the inference that "if they meant 'moves into' they would have used it, as they have in other spells, so 'enters' must mean something different."
But we do also have spells that tell you that they cause damage not only when creatures enter them, but at other times such as when the spell is cast. We have spells like incendiary cloud and tsunami that are clearly different that could just say "entered" according to your reading. In fact Tsunami is the perfect example of how the designers write what happens if the spell's area moving over a creature causes an effect.
Incendiary cloud literally has the same wording as Spirit Guardian, but also a second statement about "when the cloud appears." So the question is... when Incendiary Cloud moves at the start of your turns.... are the creatures it moves onto "entering the area for the first time on a turn"? If not, do you really think that the spell intended to effect them (1) when it was cast, and (2) when they move into it, but NOT (3) when it moves onto them?
If anything, I think Incendiary Cloud is great support that "enters" is intended to include the area moving onto you or being cast around you.
Incendiary cloud literally has the same wording as Spirit Guardian, but also a second statement about "when the cloud appears." \
Kind of the point. It tells you that if you want damage to occur when the spell appears, the spell will tell you.
So the question is... when Incendiary Cloud moves at the start of your turns.... are the creatures it moves onto "entering the area for the first time on a turn"?
No.
If not, do you really think that the spell intended to effect them (1) when it was cast, and (2) when they move into it, but NOT (3) when it moves onto them?
Apparently so. See tsunami for an example where the spell's area moving over a creature causes an effect.
If anything, I think Incendiary Cloud is great support that "enters" is intended to include the area moving onto you or being cast around you.
You do? Because this spell is clearly different from spirit guardians in that one says that the damage occurs when it is cast and the other is distinctly lacking that statement. You imply that lacking that text is not material to whether that function is part of the spell? If you are to the point where it doesn't matter to you what the spell says, well... it doesn't matter what the spell says, we're no longer talking about rules.
If not, do you really think that the spell intended to effect them (1) when it was cast, and (2) when they move into it, but NOT (3) when it moves onto them?
Yes, that is absolutely the intended effect. Running out of Incendiary Cloud on your turn in order to not take damage from it at the end of your turn is the intended tactic, similar to being next to Flaming Sphere. That's why it's worded how it is. If it moves onto you, you have a chance to get away before you take damage. As with the aforementioned Tsunami, it would need to say "any creature whose space the effect enters when it moves" to work the way you think it does - as would Spirit Guardians - because "enter" is a verb and you cannot perform a verb without taking action.
I'm gonna address this, because we decided to move on from explaining that you're wrong to explaining what would happen if you were right, yet you seem to be hung up on it still.
If you fall on a spike, does it enter your body? If you consume a poison, does it enter your system? Yes, “enters” is fully synonymous with “is enveloped by,” and you won’t convince me it isn’t.
If you fall on a spike, it does not enter your body, because it's not doing anything. What happens is that you impale yourself on it. Verbs require action. Now yes, colloquially, if you were to say that, people will understand what you mean, but formally, it is incorrect (though saying "Guy fell on a spike, which entered his body" sounds pretty ridiculous, colloquially understandable or not.) Now, if Guy were on the ground and spikes rose up out of the ground impaling him, then it would be proper English to say that they pierced or entered (still weird) his body, because the spikes were acting. At the same time, it would then be wrong to say that Guy impaled himself on them, because Guy didn't take any action. With me here? Guy falls on stationary spikes, Guy impales himself. Spikes shoot through stationary Guy, spikes pierce him. That's how verbs work.
As for the poison, yes, it does enter your system, because you forced it to by drinking it. You moved it, so you forced it to take action. Same as you can move someone into an AoE, forcing them to enter it, because you're forcing them to take action. If a fog envelops a city, does the city enter the fog? No, because the city is not doing anything. If you drive into a fog, do you enter it? Yes, you do.
You love to say that we're reading the rules like robots, but rules are meant to be read formally. The problem is you reading them in a way that fits your agenda.
I think that post 84 and 82 are better phrasing to examine this on than 21 was. "Bill enters the danger zone" makes sense when the danger zone materializes around him, or when the danger zone grows to include him. "Enters" does not always imply agency, though it can, when Bill walks into the danger zone himself.
There's a balancing act to be made between "giving words their plain language meaning" and "reading the rule system formally," you're right, and that can lead to some gray areas and frustrations. That's often the tension between RAW and RAI.
If you're genuinely still looking for help and I'm wrong about your intent here... maybe this is where you're going wrong?
If it helps think of it like the spell changes the properties of each of the 5ft grid spaces it applies to. So, spells aren't an area. Instead, spells change the nature of an area.
When a spell says something like: "when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn" the 'area' it is talking about isn't the "area of effect" of the spell... it is the "area" being affected by the spell's "area of effect". If you are already standing in a space when it become an area affected by a spell, you are not entering the area being affected by the spell because you're already in that area.
What you're thinking of is the "area of effect". The "area of effect" is what determines how much area is affected by the spell. But... the area is the area. That's the ground. The sky. The whatever. That's just space.
Area is just open area, open space, often typically represented by little 5 ft grids in most games (especially during combats). A spacial reference of the world itself. Rooms have area, fields have area, rivers, dungeons, bridges, open sky... all have/are/occupy areas. Areas are spacial references of the fictional world itself.
So you're not entering the area if you're already on that space. The "area of effect" may have moved to now affect the area you're standing on. But that doesn't mean you've entered into the spell's area... because you're there already.
Is this really as simple as mixing up "area" with "area of effect"?
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 it helps think of it like the spell changes the properties of each of the 5ft grid spaces it applies to. So, spells aren't an area. Instead, spells change the nature of an area...
Nah, that's not how AOE spells work as described in PHB Chapter 11, or how Spirit Guardians describes itself. Not sure whether thinking of it that way would lead to any strange conclusions, but no reason to set out with faulty starting assumptions.... and also, I just don't really understand what you're trying to describe by distinguishing entering grid space areas vs. spell areas of effect, or why that would be significant enough to justify such hair splitting.
If it helps think of it like the spell changes the properties of each of the 5ft grid spaces it applies to. So, spells aren't an area. Instead, spells change the nature of an area...
That is exactly how it describes it. They have an "area of effect"... that effects... an area.
Not sure whether thinking of it that way would lead to any strange conclusions, but no reason to set out with faulty starting assumptions.... and also, I just don't really understand what you're trying to describe by distinguishing entering grid space areas vs. spell areas of effect, or why that would be significant enough to justify such hair splitting.
Thinking of it that way leads to normal game rules expected behavior because that's how the game works.
This really is where you've misunderstood things then huh? Wild.
Okay. This isn't splitting hairs, though. Why? Because it answers the question that this whole topic is about.
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'll bite. Hyperbole aside, explain it to me again slower: why is it meaningful to examine whether I'm entering a grid square, vs. entering a spell area of effect, or to disregard areas of effect and instead just think about squares on the battle grid with special properties? Just seems like inventing a new complicated system for its own sake, understanding what squares the creature is standing in doesn't sound like what we've been disagreeing about so far.
I'll bite. Hyperbole aside, explain it to me again slower: why is it meaningful to examine whether I'm entering a grid square, vs. entering a spell area of effect, or to disregard areas of effect and instead just think about squares on the battle grid with special properties? Just seems like inventing a new complicated system for its own sake, understanding what squares the creature is standing in doesn't sound like what we've been disagreeing about so far.
The grid thing is just to aid in your conceptualization efforts. To help you reframe this notion in your mind.
Let's go through a list.
A spell doesn't have an area. I know you're already rejecting this idea, but stay tuned.
A spell instead has an "Area of Effect". Same thing? No.
An Area of Effect covers an area.
The spell effects of a spell will affect the area. But the area was already there to be affected. A "spell's area" is the area (which existed already) that is under the effect of that spell... ie is within the spell's "Area of Effect".
So when I say think of a grid, with spaces, and the effect of the spell changing the nature of those grids. That is purely a conceptualization aid. That is "effectively" how these spells work, though not explicitly so.
So, terms....
Area: refers to a location in 3d coordinates
Are of Effect: How much area the spell covers with its effect
Spell's Area: An area that is within (covered by) a spell's area of effect
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.
"It enters the whirlwind or that the whirlwind enters its space."
That's.... a pretty solid argument, bummed I'm just learning about it now! Yeah, that's a pretty good piece of evidence that "enters" generally means the creature is moving, not the effect, anywhere else that "enters X" is used.
Okay, you persuaded me Bees, one only "enters" a Spirit Guardians AOE when they move into it, not when the AOE moves onto them! Good find!
Just reposting the SAC on exactly this topic, for reference now that it's all neatly cleared up.
Does moonbeam deal damage when you cast it? What about when its effect moves onto a creature?
The answer to both questions is no. Here’s some elaboration on that answer.
Some spells and other game features create an area of effect that does something when a creature enters that area for the first time on a turn or when a creature starts its turn in that area. On the turn when you cast such a spell, you’re primarily setting up hurt for your foes on later turns. Moonbeam, for example, creates a beam of light that can damage a creature who enters the beam or who starts its turn in the beam.
Here are some spells with the same timing as moonbeam for their areas of effect:
Reading the description of any of those spells, you might wonder whether a creature is considered to be entering the spell’s area of effect if the area is created on the creature’s space. And if the area of effect can be moved—as the beam of moonbeam can—does moving it into a creature’s space count as the creature entering the area? Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.
Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away! Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn.
In summary, a spell like moonbeam affects a creature when the creature passes into the spell’s area of effect and when the creature starts its turn there. You’re essentially creating a hazard on the battlefield.
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 that post 84 and 82 are better phrasing to examine this on than 21 was. "Bill enters the danger zone" makes sense when the danger zone materializes around him, or when the danger zone grows to include him. "Enters" does not always imply agency, though it can, when Bill walks into the danger zone himself.
There's a balancing act to be made between "giving words their plain language meaning" and "reading the rule system formally," you're right, and that can lead to some gray areas and frustrations. That's often the tension between RAW and RAI.
So your only response to me rebuking your arguments is to link me to comments in which you just add redundancy to those same arguments. Alright, let me rebuke those as well!
But first; if the danger zone materializes around Bill, he didn't enter it, because he didn't do anything. Verbs require action! If someone builds a house around you, did you enter it?
You already said what happened; the danger zone materialized around him. That's the only action that was taken. Bill did nothing, and therefore didn't enter anything, because entering things requires action. If he was teleported into it, walked into it, or even if it sucked him in, then he would be entering it, because he would be taking action. Perhaps a forced action (true, agency isn't necessary, you can be forced to take an action), but an action nonetheless.
Anyway, on to rebuking!
"is admitted to": "Bill enters (is admitted to) the group chat after somebody tags him."
"Admitted" and "Enter" are not synonymous. Admitted means allowed to enter. You still need to do the entering yourself. If a bouncer admits you into a bar, that means you're allowed to enter, but you still need to walk through the door. If you are admitted to a text chain, you still need to join - in that case, you often do the joining first, but the programming finishes executing said joining after you are admitted.
I'm getting a little carried away here. Bottom line, "allowed to enter" does not mean "entered."
"penetrates": "The spike enters Bill's flesh when he falls on it."
"becomes included": "The poison enters Bill's system when he eats the fruit."
"Bill enters the zone" (walks into it), "Bill enters the zone" (the zone comes into being around him), and "Bill enters the zone" (the zone moves onto him) all make an equal amount of sense as common, plain English statements. You may be right that RAI, only "walks into it" was intended! But RAW, any or all three appear to be valid plain language uses of the word.
See my first paragraph of this comment. While all of these statements are colloquially understandable given the proper context clues, only one of them is correct English.
"It enters the whirlwind or that the whirlwind enters its space."
That's.... a pretty solid argument, bummed I'm just learning about it now! Yeah, that's a pretty good piece of evidence that "enters" generally means the creature is moving, not the effect, anywhere else that "enters X" is used.
Okay, you persuaded me Bees, one only "enters" a Spirit Guardians AOE when they move into it, not when the AOE moves onto them! Good find!
I mean, WolfOfTheBees brought up Tsunami ten comments ago, which uses enters the same way. Oh well, glad we've finally gotten somewhere! This comment is pretty pointless now, but I had written most of it a few hours ago and had to leave before I finished it, so I'm posting it anyway!
"is admitted to": "Bill enters (is admitted to) the group chat after somebody tags him."
"Admitted" and "Enter" are not synonymous. Admitted means allowed to enter. You still need to do the entering yourself. If a bouncer admits you into a bar, that means you're allowed to enter, but you still need to walk through the door. If you are admitted to a text chain, you still need to join - in that case, you often do the joining first, but the programming finishes executing said joining after you are admitted.
...
So, the problem with your response here is that you're getting adament about things not being synonymous, which easily available sources like Merriam Webster tell us are synonymous. I'm not saying that we need to whip out a dictionary to parse definitions, like I said I'm all for giving things their common sense plain English interpretation... but if a definition is in the dictionary, it's probably a pretty good piece of evidence that the use you're arguing against just isn't familiar to you, rather than not being a valid use of the term.
I wasn't trying to ignore your rebuttal, I was pointing out that your rebuttal seemed to be centered around the fact that my original example had foolishly talked about "enters" in non-area contexts, and your responses seemed way too hung up on qualities of spikes, bodies, and poisons, giving you an easy out to side-step recognizing how the different meanings of "enters" would apply to an area. I see you and hear you, you didn't buy those meanings when they were provided about spikes, and you don't buy them when new examples were given about areas.... but unfortunately it seems like that comes down to you not being familiar with other common contexts it's used in, as listed in a common english dictionary. In fact, the very existence of this thread is practically evidence in itself that it's a common enough interpretation that it's a question worth asking, as is the existence of the SAC article above linked by Ravnodaus where WotC anticipates and takes seriously that a reader could apply that interpretation of the word! If you think "enters" must and only imply that a creature moves, rather than an area, as a matter of English language usage itself... then the dictionary disagrees with you, I disagree with you, and SAC disagrees with you.
But no matter! Because again, the Whirlwind quote from Bees provided some excellent textual support that "enters the area" explicitly is not used by the authors to include the area moving around the creature, because they have a different phrase they use for that! That was an excellent find, and for future reference, the sort of argument that's actually persuasive in these types of arguments (for someone who cares more about RAW than RAI), not just insisting "I disagree with you about that definition and my disagreement itself proves that it's obviously wrong." The SAC, unfortunately, doesn't actually go to the sort of RAW-textual-based analysis that Bees provided, which is why it isn't generally a very valuable source for answering these questions! "Our design intent..." according to who specifically, oh great unnamed author? There was a spell worth providing an example, which would have provided an explicit RAW example of what they were trying to illustrate! But instead, perhaps because they weren't actually familiar with the spell, or because they didn't realize there was any RAW evidence and just reflexively fell back on making up some supposedly-authoritative RAI prognostication... we didn't get that quality analysis.
That's why these forum discussions remain so valuable, more valuable than the SAC. There was a good nugget to find out there that answered this question, and Bees found it, and the SAC didn't. I had to suffer through a bit of unnecessary antagonism to get to it, but I'm glad I did, because the discussion found a spell description I wasn't familiar with and now I'm a better player and DM for it! Thank you Bees!
I'm not sure that later spells using "moves into" implies that earlier "enters" were intended to also be "moves into". Just as easy to get the inference that "if they meant 'moves into' they would have used it, as they have in other spells, so 'enters' must mean something different."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But we do also have spells that tell you that they cause damage not only when creatures enter them, but at other times such as when the spell is cast. We have spells like incendiary cloud and tsunami that are clearly different that could just say "entered" according to your reading. In fact Tsunami is the perfect example of how the designers write what happens if the spell's area moving over a creature causes an effect.
Incendiary cloud literally has the same wording as Spirit Guardian, but also a second statement about "when the cloud appears." So the question is... when Incendiary Cloud moves at the start of your turns.... are the creatures it moves onto "entering the area for the first time on a turn"? If not, do you really think that the spell intended to effect them (1) when it was cast, and (2) when they move into it, but NOT (3) when it moves onto them?
If anything, I think Incendiary Cloud is great support that "enters" is intended to include the area moving onto you or being cast around you.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Kind of the point. It tells you that if you want damage to occur when the spell appears, the spell will tell you.
No.
Apparently so. See tsunami for an example where the spell's area moving over a creature causes an effect.
You do? Because this spell is clearly different from spirit guardians in that one says that the damage occurs when it is cast and the other is distinctly lacking that statement. You imply that lacking that text is not material to whether that function is part of the spell? If you are to the point where it doesn't matter to you what the spell says, well... it doesn't matter what the spell says, we're no longer talking about rules.
Yes, that is absolutely the intended effect. Running out of Incendiary Cloud on your turn in order to not take damage from it at the end of your turn is the intended tactic, similar to being next to Flaming Sphere. That's why it's worded how it is. If it moves onto you, you have a chance to get away before you take damage. As with the aforementioned Tsunami, it would need to say "any creature whose space the effect enters when it moves" to work the way you think it does - as would Spirit Guardians - because "enter" is a verb and you cannot perform a verb without taking action.
I'm gonna address this, because we decided to move on from explaining that you're wrong to explaining what would happen if you were right, yet you seem to be hung up on it still.
If you fall on a spike, it does not enter your body, because it's not doing anything. What happens is that you impale yourself on it. Verbs require action. Now yes, colloquially, if you were to say that, people will understand what you mean, but formally, it is incorrect (though saying "Guy fell on a spike, which entered his body" sounds pretty ridiculous, colloquially understandable or not.)
Now, if Guy were on the ground and spikes rose up out of the ground impaling him, then it would be proper English to say that they pierced or entered (still weird) his body, because the spikes were acting. At the same time, it would then be wrong to say that Guy impaled himself on them, because Guy didn't take any action. With me here? Guy falls on stationary spikes, Guy impales himself. Spikes shoot through stationary Guy, spikes pierce him. That's how verbs work.
As for the poison, yes, it does enter your system, because you forced it to by drinking it. You moved it, so you forced it to take action. Same as you can move someone into an AoE, forcing them to enter it, because you're forcing them to take action. If a fog envelops a city, does the city enter the fog? No, because the city is not doing anything. If you drive into a fog, do you enter it? Yes, you do.
You love to say that we're reading the rules like robots, but rules are meant to be read formally. The problem is you reading them in a way that fits your agenda.
I think that post 84 and 82 are better phrasing to examine this on than 21 was. "Bill enters the danger zone" makes sense when the danger zone materializes around him, or when the danger zone grows to include him. "Enters" does not always imply agency, though it can, when Bill walks into the danger zone himself.
There's a balancing act to be made between "giving words their plain language meaning" and "reading the rule system formally," you're right, and that can lead to some gray areas and frustrations. That's often the tension between RAW and RAI.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you're genuinely still looking for help and I'm wrong about your intent here... maybe this is where you're going wrong?
If it helps think of it like the spell changes the properties of each of the 5ft grid spaces it applies to. So, spells aren't an area. Instead, spells change the nature of an area.
When a spell says something like: "when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn" the 'area' it is talking about isn't the "area of effect" of the spell... it is the "area" being affected by the spell's "area of effect". If you are already standing in a space when it become an area affected by a spell, you are not entering the area being affected by the spell because you're already in that area.
What you're thinking of is the "area of effect". The "area of effect" is what determines how much area is affected by the spell. But... the area is the area. That's the ground. The sky. The whatever. That's just space.
Area is just open area, open space, often typically represented by little 5 ft grids in most games (especially during combats). A spacial reference of the world itself. Rooms have area, fields have area, rivers, dungeons, bridges, open sky... all have/are/occupy areas. Areas are spacial references of the fictional world itself.
So you're not entering the area if you're already on that space. The "area of effect" may have moved to now affect the area you're standing on. But that doesn't mean you've entered into the spell's area... because you're there already.
Is this really as simple as mixing up "area" with "area of effect"?
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.
Nah, that's not how AOE spells work as described in PHB Chapter 11, or how Spirit Guardians describes itself. Not sure whether thinking of it that way would lead to any strange conclusions, but no reason to set out with faulty starting assumptions.... and also, I just don't really understand what you're trying to describe by distinguishing entering grid space areas vs. spell areas of effect, or why that would be significant enough to justify such hair splitting.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is exactly how it describes it. They have an "area of effect"... that effects... an area.
Thinking of it that way leads to normal game rules expected behavior because that's how the game works.
This really is where you've misunderstood things then huh? Wild.
Okay. This isn't splitting hairs, though. Why? Because it answers the question that this whole topic is about.
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'll bite. Hyperbole aside, explain it to me again slower: why is it meaningful to examine whether I'm entering a grid square, vs. entering a spell area of effect, or to disregard areas of effect and instead just think about squares on the battle grid with special properties? Just seems like inventing a new complicated system for its own sake, understanding what squares the creature is standing in doesn't sound like what we've been disagreeing about so far.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The grid thing is just to aid in your conceptualization efforts. To help you reframe this notion in your mind.
Let's go through a list.
The spell effects of a spell will affect the area. But the area was already there to be affected. A "spell's area" is the area (which existed already) that is under the effect of that spell... ie is within the spell's "Area of Effect".
So when I say think of a grid, with spaces, and the effect of the spell changing the nature of those grids. That is purely a conceptualization aid. That is "effectively" how these spells work, though not explicitly so.
So, terms....
Area: refers to a location in 3d coordinates
Are of Effect: How much area the spell covers with its effect
Spell's Area: An area that is within (covered by) a spell's area of effect
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.
whirlwind. Enough said.
"It enters the whirlwind or that the whirlwind enters its space."
That's.... a pretty solid argument, bummed I'm just learning about it now! Yeah, that's a pretty good piece of evidence that "enters" generally means the creature is moving, not the effect, anywhere else that "enters X" is used.
Okay, you persuaded me Bees, one only "enters" a Spirit Guardians AOE when they move into it, not when the AOE moves onto them! Good find!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Just reposting the SAC on exactly this topic, for reference now that it's all neatly cleared up.
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 your only response to me rebuking your arguments is to link me to comments in which you just add redundancy to those same arguments. Alright, let me rebuke those as well!
But first; if the danger zone materializes around Bill, he didn't enter it, because he didn't do anything. Verbs require action! If someone builds a house around you, did you enter it?
You already said what happened; the danger zone materialized around him. That's the only action that was taken. Bill did nothing, and therefore didn't enter anything, because entering things requires action. If he was teleported into it, walked into it, or even if it sucked him in, then he would be entering it, because he would be taking action. Perhaps a forced action (true, agency isn't necessary, you can be forced to take an action), but an action nonetheless.
Anyway, on to rebuking!
"Admitted" and "Enter" are not synonymous. Admitted means allowed to enter. You still need to do the entering yourself. If a bouncer admits you into a bar, that means you're allowed to enter, but you still need to walk through the door. If you are admitted to a text chain, you still need to join - in that case, you often do the joining first, but the programming finishes executing said joining after you are admitted.
I'm getting a little carried away here. Bottom line, "allowed to enter" does not mean "entered."
I covered this pretty soundly, so I'm not going to repeat it all.
See my first paragraph of this comment. While all of these statements are colloquially understandable given the proper context clues, only one of them is correct English.
I mean, WolfOfTheBees brought up Tsunami ten comments ago, which uses enters the same way. Oh well, glad we've finally gotten somewhere! This comment is pretty pointless now, but I had written most of it a few hours ago and had to leave before I finished it, so I'm posting it anyway!
So, the problem with your response here is that you're getting adament about things not being synonymous, which easily available sources like Merriam Webster tell us are synonymous. I'm not saying that we need to whip out a dictionary to parse definitions, like I said I'm all for giving things their common sense plain English interpretation... but if a definition is in the dictionary, it's probably a pretty good piece of evidence that the use you're arguing against just isn't familiar to you, rather than not being a valid use of the term.
I wasn't trying to ignore your rebuttal, I was pointing out that your rebuttal seemed to be centered around the fact that my original example had foolishly talked about "enters" in non-area contexts, and your responses seemed way too hung up on qualities of spikes, bodies, and poisons, giving you an easy out to side-step recognizing how the different meanings of "enters" would apply to an area. I see you and hear you, you didn't buy those meanings when they were provided about spikes, and you don't buy them when new examples were given about areas.... but unfortunately it seems like that comes down to you not being familiar with other common contexts it's used in, as listed in a common english dictionary. In fact, the very existence of this thread is practically evidence in itself that it's a common enough interpretation that it's a question worth asking, as is the existence of the SAC article above linked by Ravnodaus where WotC anticipates and takes seriously that a reader could apply that interpretation of the word! If you think "enters" must and only imply that a creature moves, rather than an area, as a matter of English language usage itself... then the dictionary disagrees with you, I disagree with you, and SAC disagrees with you.
But no matter! Because again, the Whirlwind quote from Bees provided some excellent textual support that "enters the area" explicitly is not used by the authors to include the area moving around the creature, because they have a different phrase they use for that! That was an excellent find, and for future reference, the sort of argument that's actually persuasive in these types of arguments (for someone who cares more about RAW than RAI), not just insisting "I disagree with you about that definition and my disagreement itself proves that it's obviously wrong." The SAC, unfortunately, doesn't actually go to the sort of RAW-textual-based analysis that Bees provided, which is why it isn't generally a very valuable source for answering these questions! "Our design intent..." according to who specifically, oh great unnamed author? There was a spell worth providing an example, which would have provided an explicit RAW example of what they were trying to illustrate! But instead, perhaps because they weren't actually familiar with the spell, or because they didn't realize there was any RAW evidence and just reflexively fell back on making up some supposedly-authoritative RAI prognostication... we didn't get that quality analysis.
That's why these forum discussions remain so valuable, more valuable than the SAC. There was a good nugget to find out there that answered this question, and Bees found it, and the SAC didn't. I had to suffer through a bit of unnecessary antagonism to get to it, but I'm glad I did, because the discussion found a spell description I wasn't familiar with and now I'm a better player and DM for it! Thank you Bees!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
We should just roll a d2 :D